Am I a paid lobbyist?

Nick Confessore’s article in the December Washington Monthly (link via Brad DeLong) is a profile of James K. Glassman and his creation, Tech Central Station (TCS). One highlight: In style and substance, TCS’s content is an intellectual descendent of the rapid-response policy briefs pioneered by conservative think tanks during the 1980s, and as influential: The ...

By , a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast.

Nick Confessore's article in the December Washington Monthly (link via Brad DeLong) is a profile of James K. Glassman and his creation, Tech Central Station (TCS). One highlight:

Nick Confessore’s article in the December Washington Monthly (link via Brad DeLong) is a profile of James K. Glassman and his creation, Tech Central Station (TCS). One highlight:

In style and substance, TCS’s content is an intellectual descendent of the rapid-response policy briefs pioneered by conservative think tanks during the 1980s, and as influential: The site’s articles and contributors have been cited hundreds of times in the mainstream media and reprinted on op-ed pages across the country. TCS brings all of this off with a relatively small staff, drawing on the brainpower of established think tanks rather than housing and paying its own fellows and scholars, and publishing their arguments in its own “magazine” rather than hawking sound-bites to print reporters and columnists. “We can get the word out much more quickly [than a traditional think tank],” says Glassman, “and it’s a lot less expensive not having a lot of bricks and mortar.” If TCS combines all the strengths of a modern advocacy think tank with the reach and accessibility of a successful political magazine, it has succeeded largely by rejecting the conventions that traditionally govern journalism and policy scholarship. Traditional think tanks are organized under the 501(c)(3) section of the tax code and must disclose many details of how they are financed, being–at least in theory–expected to justify their non-profit status with work in the public interest. Even think tanks of an acknowledged ideological bent seek to insulate the work of their scholars and fellows from the specific policy priorities of the businesses or foundations that provide their funding. Likewise, traditional newspapers and magazines, whether for-profit or not, keep a wall between their editorial and business sides; even at magazines of opinion, the political views of writers are presumed to be offered in good faith, uninfluenced by advertisers. Unlike traditional think tanks, Tech Central Station is organized as a limited liability corporation–that is, a for-profit business. As an LLC, there is little Tech Central Station must publicly disclose about itself save for the names and addresses of its owners, and there is no presumption, legal or otherwise, that it exists to serve the public interest. Likewise, rather than traditional advertisers, TCS has what it calls “sponsors,” which are thanked prominently in a section one click away from the front page of the site. (AT&T, ExxonMobil, and Microsoft were early supporters; General Motors, Intel, McDonalds, NASDAQ, National Semiconductor, and Qualcomm, as well as the drug industry trade association, PhRMA, joined during the past year.)

Given that I’ve written a few pieces for Tech Central Station, my thoughts on this:

  • One surprise for me, given that Confessore contributes to Tapped, is that he failed to mention Tech Central Station’s willingness to recruit its ccontributors from the blogosphere. Flipping through the authors, I saw a fair number of bloggers that are TCS contributors — Radley Balko, Joe Katzman, Lynne Kiesling, Arnold Kling, Megan McArdle, Charles Murtaugh, Virginia Postrel, Glenn Reynolds, Rand Simberg, Eugene Volokh, and Matthew Yglesias. I’d like to think that explains part of Tech Central Station’s success.
  • For the record — and contrary to Confessore’s assertion in his story — I’ve never been told by anyone at Tech Central Station to alter the substantive content of my essays to reflect advertiser positions (though, like Matthew Yglesias, I’ve only really dealt with Nick Schulz, who is never mentioned in the story). Indeed, this TCS essay of mine takes a position on intellectual property rights that directly contradicts some of PhRMA’s agenda. Now, obviously, my own predilections on many issues are in keeping with TCS libertarian outlook. On the other hand, that’s why I don’t think about submitting queries to The Nation. For me, the TCS disclaimer that, “the opinions expressed on these pages are solely those of the writers and not necessarily those of any corporation or other organization” holds. This is the experience of Glenn Reynolds and Megan McArdle as well. [Yeah, but aren’t you tempted to change your views to earn hefty fees from publishing in TCS?–ed. Well, no. And even if I was, they pay, but it’s hardly big money]
  • Given my experience, the basis of Confessore’s objections — and those of Chris Bertram at Crooked Timber — are a bit unclear to me. Near the end of the piece, Confessore says:

    [I]t’s only human nature to put more trust in the arguments of seemingly independent observers than those of paid agents of an interested party. And that’s why a journalist willing to launder the arguments of corporations and trade groups would be so valuable. A given argument, coming from such a journalist, would have more impact than precisely the same case articulated by a corporate lobbyist.

    This is undoubtedly true, but only relevant if the journalist published the essay in a venue that was somehow deemed both nonpartisan and authoritative. TCS makes no bones about its origins and general policy preferences (though see this Josh Marshall post for one possible obfuscation). The DC types that are presumably the targets of influence are certainly aware of it. I’m willing to be persuaded that there’s a possible harm here, but I don’t see it at this point.

  • As Confessore himself points out, TCS “runs smartly-written think pieces.” That may be part of the reason its essays travel so well in the mediasphere — the caliber of TCS ideas, as opposed to the source of TCS funding.
  • Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner

    More from Foreign Policy

    Newspapers in Tehran feature on their front page news about the China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore ties, signed in Beijing the previous day, on March, 11 2023.
    Newspapers in Tehran feature on their front page news about the China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore ties, signed in Beijing the previous day, on March, 11 2023.

    Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America

    The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

    Austin and Gallant stand at podiums side by side next to each others' national flags.
    Austin and Gallant stand at podiums side by side next to each others' national flags.

    The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense

    If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin lays flowers at the Moscow Kremlin Wall in the Alexander Garden during an event marking Defender of the Fatherland Day in Moscow.
    Russian President Vladimir Putin lays flowers at the Moscow Kremlin Wall in the Alexander Garden during an event marking Defender of the Fatherland Day in Moscow.

    Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War

    Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

    An Iranian man holds a newspaper reporting the China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore ties, in Tehran on March 11.
    An Iranian man holds a newspaper reporting the China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore ties, in Tehran on March 11.

    How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests

    And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.