The Boy Who Could Change the World

by Aaron Swartz

  But such quibbles aside, the amount of coverage alone was incredible. The book received cover stories in Newsweek (“the science behind [it] is overwhelmingly mainstream”), the New Republic (which dedicated an entire issue to discussion of the book), and the New York Times Book Review (which suggested critics disliked its “appeal to sweet reason” and are “inclined to hang the defendants without a trial”). Detailed articles appeared in Time, the New York Times (“makes a strong case”), the New York Times Magazine, Forbes (praising the book’s “Jeffersonian vision”), the Wall Street Journal, and the National Review. It received a respectful airing on such shows as ABC’s Nightline, PBS’s MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, the McLaughlin Group, Think Tank (which dedicated a special two-part series to the book), ABC’s Prime-Time Live, and NPR’s All Things Considered. With fifteen weeks on the bestseller list, it ended up selling over 300,000 copies in hardcover.*

  Jim Naureckas, “Racism Resurgent,” FAIR.org: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, January 1, 1995.

  This wasn’t just a media debate about the existence of global warming or the merits of internment, this was a full-on media endorsement of racism, which the American Heritage Dictionary defines as “the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.” Nor did the media mention the work’s political intentions. On the contrary, they presented it as the sober work of social scientists: Nightline’s Ted Koppel lamented to Murray about how his “great deal of work and research” had become “a political football.”†

  Ibid.

  Of course, this was almost certainly Murray’s intention all along. In the book proposal for his previous book (Losing Ground, an attack on government welfare programs) he had explained: “Why can a publisher sell this book? Because a huge number of well-meaning whites fear that they are closet racists, and this book tells them they are not. It’s going to make them feel better about things they already think but do not know how to say.”‡ That’s certainly what The Bell Curve did, replacing a debate over how to improve black achievement with one about whether such improvement was even possible.

  Ibid.

  There was just one problem: none of this stuff was accurate. As Professor Michael Nunley wrote in a special issue of the American Behavioral Scientist on The Bell Curve, after a series of scientific articles debunked all the book’s major claims: “I believe this book is a fraud, that its authors must have known it was a fraud when they were writing it, and that Charles Murray must still know it’s a fraud as he goes around defending it. . . . After careful reading, I cannot believe its authors were not acutely aware of . . . how they were distorting the material they did include” (WLM?, 100).

  Spreading Lies: How Think Tanks Ignore the Facts

  http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/shifting4

  June 9, 2006

  Age 19

  But do the right-wing think tanks even care about the facts? In his autobiography, Blinded by the Right, David Brock describes his experience being recruited for one right out of college: “Though I had no advanced degrees, I assumed the grandiose title of John M. Olin Fellow in Congressional Studies, which, if nothing else, certainly impressed my parents. . . . My assignment was to write a monograph, which I hoped to publish as a book, challenging the conservative orthodoxy on the proper relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government.” This topic was chosen, Brock explains, because with “a squish like Bush in the White House . . . the political reality [was] that the conservative agenda could be best advanced by renegade conservatives on Capitol Hill” (79f).

  Needless to say, paying fresh-faced former college students lots of money to write articles that serve political needs is not the best way to get accurate information. But is accurate information the goal? Look at John Lott, a “resident scholar” at the American Enterprise Institute—the same right-wing think tank that promoted The Bell Curve. Lott’s book More Guns, Less Crime claimed that his scientific studies had found that passing laws to allow people to carry concealed weapons actually lowered crime rates. As usual, the evidence melted away upon investigation, but Lott’s errors were more serious than most.

  Not content to simply distort the data, Lott fabricated an entire study which he claimed showed that in 97% of cases, simply brandishing a gun would cause an attacker to flee. When Internet critics began to point out his inconsistencies on this claim, Lott posted responses under the name “Mary Rosh” to defend himself. “I have to say that he was the best professor I ever had,” Lott gushed about himself in one Internet posting. “There were a group of us students who would try to take any class that he taught. Lott finally had to tell us that it was best for us to try and take classes from other professors.”

  Confronted about his alternate identity, Lott told the Washington Post” I probably shouldn’t have done it—I know I shouldn’t have done it.” And yet, the very next day he again attacked his critics, this time under the new pseudonym “Washingtonian.” (It later got so bad that one of Lott’s pseudonyms would start talking about posts from another Lott pseudonym.)*

  Link goes to blog of Tim Lambert on ScienceBlogs.com http://scienceblogs.com/deltold/category/lott/

  Lott, of course, is not the only scholar to make things up to bolster his case. For comparison, look at Michael Bellesiles, author of the anti-gun book Arming America, which argued guns were uncommon in early America. Other scholars investigated and found that Bellesiles had probably fabricated evidence. Emory University, where Bellesiles was a professor of history, began an investigation into the accuracy of his work, eventually forcing him to resign. His publisher, Knopf, pulled the book out of print. Libraries pulled the book off their shelves. Columbia University revoked the Bancroft Prize the book had been awarded. The scandal was widely covered in academic circles. Bellesiles was firmly disgraced and has not shown his face in public since.

  And what happened to Lott? Nothing. Lott remains a “resident scholar” at the American Enterprise Institute, his book continues to sell well, his op-ed pieces are still published in major papers, and he gives talks around the country. For the right-wing scholar, even outright fraud is no serious obstacle.

  Saving Business: The Origins of Right-wing Think Tanks

  http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/shifting5

  June 10, 2006

  Age 19

  Since the goal of these think tanks clearly isn’t to advance knowledge, what are they for? To understand their real goals, we have to look at why they were created. After the tumultuous 1960s led a generation of students to start questioning authority, business decided something had to be done. “The American economic system,” explained Lewis Powell in a 1971 memo for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “is under broad attack” from “perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians.”

  And business has no one to blame but itself for not getting these things under control: the colleges are funded by “contributions from capital funds controlled or generated by American business. The boards of trustees . . . overwhelmingly are composed of men and women who are leaders in the system.” And the media “are owned and theoretically controlled by corporations which depend upon profits, and the enterprise system to survive.” So business must “conduct guerilla warfare” by “establishing a staff of highly qualified scholars” who can be paid to publish a “steady flow of scholarly articles” in magazines and journals as well as books and pamphlets to be published “at airports, drugstores, and elsewhere.”

  William Simon, president of the right-wing Olin Foundation (the same one that later funded Brock), was more blunt: “The only thing that can save the Republican Party . . . is a counter-intelligentsia. . . . [Conservative scholars] must be given grants, grants, and more grants in exchange for books, books, and more books” (Blinded by the Right, 78).

  The Powell memo was incredibly influen
tial. Soon after it was written, business began following its advice, building up its network of think tanks, news outlets, and media pressure groups. These organizations began to dot the landscape, hiding behind respectable names like the Manhattan Institute or the Heartland Foundation. While these institutions were all funded by partisan conservatives, news accounts rarely noted this fact. (Another FAIR study finds the Heritage Foundation’s political orientation—let alone its funding—was only identified in 24% of news citations.)

  As the conservative message machine grew stronger, political debate and electoral results began to shift further and further to the right, eventually allowing extreme conservatives to be elected, first with Ronald Reagan and now with George W. Bush. More recently, conservatives have managed to finally win not only the White House but both houses of Congress. While their policy proposals, when understood, are just as unpopular as ever, conservatives are able to use their media power to twist the debate.

  Hurting Seniors: The Attack on Social Security

  http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/shifting6

  June 11, 2006

  Age 19

  Recent events provide a compelling case study of how this process works. Conservatives have wanted to get rid of Social Security for years. The most successful anti-poverty program in history, it clearly shows how the government can be used to help people—anathema to conservative ideology. Now, with a secure lock on government, is their time to strike. As a White House deputy wrote in a memo that was later leaked, “For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win—and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country.”

  There’s extremely strong public support for Social Security—conservatives could certainly never just come out and say they wanted to end it—so their plan is to deceive the public: First, persuade people that Social Security is facing some sort of crisis and won’t be around for the next generation. Second, convince them to begin replacing Social Security with a privatized version. Privatization, the logic goes, will naturally keep increasing until all of Social Security is eliminated. The only problem is that Social Security isn’t facing a crisis and any form of privatization, which would require both paying out to existing retirees and saving away money for the private accounts of the current generation, would worsen whatever financial problems Social Security does have.

  But think tanks have been preparing for this moment for years, floating privatization plans and doing their best to persuade the media that Social Security was in imminent danger. So when the Bush administration started up their anti–Social Security campaign, the media knew exactly what to say.

  CBS, for example, presented a segment featuring man-on-the-street Tad DeHaven. “I don’t expect to get anything from Social Security, OK?” said young DeHaven. “It’s not going to be there—that’s my assumption.” DeHaven had good reason to say these things: for years, he’s been one of the leading Republican activists in the fight to get rid of Social Security. CBS never mentioned the connection.

  A later CBS report boosted fears that Social Security was going bankrupt by displaying a graphic on the screen that read “2042: Insolvent = 0 benefits??” [sic] (“In 2042, Social Security will become insolvent, and today’s young workers risk losing their benefits,” a voiceover explained.) But this just isn’t true: even the pessimistic Social Security Administration concedes that by 2042 Social Security will be able to pay nearly 80% of scheduled benefits, which is still far more than what it pays out today.

  Other networks were no better. NBC’s report features quotes from Bush saying the system would go “flat bust” and an interview with a Heritage Foundation scholar—identified only as a “Social Security expert”—but allowed no critics to contradict their claims. Meanwhile, an ABC report claimed, “One thing everyone agrees on, the Social Security system as it exists now won’t be able to afford those payments for long after the Wilsons retire.” In fact, it’s quite the opposite: even the most pessimistic predictions say that Social Security will be fine until the Wilsons are statistically dead. Again, no critics got a voice.

  Fighting Back: Responses to the Mainstream Media

  http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/shifting7

  June 15, 2006

  Age 19

  Unlike the conservative media, it does not appear the national media is intentionally partisan. But it exists in a very specific structural context. A recent study found that two-thirds of journalists thought bottom-line pressure was “seriously hurting the quality of news coverage” while around half reported their newsrooms had been cut. 75% of print and 85% of broadcast journalists agreed that “too little attention is paid to complex issues.” When you’re short on staff and stories are shallow, reporters become even more dependent on outside sources—and the right-wing think tanks are more than willing to help out, while further pulling coverage to the right.

  But one obvious solution—creating a matching set of left-wing think tanks—while perhaps helpful in balancing the debate, will not solve the problem. Media norms of balance mean that even qualified experts will always be presented as “just one side of the story,” balanced directly against inaccurate conservatives—recall how the handful of corporate-funded global warming deniers are still balanced against the overwhelming scientific consensus.

  Ideally, viewers would be able to hear both perspectives and decide which they thought was accurate. But since, as the journalists conceded, so little time is spent explaining complex issues, in practice very little information is presented that can help the viewer decide who’s correct. So they’re left to decide based on their existing ideological preferences, further splitting the country into two alternate realities.

  Figuring out what is true—especially when it’s so obvious, as in the examples above—is precisely what the mainstream media should be doing. Partisan pundits would be replaced with thoughtful scholars. Non-peer-reviewed books would be ignored, not endlessly promoted. Scientific facts would be given precedence over political arguments. Political commentary would be replaced by factual education.

  Don’t hold your breath. Six major companies own nearly 90% of all media outlets.* And they—and their advertisers—don’t mind how things are going. Sumner Redstone, CEO of Viacom (Paramount, CBS, Blockbuster, MTV, Comedy Central, etc.), told a group of CEOs that “I look at the election from what’s good for Viacom. I vote for what’s good for Viacom.” And, “from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on.” Better news reporting wouldn’t just be more expensive, it would threaten these business interests.

  Charlene LaVoie, “Media Juggernaut Grows,” The Winsted Voice, April 11, 2003.

  To get the straight story, it’s necessary to turn to independent and community sources which don’t have such conflicts of interest. One possibility is the daily news show Democracy Now!, hosted by Amy Goodman, which is funded only by viewers and foundations. Broadcast on 150 radio stations, 150 television stations, and the Internet, the show presents stories from activists, journalists, authors, and public interest organizations from around the world.

  When outlets from ABC to the New York Times began claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Democracy Now! was one of the few sources to take a contrary view. It presented the testimony of Iraq’s top weapons official, who defected to the U.S. and explained that all the weapons had been destroyed. (Other stations, ironically, parroted the Bush administration in promoting the information he presented about the weapons Iraq had, without mentioning they had been destroyed.)†

  “Top Iraqi Defector Says Iraq Destroyed Its WMDs, but Bush and Blair Continue to Cite Him to Drum Up Support for the War: An Interview with Former Unscom Chair Rolf Eke,” Democracy Now, March 3, 2003.

  And when U.S. soldiers kidnapped Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the democratically elected president of Haiti, and fl
ew him to the Central African Republic, where they locked him in a hotel room, he managed to quietly phone out while armed guards stood outside his door. Democracy Now! was alone in airing his incredible story. When Aristide was finally freed, he insisted on returning to his country, and again Amy Goodman was the only U.S. television journalist who dared to accompany him back.*

  “President Aristide Says ‘I Was Kidnapped’” Democracy Now!, March 1, 2004. [LINK]

  Still, Democracy Now!’s audience is rather small compared to that of the mainstream media. But stories from overseas hint at what could happen if enough people began paying attention to such sources. In South Korea, the country with the highest rate of broadband adoption, politics has been turned upside down by OhmyNews, a five-year-old website. Founded by Oh Yeon Ho, OhmyNews has a feature unlike any other paper: more than 85% of its stories are contributed by readers.

  Almost anyone can write for OhmyNews: the site posts 70% of all stories that are submitted, over 15,000 citizen-reporters have published stories. OhmyNews copyedits their work but tries to leave their differing styles intact. The citizen-reporters write about things they know about and that interest them; together they end up covering most of the traditional spectrum. Yet their new voices end up providing coverage on things which typically get ignored by the mainstream media.†

  Todd Thaker, “OhmyNews a ‘Marriage of Democracy and Technology,” Oh mynews.com, 12-15-2004.