Not-so-full disclosure

Good Lord. Romenesko links to this item today, giving it headline treatment and once again ignoring the barrage of similarly themed pieces from the right end of the political spectrum.Every day, conservative and libertarian pundits/critics/bloggers/etc. point out stuff like this, both egregious and not-so. Such right-side criticism is everywhere on the Web, and is certainly far more extensive than its leftist counterpart. Yet Romenesko inexplicably spotlights this lone item directed at an innocuous op-ed in a Boston paper, an item grounded in “five minutes of Googling.”The saddest part is that so many journalists visit Romenesko believing it to be a straight-ahead clearinghouse for “media industry news” and commentary. And so the contemporary media’s fatal march — through the echo chamber, into the cocoon, pick-your-metaphor — goes on.

Its interesting that The Globe didn’t check things out. A very good friend of mine just had a letter to the editor printed by The Globe, but without the Globe calling to verify that she was the actual author. That’s standard procedure at every paper I’ve ever worked at. – David Wilson

Try subscribing to a search for “Evergreen Freedom Foundation” in Google News. You’ll be amazed how often these PR agencies in sheep’s clothing turn up on the editorial page and, even worse, cited as authorative sources in straight news stories with zero mention of their financial backers. I did the same with another “nonpartisan, public policy research organization,” the Heartland Institute, which has been waging “free-market” jihad against municipal-owned wireless. It’s strongly suspected that Heartland receives significant funding from telcom companies. But Heartland won’t disclose its funders. (It is known for a fact, however, that it received funding from tobacco and energy companies while advocating against smoking and environmental regulations).I came across this interesting rationalization for conflicts of interest from Heartland president Joseph Bast in the comments to a blog post:For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland’s corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead. However, critics who couldn’t or wouldn’t engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us. Even reporters from time to time seemed to think reporting the identities of one or two donors–out of a list of hundreds–was a fair way of representing our funding or our motivation in taking the positions expressed in our publications.After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors. If you do not approve of this policy, your argument is not with us but with those who would abuse a sincere effort at transparency. We urge anyone who sees the need for objective research and commentary on public policy issues to join us as a Member or donor.In other words, “It’s unfair to point to our corporate funders, whose ideas are fantabulous but reputations so ghastly that the mere mention of their names derails the debate.” Wonderful.

P.S. If you’re looking for a laugh, check out Roy Edroso’s amusing takedown of an op-ed by chemical industry flack Liz Whelan in the New York Post. Such people are not total hacks — that is to say, while they may be Satan’s emissaries on earth, they do take professional pride in their own work, and add filigrees and flourishes partly to increase effectiveness but also, I believe, out of pure love of craft. For example, there is some obvious merit to the author’s accusations against the sugar barons — among others, that they had hooked up with pure-food types not out of altruism but as a way to fight Splenda’s increasing share of the sweetener market. This is the spoonful of sucralose, so to speak, that helps work down the public’s gullet a larger message: that people who oppose synthetic foods on whatever grounds are anti-technology “chemicalphobes.”Organizations such as this are not about arguing a case, but adding strands to a narrative. Facts may be used as part of the grapeshot, but they are by no means the only or even most important part of the armamature. Painting an investigation of questionable scientific assertions as an inquisition on the order of Galileo’s, for example, lifts the issue out of the debating chamber and into the realm of dreams. You certainly don’t want to side with inquisitors or chemicalphobes. Now eat this chlorinated sugar.

The problem with the individuals who are so incensed that Evergreen Freedom Foundation managed to secure a bit of ink to rebut the NEA’s endorsement of a Wal-Mart boycott is that the incensed individuals don’t know the meaning of the word “nonpartisan.” Hint: it does not mean “neutral.” Dan Miller

…the incensed individuals don’t know the meaning of the word “nonpartisan.” Hint: it does not mean “neutral.”It doesn’t mean “paid representative,” either.

A very good friend of mine just had a letter to the editor printed by The Globe, but without the Globe calling to verify that she was the actual author.The Globe has printed several letters from me in the last couple years* and I don’t remember ever being contacted to confirm. Mind you, I do follow their guidelines and include my street address and phone number below the email, so presumably they at least confirm that I’m a real Massachusetts resident. Or maybe they’ve already got me on file somewhere as a legit correspondent.Regardless, the only way I know whether the Globe prints my letters is by seeing them in the paper. In most cases, the Globe has edited my letters — usually minor grammatical changes, but they’ve also truncated what I sent them — without reviewing those with me either. [If they had, maybe I could’ve prevented them from introducing an error to my last missive.]The fact the Globe edits letters without notifying the sender was probably most prominently spotlighted by the case of Eric Alterman back in February*Aug 2003, June 2004, last month

the incensed individuals don’t know the meaning of the word “nonpartisan.” Hint: it does not mean “neutral.”The issue at hand is not “partisanship,” it’s “transparency.” The only purpose of these outfits (aside from an attempt to present a phony “academic” imprimatur), is to act as cut-outs for their funders who otherwise wouldn’t have any credibility in the debate.The mafia uses the same tactic – laundering its dirty money through supposedly legitimate businesses.

I’ve had a letter to the editor printed recently and was not called either. But I’m a subscriber AND I’m registered with the boston.com/globe web site.

Here you get one questionable description of a think tank — a single word written by a liberal editorial departmentYou’re missing the point entirely. This isn’t about semantics; it’s about disclosure and misrepresentation. I’m not arguing that Wal-Mart shouldn’t appear in the hallowed pages of the librul media, but it shouldn’t be allowed to speak through a sockpuppet. Wal-Mart could have replied under it’s own name. Why didn’t it?Ironically, such behavior is precisely the reason the reputation of companies like Wal-Mart sucks in the first place, and why they attempt to cloak their identity in public debates.

As for the EFF being a “sockpuppet” for Wal-Mart, it looks like the EFF doesn’t have much love for corporate welfare or tax subsidies:State tax exemptions survived this sessionhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/224369_gtax16.htmlPotential agencies and programs to eliminatehttp://www.effwa.org/main/article.php?article_id=801The Boeing contract and the state’s Constitutionhttp://www.effwa.org/main/article.php?article_id=237Hopefully their masters at Wal-Mart are paying attention to the EFF’s actions; EFF must have missed their marching orders.

I’m with Todd – EFF, which I was familiar with when I worked in Seattle, is technically nonpartisan, but of course they’re conservative. They don’t like the NEA in the first place, and they don’t like high spending in Washington State, where most of their energies are directed. The place is based in Olympia, not far from the state capitol building. So I’m having trouble understanding why you’re so peeved – would you demand the same laborious background for an op-ed contributor funded by, say, George Soros? As Seinfeld’s Kramer would say, “He’s a sweet kid!” This stuff is pretty typical, Dan.

Reviewing the info from media transparency, it looks like EFF received funding from the Walton Foundation in 2002. How does a grant from 2002 equate to Wal-Mart (versus Walton Foundation) paying EFF to write the oped from yesterday’s Globe?