Wednesday, October 10, 2007
NMRC ad hominem attack on Kushnick
My friend Bruce Kushnick's heart is pure, but he is not the most detail-oriented guy in the world. For example, in his recent Nieman Watchdog article on telco-funded think tanks designed to influence public policy, Kushnick says that fifteen presenters at a recent FTC hearing on Network Neutrality "either worked or used to work for the phone or cable companies." He was attempting to marshall evidence that the FTC hearing was biased. But if I had testified, there would have been sixteen -- I was at AT&T for 12 years, but that doesn't make me a friend of the phone company. Elsewhere, Kushnick calls New Jersey's Ratepayer Advocate its "Consumer Advocate." Such minor mistakes make Kushnick an easy target.
Nevertheless, the general thrust of Kushnick's work -- that the think tanks he lists function as PR arms of the phone companies, that the phone companies fund them to advance their views and interests -- is solid.
In contrast, the "research" of the New Millennium Research Council (NMRC), which Kushnick criticizes, is cheesecloth.
The head of the NMRC, Matt Bennett, demanded space from Nieman Watchdog for a response, and posted a response full of ad hominem venom against Kushnick and Glenn Fleishman, a Wi-Fi expert and also a critic of corporate-funded think-tanks. Bennett's first paragraph includes such words as, " . . . incendiary . . . aspersions . . . firmly believe[s] that he alone has a monopoly on truth . . . an unfounded attack based upon his personal disagreements . . . " This tone persists throughout Bennett's piece.
Bennett's response fails to confront Kushnick's basic substantive claims except by invective. It concludes,
One thing is sure. Bruce Kushnick is poor because he is working for what he believes is right, regardless of where the money is.
[Glenn Fleishman rebuts some major points in Bennett's article in its comments section.]
Nevertheless, the general thrust of Kushnick's work -- that the think tanks he lists function as PR arms of the phone companies, that the phone companies fund them to advance their views and interests -- is solid.
In contrast, the "research" of the New Millennium Research Council (NMRC), which Kushnick criticizes, is cheesecloth.
The head of the NMRC, Matt Bennett, demanded space from Nieman Watchdog for a response, and posted a response full of ad hominem venom against Kushnick and Glenn Fleishman, a Wi-Fi expert and also a critic of corporate-funded think-tanks. Bennett's first paragraph includes such words as, " . . . incendiary . . . aspersions . . . firmly believe[s] that he alone has a monopoly on truth . . . an unfounded attack based upon his personal disagreements . . . " This tone persists throughout Bennett's piece.
Bennett's response fails to confront Kushnick's basic substantive claims except by invective. It concludes,
No doubt, at times organizations are paid to say things, and on other occasions organizations are paid because a contributor likes what they are saying. There is a huge difference between these statements that Mr. Kushnick needs to acknowledge. In fact, all the difference in the world lies in that causal chain.But Bennett leaves it to the reader to conclude how NMRC's causal chain is jerked. Do the telcos pay NMRC because NMRC already holds opinions it likes? Or do the telcos pay NMRC to develop opinions it likes? Bennett does not say.
One thing is sure. Bruce Kushnick is poor because he is working for what he believes is right, regardless of where the money is.
[Glenn Fleishman rebuts some major points in Bennett's article in its comments section.]
Technorati Tags: BruceKushnick, Corruption, JunkEconomics
Comments:
Thanks for standing up for us, David. What's fundamentally a problem in Bennett's response is that my so-called attacks were based on documented information, and focused on the issues of transparency. As one very small example, the NMRC/Heartland Institute joint call on the 2005 municipal broadband report didn't mention any funding or other ties. A reporter brought up the issue of telecom funding and got some information. But it wasn't volunteered. By contrast, many independent thinktanks of all political stripes are very open about their funders, and list conflicts of interest in reports. While I don't agree with some positions taken by the PFF, for instance, they do describe their funding and their relationship to the authors whose reports they issue.
Post a Comment
