| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2006/9/14-16 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:44377 Activity:high |
9/14 Cheap-Shot Journalism by Thomas Sowell
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/cheap_shot_journalism.html
\_ The financing of conservative think tanks is not coincidental;
it is part of a conscious conservative strategy. Of course
Sowell wants to hide that fact. -tom
\_ And the financing of liberal think thanks is coincidental and
random? Ok.
\_ No, it's not, but it's also miniscule compared to conservative
think tank funding. I'm sure openness would benefit the
liberal side. -tom
\_ Since they did an article posting the $$$s above the heads
of the conservatives it seems like there is openness. You
say the liberal think tanks get miniscule funding but since
the cheap-shot article Sowell attacks doesn't provide those
$$$s we can't know. We only have your word on it. It
would have been nice if they had provided the $$$s for the
liberal think tanks as well but that didn't suit their
agenda.
\_ Is "liberals help unions" news? -tom
\_ Strawman. Care to try again? How about telling us
how much unions have given to the left over the
years in money extracted from their members who have
no choice in the matter? Nevermind, any abuse for
money and power is ok as long as it's your guys doing
it.
it. Anyway, should I take it as conceding the point
since you ignored what Sowell was saying?
\_ What's the strawman? Reporting that evangelical
Christians contribute to churches is not news,
and it's not the job of a newspaper to report on
it. The link between big business and
pro-big-business think tanks is not common
knowledge and is newsworthy, unlike the link
between liberals and unions, which has been
a core part of liberal politics for a century.
-tom
\_ Sowell is talking about an article that puts
$$$ signs above the heads of conservatives
but sort of vaguely mentions in passing that
liberals do the same but doesn't mention any
or put up $$$. The links between all these
orgs are common and public knowledge, but never
mind reality: so if the original article was
about liberal think tanks and there were $$$
over their heads and they vaguely mentioned
near the end that conservatives sort of kind
of do the same thing but didn't name any, you'd
be ok with that. Your last line is funny.
There hasn't been a liberal in the modern sense
of the word for a century. Liberals are a
product of the 60s/70s universities. Unions
began as a product of the communist movement.
I hope you're not trying to lay claim to
communism = modern liberalism.
\_ The link between WalMart and conservative
think tanks is common knowledge? Do you
have some evidence for that claim?
As I said, newspapers report on news,
and I think it would be silly to write
a report that unions contribute to liberal
causes, or liberals contribute to unions.
If military contractors start contributing
to liberal causes, I think that's newsworthy
and would bear reporting. -tom |
| 11/23 |
|
| www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/cheap_shot_journalism.html Thomas Sowell Recently one of those increasingly familiar New York Times editorials disguised as news stories was headlined "Conservatives Help Wal-Mart, and Vice Versa." There was a chart with photos of people from conservative think tanks saying things favorable to Wal-Mart's side of the controversies surrounding that company, along with dollar amounts over them and their statements, indicating how much Wal-Mart had donated to the think tanks where these individuals work. Buried deep inside the story, near the end, there was a passing comment that "labor unions have financed organizations that have been critical of Wal-Mart." But there were no people or statements singled out with dollar amounts over them. The double standard was evident in another way: The damning charge was that these conservative think tanks and the scholars who work there "have consistently failed to disclose their ties" to Wal-Mart. There was no charge that liberal think tanks like the Brookings Institution, or the scholars there, "failed to disclose their ties" to their donors. It is very doubtful if most of the scholars at either liberal or conservative think tanks know who all the many donors to these institutions are -- or care. For one thing, there is money coming from all points of the political compass and from a whole spectrum of special interest groups. You can say whatever you feel like and, if it doesn't suit one think tank, it will suit another. It so happens that I work for a think tank, though not one mentioned in this New York Times "news" story, and I could not name five donors to the Hoover Institution if my life depended on it, though I am sure that there are far more than five. For all I know, I may have defended some of those unknown donors -- or I may have bitten the hand that feeds me by attacking them in this column. It is by no means unknown for different scholars at the Hoover Institution to come out publicly on opposite sides of controversies. Nor is that unknown at other think tanks, liberal or conservative. Why then should we "disclose" -- even if we knew -- who the donors are, as if we were delivering commercials for our sponsors? Why do conservative donors contribute money to conservative think tanks or liberal donors contribute money to liberal think tanks? Is it rocket science that people are more likely to contribute money to those they agree with? Or is it something sinister, as the New York Times implies -- at least when the think tank is conservative? Such cheap-shot journalism tells us more about the people who engage in it, and the constituency to which they appeal, than it tells us about those they write about. What it tells us is that there are people so narrow and shallow that they cannot understand how anyone else could possibly disagree with what they believe without having sold out. Somehow such journalists, or those that they appeal to, believe that they are so iron-clad right that no one could even mistakenly disagree with them without being bought and paid for by the bad guys. The self-infatuated idea that nobody could disagree with you for honest and informed reasons is far more dangerous than any influence that donors' money may exercise. It is the audience for such journalism that is the real concern. Our whole educational system, from the elementary schools to the universities, is increasingly turning out people who have never heard enough conflicting arguments to develop the skills and discipline required to produce a coherent analysis, based on logic and evidence. The implications of having so many people so incapable of confronting opposing arguments with anything besides ad hominem responses reach far beyond Wal-Mart or think tanks. It is in fact the Achilles heel of this generation of our society and of Western civilization. |