Credibility Gaps (Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps?)

Tim Lambert catches this one:

Deltoid : Iain Murray, comes out with an article in the American Spectator in favour of pundit payola:

An opinion piece -- whether an individual op-ed or a column -- exists to promote a point of view by argument. It does not seek to establish a fact, but to win people over to a particular viewpoint or opinion. Therefore, the strength of the argument is the key factor in determining the effectiveness of the piece. A sloppily constructed, poorly thought-out argument will convince no one -- while a tightly constructed, coherent, and well-written argument can sway minds. That is why opinion pieces are considered intellectual ammunition in the war of ideas.

The only valid response to a persuasive argument is an equally persuasive argument towards a different conclusion. Yet the witch hunters' central argument has nothing to do with the virtues of the arguments presented by Bandow and others. Their argument is, essentially, that because the writer has not disclosed information about his income, he is essentially untrustworthy and his opinions should not be given the time of day. This argument is flawed enough to make it invalid. In logic, that's called a fallacy.

Say, rather, that there are (i) people who write what they believe; (ii) people who write what they are paid to write; and (iii) people who write what they are paid to write but who want you to think they write what they believe. People in category (iii) are--by their own actions--less credible and less trustworthy than people in categories (i) and (ii). Evaluating their arguments is difficult, time consuming, and requires constant research and fact checking.

Given that there are many too many good people working hard in categories (i) and (ii) to read, is there ever any reason to ever read anybody in category (iii)? I can't think of one.

A more interesting question: is there ever any reason to read anybody, like Iain Murray, who tells us that it doesn't matter which category--(i), (ii), or (iii)--people are in? Once again, I can't think of one.

Comments

[dp]

"A sloppily constructed, poorly thought-out argument will convince no one."

Uh, better have a look around. The opposite is true in almost all cases of controversy, and any number of people make a living through deliberately sloppy thinking, at all levels of intellect, punditry and political office.

Therefore, one needs clear arguments at every level, regardless of whether they are written for hire or from personal conviction. It is also worth remembering that one's best arguments can come from the opposing camp, so it is in my interest to ensure that my enemies are capable of rational thought. Give me category iii people any day, because evaluating their arguments is time-consuming, difficult, and concomitantly rewarding.

The upshot is that if all argument happened along neat lines as decribed above, the debate would have been over long ago. In this regard, the above argument about credibility seems very circumscribed, maybe even naively idealistic. It is summarily dismissed.

[derek]

"A sloppily constructed, poorly thought-out argument will convince no one." and "In logic, that's called a fallacy."

Thank Heavens no one ever was swayed by Goebbels' efforts! (yeah, yeah, Godwin blah)

I think Iain Murray is enough of a grown-up to know how little logic has to do with the effectiveness of propaganda, which means he's being a very disingenuous and dishonest grown-up indeed. Mark him down on my list of writers I automatically assume are lying for cash, until I have time to fact-check every last assertion they make.

[Anna Haynes]

This is very useful information. How can we find out what other publications, editors and columnists share Mr. Murray's view?

[tatere]

Those three categories are a bit oversimplified, no? There are people who are paid to write what they believe, after all. Where do they fit in? Don't most op-end page writers get paid by somebody? Does being an employee of the Washington Post make you more credible? Truly?

Anyone who is making a particular argument must seem to believe that argument to be true, surely. At least within the context of the article. Why would you trust someone in your second category more than the third?

If an editor will publish an article written by Professor X (who has been paid by Wizbang Inc. to write it), when they wouldn't publish the same article written by a direct employee of Wizbang Inc., then to the degree that there's a problem, isn't it the editor's?

Is it only the secrecy? Say the article's byline said "Professor X is a paid consultant for Wizbang Inc.". What category is it in now? How could you tell? Does an author who receives a salary from a foundation whose funding largely comes from companies like Wizbang Inc. have more or less credibility here?

[Anna Haynes]

Is anyone compiling examples like this, for a test in logical/empirical/epistemological reasoning?

Or is there a compilation already, somewhere? The CIA book (Psychology of Intelligence Analysis at http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/19104/index.html ) is the only reference I'm aware of.
(but my awareness is limited)

[anon]

http://web.mac.com/dogpictures/iWeb/Ask%20a%20Republican/Video%20from%20Seattle%2005/Video%20from%20Seattle%2005.html

[Bruce Webb]

"It all goes better with Coke"

Murray is deliberately blurring the difference between advertising and argument. Probably because he, like many on his side, openly disdain people who stubbornly remain in a "reality based" continuum as opposed to being Historical Actors.

We don't need to invoke Godwin's Law to explain that political and economic ends don't automatically excuse dishonest intellectual means. Rove/Norquist/Murray et al have seemingly lost sight of that and are openly hurt when challenged on the basis that none of what they put forth actually matches that pesky 'reality' thing.

I don't know how many of you were involved in High School or College Debate, where you were expected to develop the skills to argue both sides of any argument, even if the facts were against you. Good training for a criminal defense lawyer, after all even the most ardent Leftist understands that most people arrested by the Pigs with a gun and a bag full of dye stained money just outside a bank missing said money and dye pack is pretty much guilty as hell but deserves a fair trial anyway. But transferring those skills over to policy making is pathological.

A pathology that we have identified as the "K Street Project".

['As You Know' Bob]

Who's paying Murray to write this?

[Charles]

You missed a much better example, Brad. The Washington Post had an article by Yuki Noguchi on vandalism at Wikipedia.

Somehow it managed to miss very sophisticated disinfomation campaigns clearly conducted by right-wingers in favor of focusing on an intern in Marty Meehan's office exceeding her charter, but set that aside for this morsel:

"Both the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, for example, have aborted projects that invited open critiques of their editorial content after being deluged with crude comments."

If by "deluged," you mean "twelve," or if by "crude," you mean "reader corrections of The Post's mendacity," and if by "invited open critiques," you mean "tried to pretend to listen to readers," this could even be true.

[liberal]

tatere wrote, "There are people who are paid to write what they believe, after all. Where do they fit in?"

Someone who is paid to write what he believes _a fortiori_ writes what he believes, which was Brad's category (i).

[Altoid]

Murray seems upset by ad hominems that have the virtue of being accurate. That must be because, as part of the VRWC, he understands the effectiveness of ad hominems.

Carry on.

[Robert Waldmann]

Murray writes

"because the writer has not disclosed information about his income, he is essentially untrustworthy and his opinions should not be given the time of day". This *is* a logical falacy. Of course what we believe is that "because the writer has not disclosed information about his income, he is essentially untrustworthy and he should not be given the time of day" nor should any decent person shake his hand nor any friend of the truth have anything to do with him, for he, having hidden his financial interest is a liar, a sore on the healthy body of debate.

If some disinterested person finds his argument convincing and is willing to restate it (giving him credit for creativity and noting that he is scum). There is no problem. We can debatge with the dissinterested quoter without tainting ourself with contact with the enemy of truth.

It is not dishonorable to argue a client's case for money. However, lying about what one is really doing serves no useful purpose and lies can not serve the quest for truth. There are plenty of hacks who are willing to admit they are hacks. There is no need to accept lying hacks.

[David Nieporent]

I note that all of the posters here have had fun mocking Iain Murray, but nobody here has actually addressed his point.

A superficially valid rebuttal to Iain would have been to point out that opinion pieces generally do wish to establish facts, as part of the process of winning people over to a particular viewpoint or opinion.

A rebuttal to that would be that you should no more believe a fact from a person in categories (i) or (ii) than from a person in category (iii). Writing what one believes is a guarantee of neither accuracy nor honesty.

Consider anonymous opinion pieces. You have no way to distinguish between those written by people in categories (i)-(iii) in those cases. What do you do then? Evaluate them on their merits? Why not do that for all opinion pieces?

[Altoid]

David Nieporent: If Murray's essential point is that cogency of argument is why people read opinion pieces, he's at best one-quarter right. Newspaper (and, for that matter, most blog) opinion pieces matter-- when they matter-- mostly because they carry brands, i.e. the name of the opinion perpetrator. Where the name is lesser-known, as with occasional op-ed writers, the affiliation is the brand.

Payola is a hidden affiliation. It's a cheat on those readers who pay attention to the branding, which is most readers because branding is why they read the pieces in the first place. And, as institutional sponsors have said, it's a cheat on the affiliation if the sponsor doesn't know about the payola.

In other words, to treat brand-name columnists and affiliated op-ed writers as simple purveyors of anonymous argument is just silly. Which is why I made fun of Murray.