The future of opinion journalism

I have a new column at Time.com [Update: link offline -- see here] on The American Prospect's attempt to limit my criticism of liberals on their blog (which caused me to quit) and its implications for the future of opinion journalism. Here's how it begins:

Not that long ago, many people thought the Internet would break down partisan boundaries and improve the quality of political debate in this country -- a prediction that sounds as silly today as previous hype about the educational potential of television and radio.

Today, online politics has come to be dominated by two warring camps, just like offline politics. And while many critics complain about the polarization of the blogosphere and its effect on elections, how blogs will affect the economics of opinion journalism is less well understood. In particular, partisan blogs have become so popular that they are threatening the business model -- and the independence -- of center-left opinion magazines, which may be forced to toe the party line to ensure their survival.

(Read the whole thing.)

Update 9/20 2:45 PM -- Andrew Sullivan comments on the whole episode:

The blog partisanship on the right is often depressing - and boy would I have been fired long ago if I had ever been blogging on a "conservative" site. But the politburo on the left is no better. And to think we once believed the blogosphere could liberate independent thought. Yeah, right. You can now read Brendan, freed from the liberal thought police, at his own blog. Support free thought. They won't.

Update 9/20 3:08 PM -- It turns out that something similar happened to Matt Welch:

In the winter of 2002, the Prospect approached me about becoming a regular media columnist, to which I happily agreed. In January of 2003, my first piece had graduated to the fact-checking process, and then suddenly I was hit with an e-mail informing me that my article, and in fact my services overall, were no longer desired, precisely because of my "off-duty activities." An excerpt:

some of the editors had concerns ... that your affiliation with the soon-to-launch L.A. Examiner ... rather firmly places you on a different part of the political spectrum than the Prospect. Though it's clear to me from reading your writings that you are ... more politically independent than conservative, the increasingly prominant affiliation with [Richard] Riordan has given some of our editors pause.

Seeing as how Prospect Editor-at-Large Meyerson is a key columnist for the L.A. Weekly, and had just the week before written a laughable piece asserting that a newspaper edited by me and the author of this site was going to be "neocon" ... it wasn't hard to guess who "some of the editors" might mean. In subsequent phone conversations, my list of disqualifyingly undesirable "off-duty activities" was expanded to include writing six articles for Reason, and being paid to speak at a single weekend conference hosted by the devilish Institute for Humane Studies. It was also suggested that maybe my politics were drifting Rightward without me even realizing it. These things happen, I was told, and not without some sympathy.

Later still, all that was withdrawn as some kind of terrible misunderstanding; the real reason for parting ways was that my work didn't pass muster. But in the meantime, would I mind not writing about the details of this little communication breakdown?

Update 9/20 9:21 PM -- Bruce Bartlett, who was fired from the National Center for Policy Analysis for writing a book that is critical of President Bush, comments on this post below:

One thing missing from this discussion is that Brendan was a known commodity when TAP hired him. He has a long track record of writing and expressing independent views. Presumably, that's why TAP hired him. For TAP to suddenly discover that he is an independent thinker after hiring him is, at a minimum, evidence of incompetence on TAP's part. I suggest that anyone hired to do blogging for anyone insist upon having a contract that specifies some payment in the event they are suddenly discovered to be consistent in their views.

Update 9/21 6:53 AM: Eugene Volokh points out that the Power Line quote included in the article omits the next two sentences, which state "Hyperbolic? Well, maybe." But it's clear that the author, John Hinderaker, didn't think the claim was hyperbolic; the conclusion actually reinforces the introduction. I've reprinted the full text below (which I previously printed in this post):

It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

Hyperbolic? Well, maybe. But consider Bush's latest master stroke: the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. The pact includes the U.S., Japan, Australia, China, India and South Korea; these six countries account for most of the world's carbon emissions. The treaty is, in essence, a technology transfer agreement. The U.S., Japan and Australia will share advanced pollution control technology, and the pact's members will contribute to a fund that will help implement the technologies. The details are still sketchy and more countries may be admitted to the group later on. The pact's stated goal is to cut production of "greenhouse gases" in half by the end of the century.

What distinguishes this plan from the Kyoto protocol is that it will actually lead to a major reduction in carbon emissions! This substitution of practical impact for well-crafted verbiage stunned and infuriated European observers.

I doubt that the pact will make any difference to the earth's climate, which will be determined, as always, by variations in the energy emitted by the sun. But when the real cause of a phenomenon is inaccessible, it makes people feel better to tinker with something that they can control. Unlike Kyoto, this agreement won't devastate the U.S. economy, and, also unlike Kyoto, the agreement will reduce carbon emissions in the countries where they are now rising most rapidly, India and China. Brilliant.

But I don't suppose President Bush is holding his breath, waiting for the crowd to start applauding.

Hinderaker now claims the post was "tongue-in-cheek" and his fellow blogger Paul Mirengoff argues that my "'sample quote' actually goes further than anything anyone on Power Line has written other than in jest." But I think the post is consistent with the fawning admiration for President Bush that is often expressed on that blog, as in this quote from Hinderaker a few weeks ago:

I had the opportunity this afternoon to be part of a relatively small group who heard President Bush talk, extemporaneously, for around forty minutes. It was an absolutely riveting experience. It was the best I've ever seen him. Not only that; it may have been the best I've ever seen any politician. If I summarized what he said, it would all sound familiar: the difficult times we live in; the threat from Islamic fascism--the phrase drew an enthusiastic round of applause--the universal yearning for freedom; the need to confront evil now, with all the tools at our disposal, so that our children and grandchildren can live in a better and safer world. As he often does, the President structured his comments loosely around a tour of the Oval Office. But the digressions and interpolations were priceless.

The conventional wisdom is that Bush is not a very good speaker. But up close, he is a great communicator, in a way that, in my opinion, Ronald Reagan was not. He was by turns instructive, persuasive, and funny. His persona is very much that of the big brother. Above all, he was impassioned. I have never seen a politician speak so evidently from the heart, about big issues--freedom, most of all.

I've sometimes worried about how President Bush can withstand the Washington snake pit and deal with a daily barrage of hate from the ignorant left that, in my opinion, dwarfs in both volume and injustice the abuse directed against any prior President. (No one accused Lincoln of planning the attack on Fort Sumter.) Not to worry. He is, of course, miles above his mean-spirited liberal critics. More than that, he clearly derives real joy from the opportunity to serve as President and to participate in the great pageant of American history. And he sees himself as anything but a lame duck, which is why he is stumping for Republican candidates around the country.

It was, in short, the most inspiring forty minutes I've experienced in politics.

Update 9/21 7:16 AM -- More reaction: Jonah Goldberg has posted here and here about my article and the controversy, which he wants to call the "Nyhan defenstration." Both he and Stephen Spruiell at the National Review media blog, while generally supportive, question my claim that conservative magazines are typically less heterodox than their left-of-center counterparts. Other reactions: an Andrew Sullivan reader and Max Sawicky.

Update 9/22 6:56 AM -- Eric Alterman responded with a long rant against me and Time, while Atrios linked to this highly substantive response.

Update 9/28/09 10:12 PM: The original column is offline -- here's a link that still works.

Comments

[Jim Treacher]

Damned blogofascists, demanding accuracy from you.

You misspelled "fealty."

I wonder why The American Prospect is allergic to "a pox on both your houses?"

To me, any sane person looking at the political scene could hardly say anything else.

I agree, if every post you write is a finely balanced teeter-totter, that would get old. On my blog, I hit 'em from the right, and just when they start to get comfortable, I hit 'em twice from the left.

[Jason Toon]

Difference is, o nameless one, only one "house" controls the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches at the moment, not to mention the vast majority of the broadcast media.

Interesting that many here hold TAP - a self-described "magazine of liberal ideas" - to a different standard than Fox News, which hides its partisanship behind a facade of objective journalism.

Anyway, TAP doesn't owe Brendan Nyhan or anybody else a soapbox for poorly-stated, ill-considered, petty booger-flicks. If Nyhan had shown half the savvy in his TAPPED posts that he has in spinning his fake martyrdom into publicity, he'd still be writing there.

[Pinko Punko]

Steve, I'm saying that the urban legend bit is irrelevant to the original discussion. If you would like to move the discussion on to something else, such as the correct response in regards to this rumor/hearsay being presented as fact or assumed as fact, that's great. We could also talk about Atrios' cat abuse, this might make him a bad dude, but it isn't what we are talking about now. It is what you are talking about.

As for TAP having to know better about Brendan's "shtick" well, maybe that's a point, but when your punditry becomes contrarian shtick, aren't you just spinning yourself? Are the facts under the spin? Or is there only spin and counterspin? That's how people view the world these days, and Brendan I think falls into that sin bin. You know, when CNN has stories about "will preceptions of torture hurt Bush's poll numbers" as opposed to making a determination of actual torture happening or not, that's a sign that the a-holes are totally and completely in charge, and the "future of opinion journalism" is a shallow, empty husk.

[No Stones Brendan]

Brendan doesn't have the stones to face criticism.

He has banned people here today and deleted their posts for the crime of pointing out his errors, asking why posts were being deleted and using bad language. How long before this comment is deleted?

[Not Dave]

Zacc: You may think your aggressive, over-the-top language may impress your follow commenters, or it may make you feel more empowered, but I can assure no one is impressed, nor are you winning over anyone with your naked immaturity.

Please, grow up. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously.

Baris: Captain Kirk, I consider your security measures a disgrace! In my opinion, you have taken this entire very important project far too lightly.

Kirk: On the contrary, sir, I consider this project to be very important... it is you I take lightly.

[Brendan Nyhan]

I don't care about criticism, but I have always deleted comments that are content-free insults with cursing, gratuitous name-calling, etc. (about me or anyone else). Otherwise the comment threads will turn into a cesspool. The post above is fine.

[Lettuce]

The American Prospect's attempt to limit my criticism of liberals on their blog

It appears that attempt was successful, os it was something more than an "attempt."

I can't imagine why an opinion rganization thought they had the right to decide what opinions they would publish.

At least we can all agree, this ain't no First Amendment issue since the Prospect isn't a branch of the government as far as I can tell.

[Lettuce]

I don't suppose we can get you to quit this blog, too?

I corrected the post the second I realized it was wrong

Took you a good long time to get to that second; in fact, you didn't seem to be on the ball enough to grasp what you were being told at first.

One might call you lazy, but I prefer to think you were in love with your own biases and couldn't imagine at first that you'd so spectacularly screwed the pooch.

IMHO, it would have been nice if you'd taken the high road and simply posted:

Atrios is right, I accused him of something he didn't do.

And then you had shut up about it, your credibility on anything Atrios shot for a good long while.

[Brian]

Jeebus -- some of you people need a hug.

[Melinda Barton]

I'm with Nyhan on this one. Writers make mistakes. Given. We correct those mistakes. Required. This doesn't change the validity of Nyhan's point unless you think an idea is invalidated if you don't think the person defending it has a right to do so (ad hominem, anyone?).

As for false equivalencies, there's a huge difference between stating that the ideologies of the left and right are equivalent and saying that the tactics of extremists on both sides are the same. To accept a tactic when used by one side but not by another is hypocrisy.

Some examples: Accepting our use of torture while condemning it when it's used by our enemies is hypocrisy. Condemning manipulation and distortion of the facts from the right while accepting it from the left is hypocrisy.

Condemning a tactic based on a principled rejection of the tactic regarless of the party making use of it is fundamental ethics. If you are to condemn those who would criticize their own side for an abhorrent tactic as promoting false equivalencies, you must condemn Mohandas Ghandi (who criticized violence on the part of those who were fighting for Indian freedom) and Martin Luther King, Jr. (who criticized extremist strains of the civil rights movement).

I, personally, am far to the left of anything that could be called centrist in this or any country. My work has been an almost steady drumbeat against the right's means, ends, and ideology. One column examining the extremists on the left (intended as part of a series that I'm reluctant to complete for obvious reasons) and I was Atrios' "wanker of the day," "cunt", "bitch", "Jew Dyke", "bigot", "right wing plant" and even an "agent of Cointelpro". I willingly accepted reasonable criticism based on a reasoned misunderstanding or disagreement. I publicly apologized for the fact that the work was not as well-written as it could have been and thus, was easily misinterpreted by well-meaning readers. I engaged and explained as best I could while being screamed down by a vicious net-mob. However, much of the vitriol against my work was based on willing misinterpretations of what I had written by PZ Meyers, Austin Cline, and others.

The cyber-lynching tactics that have become all too prevalent on the net do indeed threaten independent voices, even those who are ideologically far too the left but choose to engage in discourse with reason and principles intact. They also threaten the diversity of opinion that should be present in the best journals of opinion. The threat Nyhan discusses is not that opinion journals will disappear, but that we will have our biases catered to so narrowly that none of us will ever be challenged by differing opinions to assess our ideas clearly and consistently or to promote them in a way that can lead to consensus. If we're only "preaching to the converted," we change nothing. That supports the status quo, not the false "false equivalencies" you condemn.

[Monkey Faced Liberal]

Brendan:

I think you need a new tagline for this post.

"The art and science of politics" is not really appropriate, since your writing demonstrates little understanding of eithier the art or science of politics.

I would suggest this tagline:

Brendan Nyhan

Yet another reason to hate Duke.

Whadda think?

Peace,

Monkey Faced Liberal

[Shorter Rightwing Arseholes]

You gonna delete this comment, too, Brendan?

You are not a liberal. Please stop calling yourself a liberal. You are a Bushite sycophant. Your support of the illegal, unnecessary war of aggression is merely a tacit approval of everything the Cheney administration does, from torture to renditions to illegal wars.

This is YOUR war. I hang it like a burning tire around YOUR neck. May you be haunted by the thousands upon thousands of dead, innocent women and children who's lives you are directly responsible for ending.

Delete that, you wuss.

[MikeSC]

I'm sure Charles Johnson of LGF would be amazed to see leftists differentiating between comments and what a writer writes.

God knows he's been smeared with what his commentators have said for years.
-=Mik

[Craig Schwartz]

ZacC (formerly zac) is either Brendan's mother, best friend or sock puppet. He/she/it always rushes to Brendan's defense whenever the mean lefty bloggers criticize Nyhan.
The Plank is waiting for its newest member.

[Rick]

You people make me scared and ashamed to call myself a liberal. It would seem that being pro-gay rights, pro-choice and in favor of programs that help lift up the less-fortunate wouldn't be enough to qualify since I don't absolutely despise anyone who isn't exactly like me. I hope some of you can eventually step back and look dispassionately at the filth you spew.

[Austin Cline]

That's a pretty serious accusation which Melinda Barton makes. Unfortunately for her, it's not one which she can support. The simple fact remains that she labeled most atheists in the West as "whackjobs" and refused to recant the attack. Everything she has done since has been an effort to dance around and rationalize a long series of petty insults.

[Melinda Barton]

Austin, you would do well to stop there. You were "busted" on your own site for faking a screen capture to cover up the fact that you misquoted me. Not to mention for misrepresenting the content/intent of my article. Your acts were, in fact, so egregious that I was offered the opportunity to file formal libel charges against you with about.com. I chose not to do so, instead opting to handle this my own way... by engaging my readers in an attempt to clarify misconceptions that I PUBLICLY ADMITTED were due in part to my failure to express myself clearly. I NEVER intended to represent "most atheists in the West" as anything, which was expressed in the column, on my blog, and elsewhere. You can choose, in your "omniscience", to assign whatever motivations to me that you want. (Of course, that kind of "impugning motives fallacy" would be beneath anyone who truly wished to "defend" reason. You should try reading my recent post on f*cking for chastity.) The truth is in print for all to see. Continue to libel me and I may change my mind about the formal charges offer.

[Melinda Barton]

Apparently, a minor correction is needed here. You were "busted" on your site for the misrepresentation of me and of Avery Walker's words. (When did "certain" come to mean "all" again?) The hilarious mockery of you and your faked screen capture were elsewhere. I believe on the Raw comments thread.