Asymmetrical Information

This is probably a sign that TCS is having a real impact: the ad hominems have started.

Actually, I confess. My article that the universe may be finite was demanded by ExxonMobil. They hoped it would make people want a refill.

Oh my god, can you just imagine? Journalism funded by corporate advertising and sponsorship? How long has this been going on? Somebody call the New York Times, ABC, and PBS!

Whenever you can't counter an argument on the merits you can always impugn the motives of your opponent.

Dang. I had attempted a post to the effect that this was just another Jedi Mind Trick, but somehow it didn't take. Could be that Megan is just another paid RNC lackey, and is deleting my posts. That'd figure, now, wouldn't it?

of course jane, they're so sly, being part of the vastrightwingdeathbeastconspiracyprotocolians, that they've gotten you to do this without you even realizing it! ooh, darth insiduous!

Nice try, Jane. It is common knowledge that you peck out your TCS pieces from your palatial home in the heavens, perched high above Central Park, prior to taking your chauffeured ride the few blocks to the latest 5-star dining experience, all made possible by the generous corporate payola intended to keep the rest of us ignorant of our true interests!

And I bet "Jane Galt" isn't even her real name ... the conspiracy widens ...

what about this article? I don't doubt you believe what you wrote, but in light of recent findings the MS add next to it has acquired a new dimension. Don't you think you -possibly- were used?

I've noticed this sort of thinking recently -- it's essentially "You can't really believe this, can you? Someone's paying you to say this, right?!?!?"

Even if TCS is run by a foul little cabal of astroturf artists, that wouldn't impugn the objectivity of most of its writers. Indeed, the alleged partisan claptrap could hardly be successfully in the midst of other partisan claptrap; it is a magazine with a bias to hide that would most scrupulously cling to honest and objective reporting in the pieces that it used to establish cover for its partisan claptrap.

And sure enough, TCS has a sizable cadre of scrupulously honest and objective columnists. Frankly I'm reassured to think that they've an ulterior motive for this rather than having assembled such an impressive lineup by dumb luck or princely salaries.

The more they have to hide, the better the rest of their stuff will be. It isn't fiendish and biased activists whom we need to fear; it's the folks too dumb to have a hidden agenda whom you really need to watch out for.
--G

Washington Monthly was once a quirky and interesting magazine, which often presented new ideas. Now, it seems to have turned into just another leftist rag.

so, how does it feel to be a shill for the media-industrial complex? its an interesting set of issue that you raise.

"And I've certainly never written one line for TCS for any reason other than that I thought it was true; certainly not so that I could serve as a "mouthpiece" for think-tanks or corporate executives."

should one care if one's work is going to be used for purposes not originaly intended by the author, to perhaps support an agenda (or a lobbying effort) that one is not entirely four-square with? i am sure that nietzsche would have been surprised if he had lived to see his ideas appropriated by nazism.

what i am interested in is the way that you think about the issues megan. do you feel comfortable with your reasoning as expressed in this short post, or do you have some doubts or worries as to the manner in which your work will be used by others? yes, you are given the topic; you write what you want. but it appears to be the case that your employer wants you to write about a topic so that your work might perhaps be used to further the agendas of "sponsors." there is nothing inherently wrong or bad about that--you might agree with the sponsor's position. i guess my query is directed to the possibility that your views might be used to support an agenda that you don't necessarily agree with (i do not have an example of such--i am just speculating). what is your view if that happens?

So if someone were writing for a magazine covertly sponsored by the CPUSA, and wrote things they truly believed on "suggested topics" that would be just fine. No one here would think of accusing such a person of being a commie mouthpiece. Right?

So if someone were writing for a magazine covertly sponsored by the CPUSA, and wrote things they truly believed on "suggested topics" that would be just fine. No one here would think of accusing such a person of being a commie mouthpiece. Right?

Just wondering if TCS gets a bump in viewers soon from Washington Monthly folks who'd never heard of it, and find they like it!

CPUSA! That's a good one. An untapped treasure chest of lobbying might for the democratic cause. Rolling in cash, I hear. Powerful lobbyists.

In any event Larry, everyone here would probably think such a person was an unwitting commie tool. And then after that person found out about the CPUSA and continued to write, a willing one.

I must admit, though. The Open Source article does leave a particularly MicroSoft like aftertaste in the mouth. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

...everyone here would probably think such a person was an unwitting commie tool. And then after that person found out about the CPUSA and continued to write, a willing one.

So you're saying that Jane Galt is an unwitting tool of the Media-Industrial complex and that if she continues writing for TCS she's a willing one? OK.

Larry,

If anyones work is taken and reprinted in its entirety who cares. An article either stands or falls on its own merits. If the work is honest, does it really matter who paid for it? I will admit that disclosing ones ties is a good idea if for no other reason than it allows the reading public a clue as to what bias, if any, is present. Knowing an author's paymaster might clue you in tothe fact that the whole truth isn't being presented (one might ask if even can be) In Megan's case if she isn't being assigned specific tasks and being instructed on how to present them I fail to see how any of this could even matter, especially givne that she would likely post her work here anyway. We need less of this bogus impuning of motives, who gives a damn what anyones motives are, rather we should examine their work and their actions, we can at least examine them without having to resort to speculation and villification.

End transmition...

VRWC

Gee, Larry, in another context, one might almost accuse YOU of being McCarthyite.

But I'm sure you don't mean to impugn the likes of Paul Robeson, Dr. Martin Luther King, or others who consorted with Communists, eh?

Just checking....

Ah gee! As long as we're into Conspiracy Theories as a means for impugning a writer's motives why don't we just go straight to the top and not bother with the tools? Does anyone have a preferred Illuminatti group they'd like to belong to such as the Gnomes of Zurich or the Servants of Cthulhlu? o_O

At the moment I'm leaning towards the UFOs or the Society of Assassins but the Atlanteans and the Discordians both have their interesting aspects as well. ^_~

- S.P.M.

Shoot, you mean we can't start our OWN conspiratorial society? I was angling for the "Current Nuthach Network" myself. A large band of fruitloops, but with connections.

We may have a legal fight on our hands over the corporate logo though...

anyone consorting with communists was and is consorting with war criminals, genocides, and the worst sort of people ever

just cause people did some good things doesn't mean that they didn't do evil things or weren't evil

tyrants are frequently good to dogs and mistresses

Jane Galt has been consorting with.....libertarians (GASP). Hmm I wonder if there are some useful distinctions we could make between libertarians and communists. Like maybe one philosophy has led directly to the murder of tens of millions while the other one hasn't.

Yea, Sebastian, we could do the same as to Atheists and Religious types, too. And then we could go down the list about how many democratic administrations have launched an illegal preemptive war (according to Perle), held american citizens without charges or counsel, and shipped people to Syria knowing they'd be tortured. I think it'd be fun.

I think you all miss the point about Jane's Linux article. It was not pro Microsoft. It was pro auto dealer.

-Brad

I forgot to mention. Dr. Atkins was a shill for the meat-industrial complex:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=465405

See? So Jane is in good company, er, was in good company. We all know what happened to Dr. Atkins.

-Brad

I nearly forgot to note this:

I'm not sure what use an organization hell-bent on astroturfing for profit would have for writers like this. Could be just clever camouflage, though.

Clever little plot you're part of -- whatever it is. Seems to me that if the CPUSA, the Open Software Foundation, the NEA or any other group wants to launch an idea-based forum and to attract a large readership, they should by all means try. There aren't big entry barriers, and I'm sure there are some talented writers who would happily contribute. If they attract supporters and an audience, they may even make a buck or two.

It would be interesting to see a demographic profile of TCS readers. Judging from the mix of articles and level of discourse, it's not a naive and uneducated one. I would also guess that the contributors generally have no trouble getting articles published in any number of outlets. They seem to be providing a service that its readers turn to and that its supporters are willing to underwrite.

I don't think that you or most of the other writers are inherently dirty for writing for TCS. I've read a number of articles on there and appreciated many of them. That said, you're being used. DCI has TCS hire a number of honest writers, like yourself, to provide an aura of respectability for their PR. They can then slip in dishonest articles and have them recieved in the same light as your honest beliefs. John Holbo has words about this. http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2003/11/confessions_of_.html

Alternatively, I could be wrong and DCI could only be sponsoring libertarian rhetoric ala Scaife and his massive funding of conservative speech. But considering DCI is a PR and lobbying group, I doubt it. I think they'd want a better return on their money than that.

If you start with the notion that conservative or libertarian ideas ipso facto = an appearance of impropriety, you can argue just about anything.

I think the point of the article was missed. Its one thing to have a opinion site centered around a philosophy (as The Nation is liberal, National Review conservative etc.) and another where the articles are selected on behalf of the sponsors. There's a world of difference between, say, Exxon placing an ad in National Review because they agree with NR's skepticism on global warming and National Review running articles against global warming because Exxon is a sponsor.

I think the point of the article is well understood - the question is whether or not it really matters since there is no (or at least shouldn't be) assumption of objectivity. Opinion articles do not have to be impartial or neutral since there is no obligation to tell the truth. In addition, any facts presented are probably biased towards the author's premise (at least that is the assumption I always make unless I've had a chance to verify what was presented).

I do not believe I have seen any opinion site which talks about the motives of its authors. Why should TCS be any different?

There is a assumption that opinion pieces are the opinions of the authors and not set by the sponsors. There is also an assumption that the editor of an opinion journal is selecting artitcles based on quality and the journal's overall philosophy, not to maximize sponsor revenue.

Are you saying that because opinion magazines are supposed to be 'objective' that there is nothing they can do that should be considered unacceptable or at least disreputable?

Hmm... after thinking about it, I see your point and agree that opinion magazines have an expectation that the articles are selected on the basis on quality & philosophy and not to maximize sponsor revenue.

I wasn't trying to say that opinion magazines can do anything - (bear with me a second here) I assume that facts are presented in order to support an argument. Because of this, I presume that contradictory evidence could (but not always) exist that has either been overlooked or downplayed. As a result, I may find the ideas interesting or intriguing, but I don't consider the facts to be gospel.

That's just my opinion - your mileage may vary :-)

Well, Jane writes an article for a site sponsored by Microsoft which consists, in the main, of regurgitated SCO Group propaganda attempting to paint Open Source in a bad light. This article joins a long list of anti-Open Source articles in the same journal. With that much quacking and waddling, do you really have to see the feathers and bill to admit there's a duck in the house?

I find it strange that a 'libertarian' website would repeatedly bash free software as being 'communistic'. Free (as in Free Markets, as in Freedom, not as in Free Beer) software is inherently libertarian, and incredibly competitive.

TechCentralStation certainly can't think free software is 'Doomed' as they have described it - they run their website on it.

So why the disconnect if it's not just Microsoft's money? Hmmm?

I'm with Neil. Lots of Open Source advocates are libertarians. I don't understand why a website that values freedom (freedom as in free markets) would have any problem at all with Open Source software. Yet time after time your website publishes biased anti-OS propaganda that reads like Microsoft and SCO press releases.

What gives?

I'm with Neil. Lots of Open Source advocates are libertarians. I don't understand why a website that values freedom (freedom as in free markets) would have any problem at all with Open Source software. Yet time after time your website publishes biased anti-OS propaganda that reads like Microsoft and SCO press releases.

What gives?

I'm with Neil. Lots of Open Source advocates are libertarians. I don't understand why a website that values freedom (freedom as in free markets) would have any problem at all with Open Source software. Yet time after time your website publishes biased anti-OS propaganda that reads like Microsoft and SCO press releases.

What gives?

I'm with Neil. Lots of Open Source advocates are libertarians. I don't understand why a website that values freedom (freedom as in free markets) would have any problem at all with Open Source software. Yet time after time your website publishes biased anti-OS propaganda that reads like Microsoft and SCO press releases.

What gives?

"If you start with the notion that conservative or libertarian ideas ipso facto = an appearance of impropriety, you can argue just about anything."

The problem with this statement is this: The issue is not that TCS may have its own philosophical agenda and is leaning towards it, the issue is that TCS is deliberately publishing a view point that favors its paying sponsors, which may NOT necessarily be in sync with their philosophy. The problem is Open Source is not inheriently communistic or ultra-liberal or whatever. When you look at the politics of some of OS's biggest supporters you'll find a wide range of views. I'm actually surprised that a liberarian/conservative magazine would attack Open Source for being "communistic", it just doesn't make sense. Which leads me to suspect that this has less to do with a TCS political agenda and much more to do with just printing stuff your sponsors will like.

Hello

I just wanted to point out your attention to the fact that www.techcentralstation.com runs on OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.

As you can check it out yourself on netcraft.com, TCS was running on Microsoft Windows 98 and MS IIS until 1 Nov 2001. Then they replaced IIS with Netscape Enterprise Web Server.

Finally, since some time this year, they are running on Linux OS and Apache Web Server. If you din't know yet, both Linux and Apache are open source software. They use different licenses: GPL and Apache License. You may also look at http://www.opensource.org/ - Open Source Initiative web site with the list of all open source licenses.

I wonder why did TCS move to Open Source? Of course, it's coincidence and has nothing to do with total cost of ownership or security problems with proprietary software.

Cheers!

This is too funny. How can you whine that "I have to admit that I was never much of a believer in open source." [http://www.techcentralstation.com/100603C.html] And then run your site on Linux? [http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.janegalt.net] Hmm? Yip, definately a Microsoft shill. Too funny that they don't give you enough money so you can afford to buy Microsoft server software.

Comments are Closed.