Atlantic Business Channel

« The Unbearable Lightness of Nassim Taleb | Main | The Other Warren Commission Report »

Apr 9 2009, 9:24 am by Conor Clarke

Summers and Conflict of Interest, Ctd

I'm not especially eager to dive back into the briar patch over Larry Summers' income. But Greg Sargent's piece about big liberal blogs being furious over not getting advertising revenue from liberal interest groups casts the notion of a conflict of interest in an odd light. Several bloggers complained to Sargent that they are often asked to push a group's message but get no advertising revenue in return. In response to the criticism, one of those groups, Americans United for Change, says it will start advertising on the blogs.

But these blogs -- FireDogLake, Daily Kos and others -- almost universally criticized Summers for having a conflict with interest with the hedge fund industry. The argument was that you can't expect Summers to do a good job regulating the industry when he's accepted money from it in the past. (I'm not convinced by that argument, although I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to take.)

But I wonder why the argument about a conflict of interest wouldn't also apply to the blogs. Would they be expected to do a fair job covering the movement from which they receive financial support? I mean that question seriously and not as an attempt to make some gotcha point about the hypocrisy of liberal blogs.

Are there distinctions to be made between the two cases? There are probably good arguments about the societal role of liberal blogs versus the role of Summers, and I am interested to hear them. And I'm sure the positions these blogs take preceded their income from movement groups. On the other hand, I think Larry Summers positions on regulation preceded his earning an income from D.E. Shaw. But that's back into the briar patch...

(H/T to Eugene Volokh, who has a similar question: "I wonder whether it's quite right for authors who publish their own opinion and news commentary to demand a "two way street" in which the authors get advertising money from the people they praise.")

:: Comments (3) :: Share This

Comments (3)

wiredog

I certainly don't expect DailyKos or other blogs to do a "fair job covering the movement" as they were pretty explicitly set up to push the movement. Does anyone expect NRO's "The Corner" to do a fair job of covering the neocons?

Conor Clarke (Replying to: wiredog)

well I think I agree with you. but Kos et al probably think of themselves as doing a "fair job," don't they?

and the second is, would you extend your expectations to Summers? I'm sure he doesn't think of himself as part of "the hedge fund movement" (or whatever), but if there's no evidence that his positions have changed in response to payments, what's the issue?

Lindsay Beyerstein

The big liberal blogs Sargent is talking make no bones about being activists and operatives. They see themselves as members of a larger progressive movement. They openly endorse and fundraise for candidates. They would argue that a movement should support its grassroots activists. Sure there's a potential conflict of interest. Their endorsement decisions might be influenced how much support they get from candidates, but they're upfront about that, too. The think it's a legitimate ideological criterion whether a candidate is committed to a thriving netroots movement.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't concerned about the direction the movement is taking, but I can see where the big blogs are coming from. They're not journalists, they're not public officials, they're activists who are committed to an ethic of mutual assistance. They're explicitly trying to build a progressive counterpart of the Republican noise machine. They don't have to be dispassionate as long as they are transparent. They have to balance competing interests: Their readers, the movement, the Democratic party, viability/profit. As long as we keep those competing demands in mind, we can make an informed choice about whether and how to consume their product.

Whereas, Larry Summers is supposed to represent everyone's interests as Obama's senior economic adviser and we don't get a choice. He's not supposed to be a cheerleader for Wall Street. Yet he accepted tens of thousands of dollars from companies he's going to be regulating as late as the summer of 2008 when everyone knew the Dem nominee would be either Obama or Clinton--it was a safe bet that Summers would be a key player if either of them became president.

If Summers is biased, or appears to be biased, that's a big problem because he's one of the most important public servants in the world.

The reality is the same in both cases, though. When you take money from someone, no matter who you are, you lose a certain amount of independence or perceived independence. Depending on your role, that could be a bigger or lesser problem.