1. Brad Hutchings on November 20, 2003 10:34 PM writes...

In all the time I've been reading blogs, no single phenomonon in the blogosphere has irritated me as much as this "calling out" of TCS, and no single blog entry has been so over the top as Blankenhorn's. So, it is time to pick apart some of his "facts".

Blankenhorn "Fact" #1: "Real think tanks are organized as 501(c)(3) organizations.... TechCentral Station is an LLC."

Truth: 501(c)(3) status is independent of the legal structure of the organization, which (according to http://www.keytlaw.com/az/entities/501(c)(3).htm ) can be corporation, community chest, fund, or foundation. But a partnership or individual will not qualify. If you look up 501(c)(3) on the IRS site, it implies that partnerships can be such organizations. Typical of anything having to do with taxes -- opinions vary and best to call the IRS for specifics. The point though is that non-profit status has nothing to do with organizational vehicle.

Blankenhorn "Fact" #2: "Real think tanks are organized as 501(c)(3) organizations. They're non-profit, and have to disclose where they get their money."

Truth: Download this document: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/topico00.pdf This is the IRS's document on disclosure requirements for 501(c)(3) organizations. Go to the bottom of page 4 and beginning of page 5. I quote:

"However, an organization is not required to disclose the name or address of any contributor to the organization. See Regs. 301.6104(d)-3(b)(4)(i)."

So editing out the invented facts, Dana disagrees with TCS. That's nice. Seems a little petty to go Joe McCarthy on us though, doncha think?

-Brad

2. confused on November 21, 2003 02:40 AM writes...

I dunno, the way you start off your response to Dana is pretty poor writing. You quote him without establishing the context. Read what you wrote, and ask yourself, what is the accusation you are accusing him of, it appears to be that you dislike his opinion that other published writers were inferior. Is that the accusation? It's what you wrote.

Than on to your comment about Paul Krugman. Of what relevance is that?

You are apparently making his point that your writing is inferior, but I don't think that's your point. Or was it?

3. Randall Parker on November 21, 2003 12:15 PM writes...

It has long been my impression that some think tanks are organized in a way that allows them to hide who their donors are and that they routinely do so. Am I incorrect in this belief?

As for Blankenhorn's hatchet job: There are quite a few money-losing subsidized publications. Does Blankenhorn also think that, for instance, The New Republic is being funded for nefarious reasons by corporate interests? If not, why not?

Also, speaking of money-losing subsidized publications: my blogs are money-losing. I've yet to receive a single donation and I have monthly costs as well as a lot of time invested in them. I haven't revealed how I make money and so it could be that all the posts I make on my sites on a very wide range of topics are motivated by the pursuit of profit. If anyone can figure out how all the topics I cover could somehow be united to serve the business interests of myself I'd sure appreciate your explaining it to me.

Full disclosure: Nick has asked that I write articles for TCS (been too busy trying to finish a computer program but expect to next month probably) that amplify points on various blog posts I've made. I can't see how Nick's motives for this are consistent with Blankenhorn's argument about TCS. The posts of mine that he particularly likes don't seem to directly affect the short-term profitability of any corps. But, again, perhaps I'm missing something. Once I have some articles published on TCS I would appreciate it if someone can explain how each of the articles furthers some corporate interest. Maybe there's a way to more directly appeal to those interests for money instead of getting really low payments for writing TCS articles.

Confused: Arnold links to Blankenhorn. He's not going to quote the whole piece. What would be the point? If you care then go read the piece and click thru to the WM aritcle and get the entire context. Then judge Arnold's response.

4. Kaushik on November 21, 2003 11:57 PM writes...

For whatever it is worth, I (and I am sure your other readers) know that you have a very strong sense of integrity and agree or disagree on the with you on the merits of your argument.

Would I have preferred to know TechCentralStation was funded by DCI? Of course I would have. I dont think it is right not to mention affiliations upfront.

However, I dont believe anyone who reads your weblog would think that you have been dishonest in any way about your beliefs or that you would support and/or write in favor of any policy if you do not believe in it. That is really all that one should expect from opinion journalism.

I would think you have done enough on and off the net for people to take your essays on their merits. That is not to say I like DCI. But just that I like your writing.

5. dragoon on November 22, 2003 01:38 AM writes...

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.

6. Brad DeLong on November 22, 2003 08:26 PM writes...

Let me second dragoon. I don't think you should stop writing for DCI... TCS, and I don't think I should stop (occasionally) writing things for the American Council for Capital Formation. But there is a risk here: one of the things they may be doing is using your skills and reputation to boost the credibility of things like the TCS global warming columns...

7. John Thacker on November 23, 2003 04:31 AM writes...

But there is a risk here: one of the things they may be doing is using your skills and reputation to boost the credibility of things like the TCS global warming columns...

This is of course true. But I'm not sure that people necessarily will believe one set of op-eds on a site just because they believe another. Of course other news sources, like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, as well as basically everyone else, use certain parts of their paper to lend respectability to others. And papers certainly can have wide-ranging and diverse editorial pages; just because someone agrees with one op-ed writer does not mean that they'll agree with or even respect another on the same page.

Professor DeLong, would you, for example, turn down an op-ed spot on the Wall Street Journal (say as their token liberal, replacing Al Hunt) for fear of boosting the credibility of their other editorials? What about a spot on an opinion show offering "balance" for Fox News? If not, how is the situation different? (which of course it may be, I can think of several possiblities.)

8. Stephen Bronstein on November 27, 2003 01:45 PM writes...

I confess that I fail to see the issue here with TCS. I have mostly ended up on TCS via links from this weblog or Arnold's other weblog, or when other bloggers whom I respect link to a particular article. I evaluate each argument on its merit.

I read a while back that TCS was founded by James Glassman, and I knew that his book Dow 36,000 had been widely discredited (the Slate series of emails between Glassman and someone else was particularly illuminating on this point). This did not make me stop reading TCS, but certainly I was not going to uncritically accept any of the arguments presented. But then again, I wouldn't have anyway.

The issue of the tax status is a non-starter. The fact that they are *not* a non-profit gives them the right to do whatever they want. I don't see how that somehow implicates them. And furthermore, as per Randall's comments, I don't begrudge *any* organization it's biases and funding. The Weekly Standard, for example, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and according to a recent Atlantic article, is a money-losing venture that he supports because he agrees with its politics. Does this suddenly make the whole entity suspect? No more so than it was before we knew that. Savvy readers are always skeptical.

None of these organizations are claiming to present an 'objective' viewpoint on the issues. Save your wrath for those who *do* make this claim and then repeatedly fail to live up to it.

9. Alex on December 26, 2003 05:50 AM writes...

This is good page.

10. Columbo on December 29, 2003 03:18 AM writes...

Hey guy! Just respect to you for what you are doing! And for you know exactly the idea what u r talking about! It's very informative and splendid page! A lot of intresting stuff could be found here. Anyhow I wish you luck and all the best in your life and work!

11. Susi on December 29, 2003 05:54 AM writes...

Hi! People who use i-net need pages like this one. Good luck!

12. Max on December 30, 2003 03:43 AM writes...

The eternal problem adapted to modern needs is precisely traced in your information.

13. Dev on January 2, 2004 04:57 AM writes...

The information submitted on your page is very actual and duly.

14. Noy on January 3, 2004 04:12 AM writes...

The stream of the information is so diverse in our life that is very easy to get lost and very difficultly to find the necessary information.