As an example of how conservative columnists shouldn't expect to satisfy the left simply by disclosing any government sources of income, here is The Daily Outrage from The Nation, where today's outrage from Ari Berman is that William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer had the audacity to speak about President Bush's inauguration speech on Fox News without disclosing that they were consulted. Horrors!
I didn't note it yesterday, but in Eric Alterman's post, his point about not disclosing having sex with animals because no one has asked about it seems to undermine his conclusion that everything should be disclosed. The reason people don't ask about sex with animals is because it's irrelevant (unless one is an apologist for the act), and many of the things that the left are demanding be disclosed are also irrelevant, things like the case noted above, where a person consulting on a speech has to admit it before being allowed to comment. The disclosures are getting to be bigger than the news. It's not just that conservatives are being held to different standards than liberals, it's that there are no standards at all. These attacks from people like Ari Berman and Eric Alterman are practically speaking, ad hominem attacks, similar to efforts to discredit John Lott's research (on gun rights) for being funded by the Olin Foundation. This is actually a favorite attack from the left. Don't attack an argument for its reasoning, attack it for who is saying it, or paying for it. Now this isn't to say that we should ignore the source of all we read or hear - it's wise to be suspicious of propaganda, however just because an argument comes from an ideological opponent doesn't make it ipso facto wrong, and that's the mistake the left is making in judging people like Maggie Gallagher, John Lott, William Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer.
Speaking of disclosure, I'd just to rant for a bit about double standards. I've never noticed any particular outrage from the left about PBS receiving government funding and not disclosing how much of that money goes to pay its news anchor, Jim Lehrer. Shouldn't Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg disclose how much money she is given for being a speaker for the National Organization for Women? And shouldn't she recuse herself from abortion-related cases for that reason alone? I've never heard the New York Times complain about that (the LA Times noticed it however), though there was plenty of outrage that Dick Cheney spent a day duck-hunting with Justice Scalia.
Finally, some links on the subject I've read today:
In National Review, Jonathan Adler notes that the media have missed the real payola story. How about disclosure from NGOs for how much government money they get to "research" their causes (which invariably demand more government money to address those causes)?
And finally, I guess I should disclose this to please Eric Alterman:
I hereby disclose that I received government-provided funds through a job I had with a defense contractor back when Ronald Reagan was President. I do not consider this a conflict of interest, but just in case you do, now you know.
The Nation piece doesn't say that they were merely consulted. It says that they helped to write the speech. Praising a speech that one helped to write without disclosing that fact is pretty ballsy.
Of course there is hypocrisy. There was tons of that as Republicans held multiple hearings in the late 90's on Democratic finance embarrassments without disclosing that they were guilty of many of the same things.
I was also disgusted with Fred Barnes for going after Bishop Robinson without disclosing that he, Barnes, is part of two "reform" groups that oppose gays in the ministry.
Posted by: Joel Thomas at January 29, 2005 02:42 PM