A Question from Duncan Black...

He asks:

Eschaton: Creepy Cosmic Thought: Do Brookings and CFR exist to provide employment for the stupidest of our citizens?

I don't know how to answer. I am enough of a Millian liberal to believe that in the long run--except where huge piles of money are deployed on the other side by those with a direct material interest in misinforming or entertaining the public--expertise is rewarded, and experts gain authority, and organizations that want to be perceived as worth listening to focus on ensuring that the people they hold out as experts do in fact have expertise.

I think I understand why this Millian liberal process is short-circuited in the case of modern American journalism: too much money is at stake and too many media outlets are in the horse-race entertainment game rather than in the inform-the-public game.

But neither Brookings nor CFR are in the entertainment game. And both had, I thought, committed themselves to business models in which they were the antitheses of lobbyists rather than just another couple of flacks serving the short-run interest of their donors...

Comments

[bakho]

Don't they get grant money form lobbyists among others?
Don't their members make money from writing books and appearing on TV shows where they shill their books?
Given enough money, any organization can be corrupted.

After the Nixon impeachment, the right wing made a concerted effort to develop its own media and think tanks which compete with Brookings and others. It would not be surprising to see them drift to the right to better protect their turf from right wing competitors. Having competitors like Steven Moore (Club for Growth) spewing nonsense about the auto bailout degrades the whole enterprise and makes mediocre talent seem near-genius by comparison. It also confuses the public and obscures important messages.

[microtherion]

And while we're at it, was the Hoover Institution designed to vacuum up right wing scum?

[Kelly]

"too many media outlets are in the horse-race entertainment game rather than in the inform-the-public game"

How to reconcile that short list of excuses for MSM and the recent article in the NYTimes and other places about NBC "News", in particular Brian Williams and their incestuous relationship with Gen. Barry McCaffrey?
If it were just info-tainment then why stick with him? If it all just the horse race then what difference which "expert" to use? Just pick one that's flashy.
Since they (NBC News) were outed months ago and continue to put these people on as experts even though said expert is controlled by the USG and/or are financially connected to policies they promote then to what would we ascribe the motive?
Similarly, why does FOX adhere to the Republican paradigm?
It just doesn't make sense to explain this as only the midless embrace of American industry does it?

[Dan'l]

In celebrity culture, being known qualifies as expertise enough to opine away. You can think of it as the democratization of publicized opinion (like blogs!), with an edutainment spin. The 24/7 news channels are primary purveyors of this, as it is much cheaper to interview a succession of talking heads than hire actual reporters and researchers. Now it has spread to print journalism, where getting a job through sports, say, creates the opportunity to self-promote into other areas, while enjoying the mantle of expertise to rise above the din. With the explosion in the quantity of material through the Web, editing declines - most newspapers do no editing of their associated blogs.

[Jim Ramsey]

"except where huge piles of money are deployed on the other side by those with a direct material interest in misinforming or entertaining the public--expertise is rewarded"

Oh, like the American Enterprise Institute?

[John Emerson]

There has to be intersecting curves showing when disinformation brings more profit than information. Right now media reality seems to be entirely in the disinformation-profitable quadrant.

As I keep saying, when truth is a commodity, you only get the truth you can afford. If media are free or cheap and subsidized by advertising (or otherwise subsidized), the profitability curve is controlled by advertisers, not readers. Most important American media are free or cheap.

When most people get their information from intellectually-unchallenging media catering to the desire for distraction, titillation, and scandal, the profitibility curve shifts still further away from the truth quadrant.

What do economists have to say about the truth market?

[ogmb]

"except where huge piles of money are deployed on the other side by those with a direct material interest in misinforming or entertaining the public"

a.k.a. the Milton Friedman Institute and The University of Chicago Booth School of Business (f.k.a The University of Chicago Graduate School of Business).

[John Emerson]

"except where huge piles of money are deployed on the other side by those with a direct material interest in misinforming or entertaining the public"

That is, all of the media funded by advertising.

[Fifi]

To Brad and to microtherion, the answers are, respectively, "yes" and "yes".

And, as Atrios himself would say, this has been another edition of of simple answers to simple questions.

[Barry]

Brad: "But neither Brookings nor CFR are in the entertainment game. And both had, I thought, committed themselves to business models in which they were the antitheses of lobbyists rather than just another couple of flacks serving the short-run interest of their donors..."

True, neither is in the entertainment business, but that's far from proving that they have anything to do with truth, or the search for truth.

[Neil B]

Well, is Wikipedia an indication of how "the wisdom of crowds" (managed by a sort of learned council anyway, of course) gets around the problems otherwise developing in intellectual providers?

[Wavey]

Another piece of evidence---Amity Shlaes is employed by the CFR, yes?