In discussion with a commenter on yesterday's "Dubner Oath" post, I realized that I jumped the gun by hauling out the Oath; it would have been better to ask about values instead. So, in accordance with best practices of the Better Late Than Never school of citizen journalism:
Russ and George, on the record, do you believe that payola punditry is an unsavory practice?
(And if there are circumstances under which it would be morally acceptable, what are they?)
Please answer in the comments here, if you want to answer, or remain silent if that's your preference; I'm asking not because I want to hound you but because I'd be remiss if I didn't ask.
(in brief, for readers: a payola pundit is someone who publicly marshals arguments and evidence to support a particular viewpoint without disclosing that he or she is being compensated, directly or indirectly, for doing so.)
Stale blog offering Perspective on ideas, issues and life from Nevada County, California - belaboring the obvious since 2003
Sunday, July 02, 2006
19 comments:
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.
On another interesting side of the pay for play scandals is the following Doolittle time line:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001043.php
I notified The Union of this and stated that I will be interested in seeing how long they can avoid it's publication.
And this is the response:
ReplyDeleteBruce,
Because of copyright laws, we just can't grab any story in the publishing
universe and run them in our paper. On the other hand, thanks for sending
this to us. It's very interesting and useful. Thanks.
Pat Butler
editor
Thank you Russ, I appreciate your response; its sincerity comes through.
ReplyDeleteand I never heard of a "purity swamp" before...I kind of like it.
:-)
you and Ellen have a great 4th too!
Anna
Bruce:
ReplyDelete1) Thanks for the link (here); as Pat said, very interesting information.
2) When I saw [The Union editor] Pat's words in the comment above I thought "wow, good for Pat, for coming down here to mix with the common people as if we were human" - until I saw that you'd posted it.
3) Still good for Pat though, for responding civilly to your hackles-raising question*. If your goal is to get those at the paper to act in accordance with your standards, phrasing your communications in a gratuitiously antagonistic style - as seems to have happened in this case - is silly. (OTOH it's not silly at all if your goal is to vent, or to publicly make the paper and the criticiser muddy (it does stick to both))
4) A thought experiment:
What would be a constructive outcome from this exchange with Pat, and how could we engineer it? (I have some ideas, but will give you and other readers the floor)
aside, re "gratuitiously antagonistic style" - just want to say that one thing I particularly like about Russ Steele's style is that when we argue, he keeps it about the ideas, he doesn't make it personal.
The Union could ask TPM for permission to reprint the story--or it could just take it as a lead and set its own reporter on the trail.
ReplyDeleteRight, that's going to happen. But it's the thought that counts, thanks George.
ReplyDeleteBruce, you might one fine day open a retail store and you would be free to choose the goods you wish to stock. You might start a manufacturing company and you would be free choose the products you wish to build. You might publish a newspaper, too, and you would be free to select the stories you wish to publish.
ReplyDeleteWould you have these any other way?
Michael, let's remember the definition of insanity, and refrain from butting heads on the same points over and over again. I'm going to make it an NCFocus axiom that a newsroom has different and higher responsibilities than the corner store.
ReplyDeletei.e. NCFocus is a discussion forum for people who recognize that.
apropos quote -
"There's something to be said for finding a group of people who share your basic principles: it lets you get past arguing about the basic principles."
I'm not willing to get mired in arguing about the basic principles.
Good ideas, George.
ReplyDeleteRe getting permission from TPM, it's not quite that simple since they got the timeline from Roll Call, which isn't a blog. I have an email in to them asking what's involved in getting permission to republish the story.
You might ask Yubanet Anna, they had no problem publishing the site reference when I sent it to them.
ReplyDeleteNo offense Bruce, but you just don't get it, do you? Yubanet merely links to other sites, kindof the way bloggers do... it's a bit different from publishing something. I respect Yubanet a ton, but the percentage of material it actually produces is nil compared to what it presents. In many ways, it is a conduit of news, allows NC readers to have exposure to a variety of sources. It's different from a newspaper. You can't just pull any story you want from another source and publish it. It's called copyright laws.
ReplyDeleteAnon, a) welcome and b) select a pseudonym please. Many are still available.
ReplyDeleteBruce, sorry to pile on you, but I've checked out Yubanet and didn't see the link. Could you give the (yubanet) URL please.
BTW, no response today from the publisher of Roll Call, to my email from yesterday requesting info re republishing articles. However (related?) I did run across the Confessore expose of Flack Central Station ("How James Glassman reinvented journalism--as lobbying"); the article noted that Roll Call was also created by Glassman.
(this is a fascinating article BTW)
oops, I, uh, misspoke, re Glassman-RollCall connection -
ReplyDeleteIn 1986 Glassman was hired as Roll Call's editor, got equity in it, sold it in 1993.
so presumably no Glassman ties to Roll Call now. Whether that makes it a truly indept paper now I do not know.
(but I seem to recall a recent article that viewed R.C. as being rather soft on coverage)
oh and Bruce never mind, I found the Yubanet page with excerpt and link to TPM Muckraker story.
ReplyDeleteThere's no Yubanet permalink to it though, that I could find, so my request to you is unfulfillable.
(?)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if the previous comment was meant as libel or sarcasm, but have deleted it lest it be read as the former.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteoops, I submitted my comment to the wrong post.
ReplyDeleteJeffrey Dubner oath, not Stephen Dubner. (Poor Jeffrey...)
ReplyDelete