Jennifer Palmieri Blows It...

This was a mistake on many levels:

A Special Note Re: Third Way: This is Jennifer Palmieri, acting CEO of the Center for American Progess Action Fund.

Most readers know that the views expressed on Matt’s blog are his own and don’t always reflect the views of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Such is the case with regard to Matt’s comments about Third Way. Our institution has partnered with Third Way on a number of important projects - including a homeland security transition project - and have a great deal of respect for their critical thinking and excellent work product. They are key leaders in the progressive movement and we look forward to working with them in the future...

And Angry Sam hits the right note in response:

I believe the post was a typo. It should have read:

Third Way are important power brokers and fund raisers, so we’re really sorry Matt called them out for having no policy proposals of weight or merit.

They don’t even have a softball team. WTF.

I, being a liker of hyper-incrementalist bullshit, like Third Way. But Matt doesn't have to. And Jennifer Palmieri should think very hard about how credibility is attained in retained in the twenty-first century.

Comments

[christofay]

Some days I feel Red Guard rage. This Third Way outfit forgoes the opportunity to print organic cotton t shirts for a softball team. It sounds like they're not wasting time formenting policy, what do they do?

[BJ]

Third Way's "hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit" includes support for the atrocious FISA bill with telecom immunity included.

What's to like about that?

[Ben V-L]

It was a truly bone-headed move for CAP to do that. And yet, Matt Yglesias draws a salary from an organization that has an agenda. Should we be shocked that this happens? Paul Krugman had trouble getting the Times to sign off on the word "liar" (even when it was objectively true). Which is disappointing, but too predictable to lead to outrage.

Matt can make his content just as accessible to the world without editorial restrictions, if he chooses. Just ask Josh Marshall.

[Patrick]

The only way she screwed up was in not recognizing that people on the internet are complete spazzes.

Matthew Yglesias blogs as an essentially professional gig. He does it for an organization that has an official stance on a number of matters. And he has his own editorial freedom in his blogging gig for this organization.

He's lucky that "THE OPINIONS OF THIS BLOG ARE NOT THE OPINIONS OF THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS" isn't emblazoned across the top of his page in a big red banner.

Actually, maybe that SHOULD be there. It would be ignored after a few days, and never spoken of again.

[derrida derider]

I can't see the problem. Yglesias hasn't been censored. He can say what he likes about the organisation's friends, and that's as it should be. But its surely OK for someone else to point out that they are the organisation's friends.

[M. Green]

1. It's one thing to have a standard disclaimer. It's another to have your boss single out a specific post and apologize for it on your own blog. And in a way that makes it very clear that CAPAF's relationship with Third Way is more important than their relationship with their bloggers (and audience).

2. Of course people on the Internet are complete spazzes. Duh. But for better or worse, connecting successfully with "people on the Internet" seems to be an increasingly critical part of the political process. Indeed, CAPAF has spent a lot of money to build their capabilities in this area. If you're going to invest your donors' money into playing this game, you need to have at least a basic understanding of the stakes. Clearly CAPAF doesn't have this, which basically makes this a story about how CAPAF's management is incompetent.

3. It raises lots of issues regarding the independence of bloggers who work for think tanks (or "action funds"). Riffing off of point (1), how seriously should we take the output of bloggers who work for these organizations?

4. This would be less interesting if the CEO of CAP wasn't currently running the Obama transition, and if Jennifer Palmieri wasn't up for an important post.

[Patrick]

1. Not really, to the first sentence. Maybe to the second.

2. This is true, but it doesn't make the people in the comment thread less worthless.

3. No, it doesn't. There is no plausible way in which this is the case. For this to make even a shred of sense, there would have to be some reason to think that Yglesias had been influenced in some way, and there isn't. In fact, the whole point of saying "His opinions aren't our opinions" is to let someone say things his employer doesn't agree with without committing the employer. On the other hand, I'm sure that if Yglesias suddenly decided that gay marriage was a farce, the Iraq War was the best idea EVAR, and that McCain was cheated out of his rightful position as President, then he'd probably be asked to look for employment elsewhere. But that was just as true before this post as it was afterwards.

4. Oh, come on. The vast majority of the spazzes in the comment thread didn't even know that. Even after people posted that in the comment thread, most of them didn't read it and notice.

[M. Green]

Re: 3. Matt's a liberal blogger and no doubt accepts that there will be certain obvious restrictions on his views provided that he works for a liberal outfit (whether it be a magazine or a think tank). If he becomes George Will's evil twin--- or just plain starts lying--- he'll need a new job.

What's wasn't so clear to Matt (I presume) and his readers (definitely) is that Matt had to avoid even the lightest criticism of CAPAF's partners. Even if the criticism was extremely mild and basically true.

Although Matt has made it a point to criticize Third Way once since the incident--- just to make a point--- I can't imagine that he feels as free to do so in the future. And if he values his current job, he'll sure be thinking hard about any given organization's potential ties to CAPAF before he writes about them.

That's all around a bad thing for everyone involved. CAP should either get out of this business, or they should find a way to reassure their partners without involving their bloggers.