The National Review, one of America’s premiere journals of conservative opinion, has started publishing letters from anonymous readers who claim to have had unpleasant experiences with leading Democratic candidates. (Here’s one on Kerry and one on Clark.) If you possess an email address and an eye-opening story, you’ve passed the rigorous fact-checking that has made National Review and the Penthouse Forum world-famous.
In honor of this editorial decision, I would like to propose my first contest ever:
Punk the National Review
The rules are simple:
– Send the National Review an email with an imaginary story of your first-hand experience with a Democratic presidential candidate or elected official. – Send it to me at the same time- I don’t want anyone to claim retrospective credit. (ted at crookedtimber.org) (UPDATE: Be sure to blind carbon copy, or send it separately- it’ll give the game away if it’s a regular CC.) – Up to three readers who get a letter published in the National Review (either in the Corner or in a story) will get a $10 gift certificate for Amazon.com from me. – The contest runs from right now until March 31. If more than one letter is published, I will let readers judge the most outrageous letter that hit the virtual pages of the National Review. The winner of this contest will receive a $20 Amazon gift certificate. If more than three letters are run, all published letters will be eligible for this prize.Good luck to all of you.
{ 209 comments }
Might want to specify that a person needs to add you as a Blind Carbon Copy (BCC) or send a copy of the email and NOT just CC Ted. Otherwise you will tip them off.
This has got to be the best idea EVER. Imagine the poor editors at the NR. How on earth are they going to distinguish the sincerely fabricated stories from Republicans from the fake fabricated stories from Democrats?
Dear National Review, I never believed the letters you print until one day my girlfriend and I met Joe Lieberman and his wife, Hadassah …
You may also want to then notify the National Review that the letters were fabricated, thus embarrassing them completely. I can see this having appeal to political columnists as well, if we can pull it off. A.
Echoes of the dear darling Sokal hoax…
I am somewhat concerned here; maybe I just don’t have a sense of humor. You offered to pay people to lie. Right? To say something known to be untrue for the purpose of deception. Are there any ethical problems with this? I would have a real problem doing it. Is it just that it is okay to lie to liars (i.e. National Review)? Serious questions, not just trolling. I am probably wrong, but this post just set off something that bothers me, and I can’t see how to think about it clearly.
Jonah Goldberg’s onto the plan! “PUNK NR? [ Jonah Goldberg ] A blogger called Crooked Timber of Humanity thinks that he’s going to slip fake emails into the Corner. Of course, it’s always possible. But I’d like to make a few points. First, contrary to his insinuations, you’d be amazed at how many juicey emails I don’t post precisely because they have that too good to be true feel to them. Second, while the posts in the Corner may be anonymous, they are virtually never anonymous to me. People sign their names and give their addresses and I choose to withhold them. Third, the vast majority of emails are expressions of opinion not reportage of facts. Last, at this point you’d think most bloggers—and Corner readers—understand that some emails should certainly be taken with a grain of salt on the off-chance a correspondent is embellishing. Besides, we run corrections to our own posts and reader emails all the time. But, let “Crooked Timber of Humanity” have his fun. I’m sure he thinks he’s being very clever.”
Anonymous, Seriously, the National Review shouldn’t be publishing stories if they have absolutely no way of knowing that they are true. I’m hoping to throw that into sharp relief. If they get an email that says “I saw John Kerry cut to the front of the line,” or “I gave John Kerry Botox” or “John Edwards ran over my puppy”- neither they nor their readers have any idea about whether it’s true or not. They’re not a hobby blogger- they’re paid professionals, and they should know better.
Dude, that is sweet! I was wondering what I was going to do today! My question is, since I’m unemployed and have to browse from the local library, won’t Ashcroft be able to read my mails under the Patriot Act? Or maybe that’s what you’re trying to do… being a front for Ashcroft to collect names of progressives.
Timber… this no new idea… you would barely even to fathom how many of us NRO-niks have been e-mailing ANY and ALL of the Dem nominees about how they are the greatest thing since sliced bread…
Tom, I actually personally contacted the National Review to tell them that I was doing this. I don’t really expect any emails to get through- I expect them to stop running anonymous emails that purport to tell juicy stories about Democrats. I couldn’t possibly object to emails expressing personal opinions, of course, whether they’re anonymous or not.
I wonder what they’d make of a story about Howard Dean and Roy Neel discussing whose corpses should be dug up and hung. (one the topics on the Corner today. Yeah, that’ll show Thurgood Marshall. Christ.)
…I mean, did you think all that Clark and Dean hype was for real?
Punking NRO, eh? The only ones I see being embarassed are the sad sacks who think this is a whale of an idea (“This’ll be better than even an all night session of Pokemon, man!”). Sure you’re welcome to try… I’d rather you be wasting your time on that rather than out convincing some poor slob that John Kerry is going to somehow improve his life through criticising military action and the Patriot Act despite the fact he voted for both, or trying to spin Howard Dean economic plans for Americans (Higher taxes! YEEEAAAGGRRHHH
) or telling everyone that John Edwards will get them the money they deserve! Maybe you guys are Clark fans (He’s loopier than even Dean!) or Kucinich (We must change the world through diplomacy and good mental vibrations via the ether), or maybe Sharpton (the only way to fight the man is to make ME the man).
I’m sure the folks at NRO though will appreciate the laughs. Go get ‘em…and stay off the streets and out of the polling places.
Cheers,
Vrooster
…I mean, did you think all that Clark and Dean hype was for real?
…I mean, did you think all that Clark and Dean hype was for real?
…I mean, did you think all that Clark and Dean hype was for real?
Do you have anything interesting to write about on this blog? Or is “punking” the National Review the best you’ve got? Maybe you should stick to watching MTV…the National Review is oviously over your heads.
…I mean, did you think all that Clark and Dean hype was for real?
Here’s a better idea….why don’t you guys swamp NR with positive, truthful emails about the candidates? Maybe Joe Lieberman let you use his cellphone. Maybe Howard Dean gave you some of McDonald’s french fries. That’s fine that you want to stem the tide of negativity for the folks you support, but why attempt to discredit folks who may be telling the truth? What kind of purpose does that serve…especially when you’re offering a prize for doing it?
Do you have anything interesting to write about on this blog? Or is “punking” the National Review the best you’ve got? Maybe you should stick to watching MTV…the National Review is obviously over your heads.
My first thought upon reading “Jonah Goldberg’s onto the plan!” is: Goldberg’s too clueless to know what Crooked Timber is? If he had any clue about the collective brain power here, he wouldn’t be so smug.
ahahahahahahaha
Once again this shows how “intelligent” and “mature” liberals really are. Or aren’t. Long live conservatism!
As has been pointed out earlier, the “don’t you know who I am” urban legend has been used to smear people (especially liberals) for decades now: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/fonda.asp (or click my name) Make sure that you note this, Ted!
OK, my fake story about John Kerry got posted, where’s my gift certificate? I copied it to you, Ted, just like you asked. Check the email.
Hank, You ask, “Why don’t you guys swamp NR with positive, truthful emails about the candidates?” That’s a nice instinct, and I think that a lot of people send emails promoting their favorite candidates to members of the media. But relatively few try to get dedicated conservative outlets to print favorable emails about Democrats. The odds of the National Review printing a positive email about a Democratic candidate are vanishingly small. It’s just not what they do. I wouldn’t scold them for consistently making conservative arguments or promoting conservative candidates; there’s nothing wrong with that at all. On the other hand, there is something wrong with passing on stories that couldn’t possibly be verified, and I hope that they stop. If the American Prospect started printing stories about Bush’s bad behavior with no evidence other than an anonymous email, that would be wrong, wouldn’t it?
They’re getting too wise at the Corner. I wrote Jonah some juicy hate mail and he didn’t even respond. Must have known it was hate mail before reading it, because, if he did read it, it would have destroyed his self esteem. BTW, John Kerry ran over my dog and didn’t even apologize.
Self-congratulatory attitude : check Smug sense of own superiority : Check Appaling sense of moral equivalence : check Yep, I’ve found a liberal blog all right.
The only ones I see being embarassed are the sad sacks who think this is a whale of an idea (“This’ll be better than even an all night session of Pokemon, man!”). Ladies and gentlemen, now you know the end result of four years of bringing dignity back to the White House. By the way, sir, the Pokemon craze reached its peak and started its downhill slide back in 1999. For your next troll, might I suggest one of the following references, all guaranteed to be equally fresh and just as relevant: 1. Ted Barlow’s Hypercolor shirt is yellow and pink, the officially recognized colors of liberalism. 2. Ted “Liberal Spice” Barlow got kicked out of the world’s most popular band for being too liberal. Also, I’m implying he is a girl. 3. As sure as Boo.com stock is at $400 a share and will stay there forever and ever, Ted Barlow will always be wrong … and liberal!
Ted Barlow wrote:—- Seriously, the National Review shouldn’t be publishing stories if they have absolutely no way of knowing that they are true.—- The National Review is not a media source; it’s an op/ed site. Furthermore, The Corner, the portion of the site on which the letters were posted, is a blog. If neither is the appropriate forum for pandering unadulterated opinion, what is?
How can NR get away with that? John Kerry not a nice guy? That’s simply not possible. He is a Democrat afterall! He simply MUST be wonderful right? It’s only Republicans afterall who kick puppies, beat old people or drown women in their cars. Whoops…went too far on that one.
Oh, what fun. A flame war. Self-congratulatory attitude : check Smug sense of own superiority : Check Appaling sense of moral equivalence : check Yep, I’ve found a liberal blog all right. The irony of this post attacking smugness and self-congratulation is just dizzying. Look, NRO people: find me an example of this blog, the one you’re currently reading, publishing an anonymous letter that questions the personal integrity of a major conservative political figure. For that matter, find such a thing here, or on Atrios, or Kos, or CalPundit. Then, and only then, may you argue that NRO can print nonfalsifiable personal attacks “because it’s a blog”.
Are the NR’s defender’s (and Ted’s detractors) actually saying that it is ok for the NR to pass on completely unverified stories because they are doing it on a blog? You don’t hold conservative publications to higher standards than that? If there were a liberal mag I liked (there isn’t, unfortunately) and it engaged in the same practice I’d cancel my subscription and be completely embarrassed. I wouldn’t defend it, even in posts on someone else’s blog. Not suggesting that liberals or leftists have higher standards than conservatives: I presume, in fact, that plenty of conservatives will be giving the NR as hard a time as Ted is, if a bit more discreetly.
Cleis wrote:
In other words, you meant to say, “This is Crooked Timber;DOESN’T JONAH KNOW WHO WE ARE!”I’m amazed that the “collective brain power” here doesn’t understand the difference between the magazine with its articles and the Letters to/from the Editors “blog.”
I would think the bloggers should know the difference between “posts” and “comments.”
Wow!! Loook at all the people come here to defend the right of the National Review to lie to them! Apparently Conservatism and Journalism don’t go together. No wonder the idea of the liberal media persists. If ABC won’t post unverified annonymous ramblings about how rude John Kerry is they must be part of the liberal machine!
I just wanted to make sure everyone saw this, posted on the Poorman:
Also, Iris Schumer eats yeast on Pesach.* My in-laws live down the block from her, so I know. *stolen from the Daily Show. And John Kerry is obsessed with Junior Mints. That one’s actually true, or at least it comes from someone who interned for his office.the National Review is oviously [sic] over your heads. Actually, the National Review is under my bird. But, of course, I don’t like my bird.
I was sure that National Review didn’t pass the emails off as true, but circumstantial evidence that may indicate a pattern. Now, the interesting thing will be to see if Jonah’s acknowledgment of the prank will overrun the bandwidth of this site and cost the owner additional charges. I wonder if that was his intent? Finally, I did think “all that Clark and Dean hype was for real.”
Drew, If the Kerry story had been presented as an opinion (“Kerry seems like the kind of a guy who would cut to the front of a line”) I’d have no ground to stand on. But it was presented as a fact, not as unadulterated opinion. James, I would never say that the Kerry story is false- I have no idea. But the crew at NRO have no possible way to assert that it’s true, either. If it had been somebody’s hobby blog, que sera sera. But from professional journalists, it’s pretty out of place. f.u. guys- “appalling sense of moral equivalence”? What do you mean?
Hmmm Ted, I think you’ve hit a nerve … the chihuahuas of heck have been loosed on Crooked Timber!
Once again this shows how “intelligent” and “mature” liberals really are. Or aren’t. Long live conservatism! Posted by YCF · February 3, 2004 06:41 PM Apparently American universities think liberals are better prepared for post-secondary education. And the graduation statistics proved those assumptions. Number of Top Advanced Placement Scores (3+ out of 5) per 1000 students, year 2000: Summary: The Democratic states lead with 7 of the top 10 showings. The strongest performer is a Democratic state—New York. The Republican states account for 9 out of the 10 worst states in this metric. Percentage of students returning at 4-year colleges, year 2000: Summary: Nine of the top ten states in this ranking are Democratic. The top state, Connecticut, is Democratic. Going further to the top 25 states, 19 are Democratic. Of the worst 23 states in this ranking (see Notes), twenty-two are Republican. Idaho, who voted Republican in 2000, came last. Percentage of Bachelor’s degree completion (in 5 years), year 2000: Summary: Eight of the top 10 performing states voted Democratic in 2000. The top performer, Vermont, is Democratic. 18 of the top 25 ranked states are Democratic. Louisiana, a Republican state, takes the last place amond the bottom ten states, nine of which are Republican. Percentage of adults with Bachelor’s degree or better, year 2000: Summary: The results of this ranking are more balanced. Of the top 10 states, only six are Democratic. Fully ten out of the worst ten states in the nation in this respect are Republican. The highest ranked, Maryland, voted Democratic.
Ted, I’m sympathetic to the general idea here. Posting these sorts of emails certainly are a great way to smear the candidates with no accountability and no need that the smear have even a grain of truth. But I’m at a loss to see how this is much different from pretty much all blogging, and much mainstream opinion journalism. A little while ago, I posted here at CT about my personal experience working a factory job and living on near-minimum wage. How do you know that was true? And if anonymity is an issue, how do you know I’m not using a psudeonym? The only blogger I’ve ever met face-to-face is Armed Liberal, and he never asked for ID. A couple of years ago Nick Kristof published a story about visiting a gun show. The gun discussion boards lit up with a lengthy debate of his account. Summary: we (that is, internet-savvy gun nuts) think he was either lying or just so amazingly ignorant that he was taken in by a gun dealer who knew who he was and wanted to mock him. Did the NYT fact-check his account? Did they address any of the doubtless many letters pointing out the failure of his story to square with the writers’ experiences? Not that I saw. Yet there it was, on the (allegedly) most prestigous opinion page in the country, and hundreds and hundreds of others. And, if you happend to want another example of false information being published in mainstream sources, I have only two words: “imminent threat.” That one’s never going away—and it continues to appear not just in polemics, but occasionally in “straight” news stories. Want another? “I invented the Internet.” I could go on. Now, it may be that all of the stories NRO has publised are crap. I don’t know; I don’t much care, given that there is no actual chance that I will vote for any Democrat currently in the race. But for that matter, I don’t know if most of what I read on blogs, or indeed, much of what I read in the pages produced by “professionals,” or see on TV, or whatever, is actually real, or reflects reporters interviewing each other, a phenomenon which you reported on (Second hand! From an anonymous source!) earlier on CT.
Absolutely brilliant, sir. I salute you. It’s just perfect. If they’re going to print unsubstantiated garbage, you can poison the supply by flooding them with booby-trapped unsubstantiated garbage. If they bothered to do proper fact checking it wouldn’t work, of course, but they don’t so it will. Since the risk that you’ll bust them is unacceptably high, just about all they can do is whine briefly, stop printing junk, and send a short bus full of their typical readers over here to show what they’re about. It’s all good.
Dear Anonymous, Your ethical dilemma revolves around the supposition that only truth should be fit to print. You forget that much of what is published is fiction, intentional or not. The National Review is attempting to publish innuendo because they are lazy and do not want to actually work at journalism. We are simply attempting to draw attention to their lassitude by writing intentionally incorrect stories as a form of protest. Therefore it is not lying per say but an attempt to draw attention to the pathetic attempt to smear the left by the NR. Live in Peace, Jesus
I wouldn’t post an email on my website that I couldn’t verify, and my website is strictly for family and friends – so I definately would hold a political “blog” to the same standard. And as for the NR supporters who’ve commented here, doesn’t the publishing of unsupported comments dilute the impact of other posts that are verifiably true? Doesn’t that bother you?
Are the NR’s defender’s (and Ted’s detractors) actually saying that it is ok for the NR to pass on completely unverified stories because they are doing it on a blog? ———————————————— Who made this blog the arbiter of what’s a truthful story and what’s not? Who made you guys the ombudsman? I know it’s a far-fetched concept to the lefties here, but people can decide for themselves what they want to believe and what they take with a grain of salt. Maybe you guys are just so used to believing everything that comes out of Mike Moore’s mouth (because we all know he’s not prone to embellishment) that it’s a foreign concept. If that’s the case, we can’t help you. But we don’t care if you want to put “Bowling for Columbine” on a loop in your apartment…hey, he’s speaking your language, preaching to the choir! Let kids have their fun! And finally, pick your battles, folks! Are all these Kerry stories getting out and causing tidal waves of dropped jaws and shrieks of terror? Is the Washington Post bumping the big story to talk about “Beignet-gate”? But if you want to waste your energy on informal banter in a blog-style format, go for it.
MD lad (lassie…couldn’t tell from the signature). The reference to Pokemon was in fact intended to infer lame out of dateness. What I should assume that people pulling the equivalent of an old radio DJ stunt are hip and with it? Oh yeah, they probably are all a buzz about the Janet Jackson malfunctioning wardrobe brouhaha, but everyone and their grandmother saw that. Do they listen to Radiohead? Do they snack on Li Hing Mui? Do they channel surf IFC and Sundance and trip on Kim Possible? As for dignity, I laugh. Bush spends and bipartisans with TeddyK and TK dreams up conspiracies while Dean lets out a rebel yell and Sharpton is fawned over. Kerry maintains the apperance of dignity simply through the process of inertia. Let the punking continue…
One more thing – Journalists routinely use anonymous sources in many aspects of their reporting. And many journalists will throw themselves on a grenade before revealing their sources. Many states have “shield laws” which protect the right (in varying amounts and subject to varying standards) of a journalist to keep the identities of anonymous sources, even in a court of law. So before you get all bent out of shape about anonymous sources and praticing “real journalism”, consider that.
The words of Robert Lyman (pseudonym or not) are the most intelligent on this thread yet. But I think you’re all missing an important point about The Corner (NR’s blog): Yes, it’s a political blog. But it isn’t a place readers go for hard news—people read The Corner for opinion and humor in quick doses. The purpose of the blog is to have a running dialogue regarding the news, not to report news itself. So when allegations of John Kerry’s rudeness came up in the news, readers sent stories about it (false or not) to NR’s writers and editors. None of these stories were presented as hard news. Since when was saying, “Gee, I’m getting a lot of emails about how John Kerry is rude to people” a violation of journalistic code? This is a running blog on an opinion magazine, not hard journalism. Besides, considering the main audience of The Corner, and even if these unsubstantiated stories about John Kerry were, in fact, total lies, do you really think it would result in a huge anti-Kerry firestorm, robbing him of the Democratic nomination? If the writers at NR were actually trying to spread lies and sabotage a campaign, don’t you think they’d find a better medium than an opinion-based blog read almost exclusively by conservatives? In short, you’re all taking a light, amusing, harmless blog way too seriously.
Two points: first, the folks chastising NRO are jumping from the fact that a) they cannot verify certain stories to b) the stories are unverifiable and c) probably false. In other words, the complaint is, “Hey, don’t say mean things about our guys unless you can cite chapter and verse about it.” For a printed publication, especially a daily one, that’s a sound standard (although we all seem comfortable with the devastating “sources say”.) For a free-form blog, it smacks of whining. Second, the call to muddy the waters is a bit cheap, wouldn’t you say? If accuracy is so important to you, I suppose you could always request contact info from NRO posters and see if their informants are willing to submit to cross-examination. (I bet quite a few in the field would take your challenge.) If you want to make the charge that NRO is posting false negative stories about Democrats, you could always try to catch them in the act. That would be worth doing. But of course it’s much easier to flood them with lies so the stories aren’t as effective instead of trying to get at the truth. Frankly, I don’t think you’re worried that the stories might be false and influence people wrongly. I think you’re afraid they’re probably true, and then how will you get that delicious satisfaction from outrage?
Actually, The Corner at NRO frequently posts corrections and apologies to earlier misstatements. It may just be a front, but they seem to be pretty conscientious about admitting their mistakes and crediting the readers who identified those mistakes. I’ve also seen the occasional positive statement about a Democratic candidate. Typically, such statements are made as an explicit contradiction of an anti-Dem statement made earlier. So the chance of them posting positive statements about Dems is somewhat less than “vanishingly small”—even if it is somewhat less likely than them posting negative statements about President Bush. I’d cite examples, but really, you should be reading the Corner for yourself, if you’re going to rant about what is and isn’t going on there. Also, after you die, we’re going to gibbet your corpse. Nah. Just kidding! Made you look, though.
sprays can of Troll-Be-Gone towards ‘brian’ Troll-Be-Gone works like a charm for all your internet message board needs. Someone likening all their opponents to the radical fringe? Just a quick spray, and they’ll just go back to arguing with the liberals in their sock drawers. Someone accusing everyone to the right of Stalin of being a Nazi? Just spray, and they’re re-learning high school history. Ah! Smell that intelligent-discoursy freshness. Now with more Sensible Moderate! Brought to you by Crooked Timber, Kevin Drum, Tacitus, and the Volokh Conspiracy.
While you’re fixing modern journalism, can you do something about my morning newspaper? It publishes all sorts of inaccuracies in its “letters to the editors” section, most often from Dean supporters and other deranged anti-Bush activists. (Not just differences of opinion, but bald misstatements of fact.)
Once again this shows how “intelligent” and “mature” liberals really are. Or aren’t. Long live conservatism! Pot, Kettle, Black.
Whoops, Summary: The Democratic states lead with 7 of the top 10 showings. The strongest performer is a Democratic state — New York. The Republican states account for 9 out of the 10 worst states in this metric. Although your statistics are suggestive, they actually don’t show anything about the level of education of democrats vs. republicans. Implying that because the states which vote democrat also have the most well-educated populations says nothing about how the individuals within those states vote. Just going on your stats, New York might have the most well-educated population, but it is possible that all its intellectuals vote republican while its less-educated masses vote democrat. There are studies which show that education and liberal attitudes are positively correlated, but I think what you’ve got there is a fallacy of division – arguing that because the wholes (states) have certain characteristics, then the parts (voters) must have the same characteristics. All that being said, your conclusion is probably right.
Who made this blog the arbiter of what’s a truthful story and what’s not? Who made you guys the ombudsman? I know it’s a far-fetched concept to the lefties here, but people can decide for themselves what they want to believe and what they take with a grain of salt. No-one is disputing the right of the NR to make a complete fool of itself. Of course, there’s loads of crappy journalism, and lots of bad practice, and the NR has every right to participate in that. I wasn’t criticising NR in that passage—I was criticising the people who are defending the NR. You think there’s something good about this practice? Surely not. If so argue for it. For what its worth, I’m totally willing to believe bad things about any candidate, Democrat or Republican. For a decent human being to reach that stage of politics in America is so rare as not to be worth looking for. For me watching this primary is like watching a train-wreck in slow motion; if Kerry gets knocked off his perch I’d be happy as could be. I’m defending Ted’s attempt to undermine bad journalistic practice.
I dunno, this Mr Crooked Timber man sounds kinda like a lumberjack. I think Mr Timber isn’t to be trusted, because you know, he likes to wear women’s clothing.
lyman- First off, Kristof: the whole point here is that these posts are anonymous – there is no way whatsoever to judge their veracity. Whereas, in your anecdote about Nicholas Kristof, I can’t help but notice that you’ve identified him, apparently as “Nicholas Kristof.” I wonder whether it’s possible to research this “Kristof” person to help gauge the likelihood of his veracity? [Shorter fourth lyman paragraph: “He said something we didn’t agree with, so my friends & I agreed he was lying.”] Also: “Absolutely.” – White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03 Glad you & your buddies have debunked that one too! “See, Ari didn’t say ‘imminent threat.’ The reporter did.” Finally, when people cite personal experience to back up an argument in a a blog comment, it’s treated as an illustration, not a proof. And when someone coughMcArdle*cough* continually offers suspiciously self-serving “personal experiences,” that person’s experiences are discounted further. As we’ve all seen in the cases of certain once well-regarded bloggers. All of which is different from simple smear campaigns on the level of “For a good time, call….” Yes, it’s a continuum, blah blah, but the bottom line is that there’s a common sense distinction between presenting fact-free smears as evidence of bad character and anecdotal give-and-take.
lyman- First off, Kristof: the whole point here is that these posts are anonymous – there is no way whatsoever to judge their veracity. Whereas, in your anecdote about Nicholas Kristof, I can’t help but notice that you’ve identified him, apparently as “Nicholas Kristof.” I wonder whether it’s possible to research this “Kristof” person to help gauge the likelihood of his veracity? [Shorter fourth lyman paragraph: “He said something we didn’t agree with, so my friends & I agreed he was lying.”] Also: “Absolutely.” – White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03 Glad you & your buddies have debunked that one too! “See, Ari didn’t say ‘imminent threat.’ The reporter did.” Finally, when people cite personal experience to back up an argument in a a blog comment, it’s treated as an illustration, not a proof. And when someone coughMcArdle*cough* continually offers suspiciously self-serving “personal experiences,” that person’s experiences are discounted further. As we’ve all seen in the cases of certain once well-regarded bloggers. All of which is different from simple smear campaigns on the level of “For a good time, call….” Yes, it’s a continuum, blah blah, but the bottom line is that there’s a common sense distinction between presenting fact-free smears as evidence of bad character and anecdotal give-and-take.
Actually, The Corner at NRO frequently posts corrections and apologies to earlier misstatements. It may just be a front, but they seem to be pretty conscientious about admitting their mistakes and crediting the readers who identified those mistakes. I can’t believe how phenomenally people are missing Ted’s point. How in the name of sweet Jesus is National Review going to print a correction to an anonymously-published, uncorroborated story? Is Goldberg hoping to have the candidates dedicate their spare time to refuting these tales? Does he think John Kerry is going to write in saying that he’s never told a restaurant to give him someone else’s food? This. Is. Bad. Journalism. As Ted pointed out, this is the standard that Penthouse uses. If NRO wants to put itself on the same level of credibility as Penthouse by publishing these evidence-less, name-less allegations, fine, but it’s embarrassing to see purported intelligent conservatives try to defend the practice.
dalai, You’re right about the fact that even a state average comes from numbers with a broad range. However, given that an increasing percentage of adults in Democratic states are well-educated and that the education, health*, and wealth** gap between Blue and Red states is widening, is it not fair to say that Blue societies lead to a better environment—and consequently, better education as well? *: I don’t have the national health coverage stats in front of me, but I saw this the other day: Percentage of uninsured children under 19 at or below 200% of poverty, years 2000-2002 (average): Summary: The Republican state of Texas, in the aftermath of Mr Bush’s governorship, had the nation’s highest percentage of uninsured, extremely poor children at 15.88% between the years 2000 and 2002—4.44 percentage points apart from the second worst state, Arizona. Arizona is one of thirteen Republican states among the nation’s fifteen most afflicted states in this respect. Democratic Vermont holds the nation’s best record in this ranking at 2.16%. Of the fifteen states with the lowest percentage of such unfortunate children, eleven are Democratic. **: Median income, years 2000, 2001, 2002 (average): Summary: Democratic Maryland boasts the 50 states’ largest median income. Seven of the ten top earning states are Democratic. Aside from Maine and New Mexico, Democratic states are within the 29 states earning the most in the country. Nine of the ten states where one earned, on average, the least are Republican. This group includes the nation’s lowest average earner, West Virginia.
I was criticising the people who are defending the NR. You think there’s something good about this practice? Surely not. If so argue for it.————————————————I am arguing in defense of the people defending NR. Look at the statement you bolded. I clearly said people will decide for themselves who they believe and who they don’t. We know the Left likes to help out henever they can…thanks, but no thanks. Likewise, folks will defend who they choose to defend and attack who they choose to attack. Sometimes for good reasons, other times for silly reasons. Yes, I absolutely think there’s something good about defending NR. I can understand why you probably don’t…it’s a publication diametrically opposed to your ideals and beliefs. That’s fine. Individuality is the essence of conservatism, so as a conservative I don’t expect anyone or any publication to please 100% of the public. I don’t care if you like it or not, nor do I expect you to like it at all. But we don’t need self-appointed commissioners of journalistic decency, especially those with political motivations, thank you very much. I’m sure Ted’s a great guy, as are you, but it’s clear we’re not going to see eye to eye on certain things. It’s hard enough deciding what to believe and what not to believe out there…just gumming up the works isn’t going to make that task any more enjoyable.
Gosh, it’s quite revelatory to see what a link from the Moroner brings in. This must be like living near a sewage outlet.
Look, NRO do not present the emails they post as fact; the present them as emails from a reader. This assumes that the reader has the mental capacity to evaluate the sources of information and make up their own mind veracity of that information. NRO would only be in the wrong if they wrote a story about John Kerry under one of the contributors names that claimed as a factual matter that John Kerry did whatever, with the only source being the emails. There is nothing wrong IN ANY WAY with posting and email and saying, “Here’s an email, take it for what its worth.” This is why Jonah Goldberg wrote, “Corner readers [given the posts above, I think he was right to limit this to a particular subset of readers] — understand that some emails should certainly be taken with a grain of salt on the off-chance a correspondent is embellishing”
I think this is a clever idea, and probably a future discussion question in some Ethics of Journalism class. But let me take this in a slightly different direction. The thing about, say, the Kerry story is that it seems like it’d be the sort of dumb thing spiteful people make up, but—as the NRO faithful have pointed out—we can’t be sure, because it could be true. So—let’s review. Kerry allegedly cut line at a B&N and got sassed by a clerk. So there must have been at least a dozen witnesses to this specific event, including the friend of the guy who wrote in. Let’s have a secondary contest—can anyone verify this story? And will those who think they can all claim they saw Kerry at the same B&N, on the same day? I’ll split $100 worth of Amazon gift certificates among each and every witness who comes forward with a credible account that is corroborated by a plurality of other accounts…AND I’ll devote a day of my liberal blog to how the NRO was right, and Kerry is a jerk. Any takers? I realize it’s a slim chance that a witness is reading this post, but come on, conservatives—put this on your blogs and see what you can come up with.
Summary: Democratic Maryland boasts the 50 states’ largest median income. Seven of the ten top earning states are Democratic. Aside from Maine and New Mexico, Democratic states are within the 29 states earning the most in the country. ———————————————— So it’s really the Democratics that are upper class moneyed bigwigs??????
Look, NRO do not present the emails they post as fact; the present them as emails from a reader. This assumes that the reader has the mental capacity to evaluate the sources of information and make up their own mind on the veracity of that information. NRO would only be in the wrong if they wrote a story about John Kerry under one of the contributors names that claimed as a factual matter that John Kerry did whatever, with the only source being the emails. There is nothing wrong IN ANY WAY with posting and email and saying, “Here’s an email, take it for what its worth.” This is why Jonah Goldberg wrote, “Corner readers [given the posts above, I think he was right to limit this to a particular subset of readers] — understand that some emails should certainly be taken with a grain of salt on the off-chance a correspondent is embellishing”
This assumes that the reader has the mental capacity to evaluate the sources of information and make up their own mind on the veracity of that information. You forget: this is the Corner you’re talking about. Making it a rather fanciful assumption.
brian: a median point can’t tell you anything about the number of outliers
Frankly0: You accuse NRO of printing fabricated stories, yes? (In fact, it seems like you’re saying every letter that says anything bad about Kerry is ipso facto fabricated, as if he was incapable of ever being rude or haughty… which is uncommon in politicians of any stripe.) Got evidence for that? (What this evidence would consist in or how you could know that the stories of Senatorial naughtiness are false, without being John Kerry or possessing the power of telepathy is, I confess, beyond me.) Or are you simply asserting it in a nearly anonymous way online… just like the stories you’re decrying? I completely understand Mr. Barlow’s desire to make a point about anonymous revelations (though I also believe Jonah Goldberg’s claim that they’re not anonymous when he receives them), but I don’t see what the point is. Are all un-(publicly)-sourced emails unacceptable? Certainly NR’s posted a number of those critical of President Bush, but I don’t notice those being mentioned. Or is it only stories that are about the behaviour of politicians? Or just ones that talk about Democratic candidates in a way that isn’t flattering? How is this any different from a newspaper’s “letters to the editor”, other than that the newspaper won’t print a letter with no name (but will not, of course, generally check to see if the name given is genuine, which makes no difference in practical terms)? I’d have a lot more sympathy if NRO was publishing these reports as if they were fact-checked or anything but reader-sent reports, but they aren’t. I suggest “punking” your local newspaper, too, then, for the same reasons. (Reading the Oregonian, I’d suspect that people already are, except that I know people genuinely believe things I consider sand-poundingly stupid. And yes, such people are often in other respects quite intelligent, but that doesn’t really enter into it.)
whoops, I certainly wouldn’t dispute the claim that Democrat-run states are likely to be better off, happier, healthier places than the alternative. And I, like you, am inclined to believe that it is partly because of the differences between the two parties. On the other hand, to be a stickler for logic, there is a possibility of reverse causality. Thus, when you say “is it not fair to say that Blue societies lead to a better environment — and consequently, better education as well?“, one might reasonably object that it goes the other way. A better ‘environment’ (I think you were using this to mean social environment, right?) might cause people to vote democratic, even if the cause of the better environment is something totally unrelated like, say, the weather. Did the level of uninsured/children in poverty go up during Bush’s tenure as Governor of Texas? Can we show the connection as opposed to just the correlation? Just playing devil’s advocate.
If you were to actually read “The Corner” you would see that they are quite fair-minded. Certainly, they approach issues from a conservative mindset, but they also give credit where it is due. Rich Lowry’s reports from the democratic primaries provided honest appraisals of the candidates filled with both praise and criticism. I learned from there before any other outlet about Kerry’s gradual comeback. Bush is criticized openly and freely there. There is a real sense that they are evaluating each issue and issue-maker on their merits, not spouting the party line. Many blogs that I read are so colored with “Hate-Bush” ideological hatred to the point that I can’t take what they say seriously. Not everything he or anyone else does is completely evil. Evaluate the issue, don’t just spout: “If Bush is for it, I’m against it” or vice-versa. By the way, they’re not journalists- they’re commentators.
I don’t understand why voters in Red states, after looking at a Red vs. Blue map of the country along with quality of life statistics, don’t understand that they’ve been making the wrong choices for themselves and their children.
You forget: this is the Corner you’re talking about. Making it a rather fanciful assumption. As far as I can tell, it is the readers of this blog who seem to believe that the publishing of reader emails as such on an op/ed magazine’s blog constitute either “journalism” or “reporting fact.” All the emails posted said, or were inteded to say, are that one guy (the author of the email) thinks John Kerry is an asshole. The rest of us can decide for ourselves; nothing NRO did prevents or hinders that decisionmaking process.
I don’t understand why voters in Red states, after looking at a Red vs. Blue map of the country along with quality of life statistics, don’t understand that they’ve been making the wrong choices for themselves and their children.————————————————- Oh man, now you’re just trying to push my buttons, right???? Sorry, this is me going into kneejerk-lefty reaction mode. Nothing pisses me off more than when someone suggests he/she somehow knows what’s “better” for a group of people they absolutely know nothing about except for their perceived political affiliation (by basing it on a general measure; whether they live in a “blue” state or a “red” state). That is the height of ivory tower elitism.
“And, if you happend to want another example of false information being published in mainstream sources, I have only two words: “imminent threat.” That one’s never going away—and it continues to appear not just in polemics, but occasionally in “straight” news stories.” Indeed, how many times did we see the absurd claim that Iraq was an imminent threat? Why, Dick Cheney repeats it to this day! Megadittos! “Want another? “I invented the Internet.”” Another great point! It’s astonishing the number of times the idiotic canard that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet has been repeated.
The reference to Pokemon was in fact intended to infer lame out of dateness. The word you’re looking for is “demonstrate”, not “infer.” Do they listen to Radiohead? Do they snack on Li Hing Mui? Do they channel surf IFC and Sundance and trip on Kim Possible? If the answer is “yes” will you go away? Do you promise it? I know it will be quite a task finding a liberal who is into independent movies and alternative music (God knows if there’s anywhere you can’t find an arthouse cinema or a small record store that specializes in vinyl it’s a left-wing college town), but that’s a risk I’m willing to take.
[Shorter fourth lyman paragraph: “He said something we didn’t agree with, so my friends & I agreed he was lying.”] Um, no. See, it isn’t possible to “lie” when stating an opinion, unless you are lying about the fact that you hold that opinion. And it isn’t possible to “disagree” with a statement of fact, although it is possible to think that the statement is false. Kristof described a particular gun, described the ballistics as they were described to him by a dealer, and quoted a price. Those of us who know guns and know what they sell for 1) deduced what gun he was talking about and 2) deduced that the price was dramatically too low for a functional gun of that type, and 3) deduced that the (anonymous!) gun dealers’s claims about its penetrating power (accepted and reported by Kristof as fact without any attempt to confirm) were wildly false. Kristof also went on to blather about “manuals for making VX nerve gas,” without actually buying one and asking a chemist if it would actually work. (Although I could be conflating two different columns here; memory is a bit foggy.) My friends and I concluded, based on the apparently impossible facts, that either 1) Kristof was making the whole thing up, or 2) he was “embellishing” in the service of his politics or 3) he had simply muddled the facts beyond recognition due to ignorance and the willingness of the gun dealer to take advantage of his ignorance. If you assume for a moment that I’m right about Kristof (and perhaps I’m not, as I was’t with him that day), I can’t understand why signing his name to a column makes lying or gross ignorance somehow respectable or acceptable. Sure, I can discount all his future columns (something I haven’t done), but for that matter, it’s just as easy for me to discount all anonymous NRO letters. My overall point is that while I think what NRO is doing is less than respectable and of minimal social value, and thus perhaps deserves criticism, it is not dramatically different than what happens pretty much every day in the world of “respectable” opinion journalism. And, as I pointed out, Ted has engaged in a similar practice right here at CT. I do think that a few silly blog posts are less serious than a more or less identical practice in the paper-and-ink press, and I do think there’s a difference between The Corner—a notoriously frivolous place—and the glossy magazine that NR puts out. Now, maybe NRO has a greater responsibility than, for instance, Ted here at CT, but that case hasn’t been made particularly well, and it would require Ted to declare “I get to be casual with fact checking because nobody should take me seriously anyway.”
Do they listen to Radiohead? Do they snack on Li Hing Mui? Do they channel surf IFC and Sundance and trip on Kim Possible?————————————————- For this urban-dwelling, 25 year-old conservative it’s My Bloody Valentine/Ride/Spiritualized while snacking on tapas and surfing Discovery, ESPN, and CNBC. Of course, that’s not when I’m browsing the used book stores or catching a show at Visions in DC, trying to figure out color Fender Jazzmaster I want to buy,deciding if I really want that second tattoo, or heading out for a few pints.
Just a point of information: the publication/site you’re trying to punk is called National Review. There is no the. It’s not The National Review or the National Review. Just National Review. Imagine someone saying they subscribe to The Mother Jones or The Harper’s and you’ll get a good sense of how dumb you sound inserting an unnecessary article. Good luck with your hilarious venture.
I’m having a hard time seeing why occasionally posting letters from readers, as NRO does, is any worse than having a comments section, as Crooked Timber does, where absolutely anyone can say absolutely anything.
dalai, Children under 19 in Texas: Total, B200P, B200P%, UB200P, UB200P% 1993-5: 5,754 2,956 51.4 1,031 17.9 1994-6: 5,841 2,958 50.6 1,074 18.4 1995-7: 5,893 2,934 49.8 1,034 17.6 1996-8: 5,992 2,971 49.6 1,084 18.1 1997-9: 5,979 2,873 48.0 1,040 17.4 1998-2000: 5,977 2,768 46.3 973 16.3 1999-2001: 6,241 2,884 46.2 990 15.9 2000-2002: 6,378 2,998 47.0 1,013 15.9 Total: Total children under 19, all income levels B200P: number at or below the 200% poverty line B200P%: B200P as a percentage of the Total UB200P: uninsured number at or below the 200% poverty line UB200P%: UB200P as a percentage of the Total
Dear Jonah Goldberg, we’ve actually been punking NR for almost a year now, Ted just let the cat out of the bag. Most of the anonymous letters you publish are complete fabrications, and you’ve got your head up your ass too far to realize it. Thanks for all the laffs Jonah. You and Bozo are two of a kind.
“I’m having a hard time seeing why occasionally posting letters from readers, as NRO does, is any worse than having a comments section, as Crooked Timber does, where absolutely anyone can say absolutely anything.” Posting letters from readers implies a certain level of quality control, even endorsement, by the blog owner, that simply having an open comments section does not have. I would certainly agree that it’s a bad idea to make broad general inferences about political blogs based on some random comment in open discussion. Of course, I’ve only seen such inferences made by right-wingers, about non-right-wing blogs.
Oh man, now you’re just trying to push my buttons, right???? Sorry, this is me going into kneejerk-lefty reaction mode. Nothing pisses me off more than when someone suggests he/she somehow knows what’s “better” for a group of people they absolutely know nothing about except for their perceived political affiliation (by basing it on a general measure; whether they live in a “blue” state or a “red” state). That is the height of ivory tower elitism. brian, I actually might have no problem with Red states continuing with their policies. As the education and wealth gap grows, there will be less competition for democrats in the job market and basic necessities coming from the old economy states might even be cheaper. It would be nice if they stopped taking a disproportionate amount of money from the government at the cost of Blue states. I thought conservatives were against the notion of a welfare state.
sorry for the double post with the table… was just making the font monospaced.
MD, chap…you’re like shooting fish in a barrel. You’re being punk’d old bean. By the by, “infer” is the more accurate English, since I am using a suggestion, rather that a statement of fact regarding the nature of this blogs’ ownership (who’ve shown a more patient sense of humor than you have…all credit to them). In addition, the statistics presented here demonstrate the limitations of statistics in general. No mention regarding the high influx of foreign nationals and immigrants in Texas who form a parge proportion of lower income families (or other socio-economic factors that state government can address but not in fact change,), nor, as another blogger pointed out, recognition that the redness or blueness of states is in flux, nor a comparison of cost-of-living versus the real income number used to bolster the claim. If I’m not mistaken I also believe I’ve seen statistics indicating that GOP voters (as opposed to residents) tend toward higher education levels than Dem voters, but I can’t remember the source and it proves about as much as the red/blue postulations herein. Cheers, V. PS I’ll go away if MD will… ;)
Dear vroosterat, How are the economies of West Virginia, Alabama, and Wyoming doing? love, daniel
“By the by, “infer” is the more accurate English, since I am using a suggestion, rather that a statement of fact regarding the nature of this blogs’ ownership (who’ve shown a more patient sense of humor than you have…all credit to them).” You mean “imply”, not “infer”. Google for “imply infer”.
One more thing about Welfare States: why do republicans get agriculture subsidies but democrats get no informatics subsidies?
I actually might have no problem with Red states continuing with their policies. ————————————————That’s fantastic. Though what difference your opinion makes to the Red States is negligible at best. It can only make a difference to the state in which you reside. As the education and wealth gap grows, there will be less competition for democrats in the job market and basic necessities coming from the old economy states might even be cheaper.—————————————————You’ll have to clear this statement up for me. Mostly on how political affiliation affects job market prospects. But seriously, I have no idea what you’re saying here. It would be nice if they stopped taking a disproportionate amount of money from the government at the cost of Blue states. I thought conservatives were against the notion of a welfare state.————————————————- Absolutely. I’m completely against the welfare state. We are not in disagreement here. Frankly, I think states should be footing their own bills. Just a quick question though…a few posts up, you came to the conclusion that Maryland, a state with a Republican governor, was in fact a Democratic state. Could you elaborate?
do people here really see no difference between a comments section and letters that are posted on the blog itself? It’s the difference between the city of Wherever allowing people to hang posters on their lampposts regardless of their content—maybe with some restrictions about profanity or threats—and having city employees xerox and hang their favorite posters.
Enlighten me on what an “informatics subsidy” is and why Dems don’t get them?
You’ll have to clear this statement up for me. Mostly on how political affiliation affects job market prospects.—————————————Sorry, I meant people living in and benefiting from the resources provided by Blue states. Just a quick question though…a few posts up, you came to the conclusion that Maryland, a state with a Republican governor, was in fact a Democratic state. Could you elaborate?—————————————- A Blue state is usually defined as one whose electoral votes went for Gore in 2000.
>>Wow!! Loook at all the people come here to defend the right of the National Review to lie to them! Nailed it. you can tell ther right has landed here and found it wanting. They like the lies. They are addicted to the lies. It’s the only way they sleep at night. Oh – and more lies. Please – Bush in 2004
Enlighten me on what an “informatics subsidy” is and why Dems don’t get them? Informatics is also known as Computer Science. Software developers and the like receive no special funding from the government. Census data shows Blue states depending on the computer industry more than Red states do. Also, see this article (please disregard the inflamatory title): http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0401.florida.html
whoops, Your definitons of “Red” and “Blue” states are fine, but they don’t represent a normal statistical measure for the kind of questions you’re asking. I could argue that they’re outdated….you’re using a year 2000 standard. We’ve had Senate elections since then, we’ve had changes in governorship, and we’re less than a year from another Presidential election. There’s no way you can use that standard of a state going for Gore to determine a states general political atmosphere. Secondly, what kind of funding a state gets has nothing to do with such a measure any more than it would what the state bird or flower is. States receive federal funding based upon a multitude of factors: how powerful their respective Senators and Representatives are, what programs they determine to be important, what programs are overfunded or underfunded, what their tax base is, etc etc etc….
Posting letters from readers implies a certain level of quality control, even endorsement, by the blog owner, that simply having an open comments section does not have. Well, it doesn’t just “imply” a certain level of quality control. It is a certain level of quality control, that an open comments section does not have. So the complaint is, too much quality control? To be clear, I’m fine with open comment sections too. We know the comments are from readers, and can judge for ourselves how reliable they are. Just like the reader emails at NRO, which are clearly labeled as such.
do people here really see no difference between a comments section and letters that are posted on the blog itself? It’s the difference between the city of Wherever allowing people to hang posters on their lampposts regardless of their content—maybe with some restrictions about profanity or threats—and having city employees xerox and hang their favorite posters.————- 1. I’m really not sure what to make of this analogy. In most places, you can post ads for almost anything …have you ever seen the posts near college campuses? 2. When someone posts an email/ letter in a blog it is because the poster thinks it is interesting, not because he necessarily vouches for its truthfulness. That interest could take many forms: “this guy seems knowledgable, here’s what he says,” “can you believe what this guy says!” etc. 3. Are you telling me that your ability to evaluate a source of information or the liklihood of believing a source depends on whether a site posts that email (as an email) in the comments section or the blog itself (especially where the blog is openly ideological)? NRO never presented the email as representing anything but the author’s own statements; nor did they say that because they received an email the story must be true. Think for yourself – if you don’t understand that you must critically evaluate information on an opinion site THAT IS YOUR OWN PROBLEM. Nor is it NRO’s problem if large numbers of people cannot think critically.
Informatics is also known as Computer Science. Software developers and the like receive no special funding from the government.———————————————This is not true. I track Congressional funding for a living.
Sounded like a good idea at first, but you underestimate Goldberg’s resourcefulness. And National Review has a lot more resources that they could use to punk you if they wanted, and never even announce it. You might have better luck going after an egalitarian grassroots forum such as FreeRepublic.com.
I know you are, but what am I?
Informatics is also known as Computer Science. Software developers and the like receive no special funding from the government. ——————————————— This is not true. I track Congressional funding for a living. Great. I’d be happy to learn where I can pass go and collect my extra check then.
“In most places, you can post ads for almost anything.” 1. this is precisely my point. You can post ads for anything, but it would be inappropriate for the city or college to post a lot of things. 2. If you’re reprinting something that you have no particular reason to believe is true or that you believe is untrue, you have an obligation to point this out. 3. If the rule in an opinion column or blog is “anything goes”, why are y’all so freaking obsessed with Paul Krugman? Sure, people are responsible for forming their own opinions, but those claiming to be journalists have responsibilities too—and those include not printing allegations that are as likely as not to be made up.
Ken C. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infer Infer and imply can have interchangable meanings. Appreciate the spirit behind the effort though. Cheers! Vroo.
Great. I’d be happy to learn where I can pass go and collect my extra check then.————————————————- Well, I’m about to provide you with a service that’s lots of other folks pay a lot of money for…I’m going to tell you how. First of all, you need to go to the government. They’re not going to come to you. They don’t even know you exist, at least in terms of funding priorities. There are a couple of ways you could do this. You could try the Senator of Congressman of your home state/district and the staff memebr which handles the issues most closely related to your project. If he’s an appropriator, that’s a bonus right there. Be prepared to present a white paper on what it is you’re looking to fund, and why the government should fund it. Some members will specifically ask for justification. They’ll also want to know what kinds of funding, if any, you’ve received in the past. It would probably help to find out which department and account you should seek funding under…you know DoD RDT&E, Homeland Security, whatever. You’ll kind of have to figure this one out yourself, or hire someone specializing in Washington representation to help you with this. It also helps to talk to House/Senate Approps staff. Provided you make it through all of the different votes, you’ll be good to go.
Posting letters from readers implies a certain level of quality control, even endorsement, by the blog owner, that simply having an open comments section does not have. “Well, it doesn’t just “imply” a certain level of quality control. It is a certain level of quality control” Sigh. From the OED, “imply” means “To involve or comprise as a necessary logical consequence; to involve the truth or existence of (something not expressly asserted or maintained).” So, yes, it is a certain level of quality control, as I said. “So the complaint is, too much quality control?” Quality control here likely implies endorsement. NRO is presenting and endorsing trivial, unverifiable gossip. This is a bad thing for nominal journalists to be doing. It’s amusing to try to hoax them. Do you have an objection to this?
Well, it doesn’t just “imply” a certain level of quality control. It is a certain level of quality control, that an open comments section does not have. So the complaint is, too much quality control? To be clear, I’m fine with open comment sections too. We know the comments are from readers, and can judge for ourselves how reliable they are. Just like the reader emails at NRO, which are clearly labeled as such. By picking out an email and posting it on the blog, you’re implying that the email is worth showing to all of your readers, as opposed to all the email that you receive but don’t post. The complaint is that Jonah picked this email out of all the ones he received, and said basically “Hey! Look at this! I think you all should see this.” That implies either that he thought that the story was probably true, or wanted to point it out to everyone even though it wasn’t proven true. With a comment section, readers can just post whatever they want, and no endorsement by the website’s author is implied. In short, the complaint is too much quality control was implied for an email that Jonah probably didn’t even try to verify.
“http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infer Infer and imply can have interchangable meanings.” Only to base descriptivists. “can have”, indeed. Perhaps you didn’t read the whole webpage you cited?
Here’s one, Ted: The Corner Tuesday, February 03, 2004 SENATOR ROAD RAGE? [Jonah Goldberg] Just received the following, re everybody’s favorite Boston Brahmin running for president, from a reader: “Dear Jonah, K-Lo and the gang at NRO, “This is a true story that I thought you might find interesting. One time John Kerry cut our car off in traffic, causing me to bite off Dick Cheney’s cock, as I was giving him a hummer in the back seat of George W Bush’s SUV at the time. George himself was so startled by being cut off that he totally snaffled the rail of coke he was doing, blowing out a huge dust cloud of Peruvian flake into the trigger mechanism of Karl Rove’s (he was in the passenger seat) sniper rifle, causing Karl to miss out on a perfect shot on Paul Wellstone, who was crossing the street in front of us. “Fortunately, Dick was able to sew his dick back on, and we got Wellstone in a plane crash later. Also, George was able to score another eightball from an orderly at the ER where we took Dick. “Hugs and kisses, Peggy Noonan” Of course we can’t vouch for the authenticity of this, but if Kerry has the same problem with flying off the handle – behind the wheel no less – as Dean, he’s in trouble. Posted at 04:59 PM
Quality control here likely implies endorsement. NRO is presenting and endorsing trivial, unverifiable gossip. This is a bad thing for nominal journalists to be doing. It’s amusing to try to hoax them. Do you have an objection to this? No. I don’t have an objection to the hoax attempt, although so far it looks like it’s backfired. I don’t think that posting the emails amounts to endorsement, but that’s something that reasonable people can disagree on. The email originally posted by Jonah that started this whole thing was titled “A Kerry Tale”; to me that’s enough to make clear that Jonah himself is not personally vouching for the accuracy of the story. Here’s something that the imply/infer guy might find useful: “Usage Note: Infer is sometimes confused with imply, but the distinction is a useful one. When we say that a speaker or sentence implies something, we mean that it is conveyed or suggested without being stated outright: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a business tax increase, she implied (not inferred) that some taxes might be raised. Inference, on the other hand, is the activity performed by a reader or interpreter in drawing conclusions that are not explicit in what is said: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a tax increase, we inferred that she had been consulting with some new financial advisers, since her old advisers were in favor of tax reductions.”
Although I now realize my English Degree, coming from a Texas University, is marginalized by liberal elites, here goes. When I say something, I am Implying. The way you take it, is Infering.
These statistics showing the superiority of blue states to red states are fascinating. Let’s look at the analogous figures by partitioning according to ethnicity rather than geography. Let’s start with African-Americans. How do their stats compare to national averages and how do they tend to vote? Inquiring minds what to know.
Hey Brian, ” Yes, I absolutely think there’s something good about defending NR. I can understand why you probably don’t…it’s a publication diametrically opposed to your ideals and beliefs. That’s fine. Individuality is the essence of conservatism, so as a conservative I don’t expect anyone or any publication to please 100% of the public. I don’t care if you like it or not, nor do I expect you to like it at all.” You seem a little confused – you think that “individuality is the essence of conservatism,” but then you write as though it’s good to defend NRO as if it were the exemplar of conservatism as you define it. What, then, pray tell, is NRO doing running articles opposing the choice of gay marriage because it undermines a traditional social institution – by contributing editor Stanley Kurtz, http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402020917.asp – and criticizing the media for “distort[ing] the sexual narrative” from its proper connection with reproduction, and for “pushing the line of broadcast standards past the basest denominator of decency, alienating legions of people of values” – as expressed by guest commentator Nicole Gelinas, http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gelinas200402030859.asp? Methinks you’ve conflated conservatism and libertarianism. I’d agree that individualism is more or less the essence of libertarianism, but individualism is most certainly not the essence either of conservatism or of NRO.
brian, Thanks, that’s very interesting. How realistic have you found government funding for this industry to be? For example, do you see anyone quitting a job at IBM Research or any other lab to try their luck at those funds?
1. I still find your analogy less than apt. FIrst, You distinguish between two mediums – comments and blog – yet you only use one medium – the post – where it is generally accepted that anyone (incl. colleges and gov’t) can post. Perhaps you meant to distinguish (for example) between a streetpole and a city government bullitin board. Second, if a city told its employees to post its favorite posters (perhaps to “beutify the city”), it wouldn’t be vouching for the opinions expressed by their employees because the understanding is that the employees are choosing their own personal favorites, not something the city says they have to post. The underlying question here is vouching. In posting, NRO did not say that the posted was true and, most importantly, identified that the source was a single reader. 2. I guess NRO could say, “Here’s an email we received; We think its interesting. While we have no particular reason to doubt its veracity, there is always the possibility that this particular reader could have made the story up. Further, as we receive many emails we have not fully checked into this particular reader’s credibility,” but it seems like this would be tacitly understood by most intelligent readers simply by the context. 3. First, Paul Krugman presents his own ideas and, therefore, inheretly vouches for them with his reputation as a journalist for the times and a professor. Conservatives feel that often Paul Krugman, in representing himself in his column, says things that are in some cases arguably wrong and, in others, factually untrue. THe former is OK in an opinion column, the latter is relevant as to Krugman’s credibility. However, the Krugman-type situation is not what’s going on here. Goldberg did not present the letter in one of his columns as proof of anything or as a basis for any of his beliefs, nor did he say that he knew it to be true. Certainly, it was implied that he thought the story was probably true, but that’s noting more than saying, “I don’t know for sure, but I believe this guy.” – compeletely OK for an op/ed columnist in a blog. Second, you should distinguish between blogs and opinion columns, especial newspaper op/ed. Third, nobody said “anything goes.” Obscuring the source of information would not be OK, nor would presenting the email in a way to make it look difinitive, nor would explicitly vouching for its credibility in the absense of corroboration. NRO did none of these things; there is simply nothing wrong with posting a letter and saying, “here’s an email I got, take it for what it’s worth” (Nothing there hinders one from deciding that the information isn’t worth much).
No. I don’t have an objection to the hoax attempt, although so far it looks like it’s backfired. I don’t think that posting the emails amounts to endorsement, but that’s something that reasonable people can disagree on. The email originally posted by Jonah that started this whole thing was titled “A Kerry Tale”;