A few days ago, I decided not to reply to one of Matt Yglesias’ sillier posts (hey, it happens to everyone – I just seem to find them on his site more often than others), in which he suggests that the mass of American people are sheep; idiots fit only to be led by anointed experts. In his own words:
The reality, of course, is that any major party presidential candidate attracts the votes of millions and millions of people. The overwhelming majority of these people have no idea what they’re talking about. Public ignorance in the United States is massive — and exists on both sides. Ideology aside, the base of either party would be an absolute disaster if put in charge of the country — they wouldn’t have the foggiest idea what to do. That’s why the government is run by professional politicians, professional political operatives, and professional policy analysts, not by random members of the public. It’s like how movies are made by professional filmmakers, not by movie fans.
Now, for some reason, the first thing I thought about when I read that was Clerks. Or the short film “What Are You Having?” that a co-worker of TG’s is showing in West Hollywood this weekend – selected in order to qualify for the Oscars as a short. But don’t go see it – he’s only a temp worker at a nonprofit, not a ‘professional,’ so of course we have to treat his work as suspect. Actually, the worst movies I’ve ever seen – and I’ve seen a lot of bad self-produced drek – were mindless Hollywood fare, made with the utmost in professionalism. Like Torque, Baby Genuises 2, and, of course, Battlefield Earth.
But I felt that I’ve already killed too many electrons dinging Yglesias for the unwise things he says, and was going to let it go.
Until I read this gobsmacking bit of nonsense (via Volokh):
We represent the Historians’ Committee for Fairness, an organization of scholars and professional researchers. Michelle Malkin’s appearance on numerous television and radio shows and her comments during these appearances regarding her book IN DEFENSE OF INTERNMENT represent a blatant violation of professional standards of objectivity and fairness. Malkin is not a historian, and she states that she relied almost exclusively on research conducted or collected by others. Her book, which purports to defend the wartime treatment of Japanese Americans, did not go through peer review before publication.
…
It is irresponsible of your producers to permit Michelle Malkin’s biased presentation of events to go unchallenged as a factual historical presentation. We therefore respectfully demand that you formally apologize to the Japanese Americans who have been slandered by Ms. Malkin’s reckless presentation and invite a reputable historian to present a more even-handed view of the evidence.
Wow. There are just so many things wrong with this, I’m hard-pressed to figure out how to begin.
First, as a disclaimer, let me mention that I think that Malkin’s thesis in her book is a) historically inaccurate as to the threat posed by the Japanese community; b) mistaken in promoting racial profiling as a sound tactic in the defense against terrorism; and c) mistaken in her interpretation of the social context involved in the decision to intern the Japanese.
But as wrong as I think her book may be, I think that the free and open response which her book has garnered – including responses by Eric Muller, blogger at ‘Is That Legal?‘ and one of the signatories of the letter who ought to know better – is the answer to any ‘harm’ which may come from allowing a book written by a non-academic historian to open a discussion of history.
I think that using their professional stature to attempt to coerce media outlets – and, one would assume, readers – into either passing Malkin’s book by or granting equal time to an ‘approved’ responder is the most pernicious kind of nonsense.
And it ties neatly into Yglesias’ naked elitism.
They suggest that “We, the anointed, will tell you – how to run the country, how to live, what to watch, what to read.”
I’ve got a simple response to that: “Fuck Off“.
I made a slightly more complex one a while ago:
The most important thing is actually the simplest, which is that the genius of the American system is that there certainly are experts on game theory, diplomatic history, and policy who have substantive and valuable expertise in these areas.
And they all work for guys like me. Our Congress and our President are typically business men and women, lawyers, rank amateurs when it comes to the hard games that they study so diligently at ENA (Ecole Nationale d’Administration). And that’s a good thing, in fact, it’s a damn good thing.
It is a good thing because the unique power of the United States comes from our willingness to diffuse power down into the ranks – to act in ways outside what a small cadre of mandarins sitting at a capital can envision.
Now Yglesias will reply “but those politicians are professionals! I think it’s OK to give them power!”
And I’ll remind him that they have that power on loan from the women and men of this country who choose to give it to them, and whose choices must be respected.
American politicians don’t go to Little League games or Rotary breakfasts because they like dropped flies or because they miss rubber pancakes and cold sausage. They go because that’s how they show respect for the people who elect them. French politicians preside over parades and large ceremonies; they don’t need to show that respect because they rule without it.
There’s a long discussion to have about how we’re slowly slipping in that direction; I’ll leave it for others for now. But we’re not there yet, and I’ll even provide a theoretical base for my argument. I’ll suggest that formal expertise – proven in solutions to tame problems – is often outweighed by wisdom and judgment in solving wicked ones.
Or have we all forgotten the lesson of Robert McNamara so soon?
[Update: Go check out the self-correcting nature of ‘non peer reviewed’ systems over at Alex Halavais’ place. He tagged Wikipedia with twelve errors; they were corrected within hours.
I can think of three or four history texts that didn’t fare so well…]
While MY has certainly been on a bit of an elitist kick of late, I don’t think your tie-in to the Malkin book follows, AL.
First of all, you use this word to describe what the historians are trying to do: “coerce.”
That, of course, is inaccurate.
The historians are attempting to perform a gateway function, just as the Bar or the AMA do. For various reasons, history isn’t like those professions, so their appeal on those grounds fails. Moreover, it isn’t as effective as their considerable evidence that Malkin is full of crap. That’s why Volokh’s critique is far more cogent than yours, which seems to be a knee-jerk rejection of elitism in general.
As for Matt, he’s right about the ignorance of voters, as illustrated here by a fellow elitist New Yorker. The solution, of course, is more education, which is not what MY puts forth. But our media culture is so debased that a transparent fraud like Malkin has a far easier time getting her repugnant views aired to a mass audience than a solid scholar like Eric Muller.
And that’s whay really ought to trouble you.
My man, when I read books about history, they’d better be solid, which comes from being written by historians and then reviewed by them. I can’t possibly lend my brain to every piece of unverified crap that may happen to be in print, even if strictly logically, just because it’s not verified doesn’t mean it’s crap. I’ve got neither time nor training to verify things myself in every possible area of interest. It’s not a surefire method, but it’s the best a layman can rely on. Malkin certainly doesn’t cut the mustard — she’s a career-making ideologue, not a scientist. God bless her, I wish her well, of course, but to read it? Sorry, I can’t stuff my brain with what can — and in this particular case, is likely — to be agitprop garbage.
“that the mass of American people are sheep; idiots fit only to be led by anointed experts.”
This is by no means surprising. It is the cornerstone of today’s “liberal” ideology.
I am not talking about Liberalism. Leftists are called liberals these days.
Why do I have this headache?
“The Historians’ Committee for Fairness,” that’s supposed to be a take-off on “Handicapper General” or the “Ministry of Truth” or the “Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty,” right?
Or Committee for Public Safety? (Comité de Salut Public)
bq. “The overwhelming majority of these people have no idea what they’re talking about.”
And the overwhelming majority of politicians do? You have got to be kidding me!
praktike –
You know, it’s funny. Most Americans are ignorant if quizzed on policy or history issues; we certainly don’t run the schools the French do (I’m not picking on them, I lived there for a while and that’s the one foreign school system I know anything about).
But somehow those average, uninformed, uninterested people seem to do OK in making decisions pretty often.
We’ve professionalized politics – made it another form of brand marketing – to all of our detriment. But you know, brands rise and fall in no small part because they deliver or don’t deliver on the implicit promises they make.
If the brand managers had the absolute control your article suggests, that wouldn’t happen, would it?
A.L.
To my mind, the point of that article went beyond whether people were informed, to the question of whether what they believe makes any coherent sense whatsoever.
As a collective body, everything tends to work out okay as people cancel each other out.
But what Matt was trying to say — and I admit he did so clumsily, this being MY elitism week — was that the nutbar protesters weren’t likely to be making policy anytime soon, and we’re better for it.
I agree with praktike about MY, and MY’s thesis falls into the “I agree with your conclusion, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to argue for it so poorly.”
On historians, I have to go with AL. I see nothing in academia which makes me think peer-reviewed history is any better than amateur history when the peers select themselves for similar political bias. This is less of a problem in the sciences (and the German language to the contrary) history is NOT a science. But note that in politically sensitive areas of science, climatology comes to mind, there is still a problem. Indeed, even in a field like mathematics has disputes that prestigious prizes and faculty positions are filled along the lines of fashion, rather than worth.
Praktike –
You’re being far too kind to Yglesias in saying that he meant “that the nutbar protesters weren’t likely to be making policy anytime soon, and we’re better for it.”
Why not allow him to have meant what he said?
“…the base of either party would be an absolute disaster if put in charge of the country — they wouldn’t have the foggiest idea what to do.”
A.L.
> I see nothing in academia which makes me think
> peer-reviewed history is any better than amateur
> history when the peers select themselves for similar
> political bias
Any specific illustrations? A for-example or two.
How about Michael Bellesiles’s book on guns in 18th century America that got a lot of praise from peer reviews and awards but was later found by mostly amateurs that he made up almost all of his sources?
On a related note, I ran a Google search for the Historians’ Committe for Fairness and didn’t get a single result. Does anyone find this curious? Unless I missed something they seem to be an ad hoc group that exists solely to combat Malkin’s book.
Checkin Out… wasn’t there some professor who put out a totally fraudulent book about the history of guns in America, and only faced consequences (and then, very reluctantly) because the outcry from the hoi polloi finally got too loud to ignore (no matter how hard they tried)?
IANAA, so perhaps one of my American readers can help here.
Can’t comment on Malkin’s book, don’t even have links to reviews of it (didn’t the Volokh Conspiracy do a critique? Bueller, anyone?) But hearing the professoriate talk about fairness and accuracy is like hearing the New York Times or LA Times whine about the decline of unbiased coverage in America. It’s hard to reply until I stop laughing.
Most of us who have sat in university classes “taught” (more like harrangued) by some of these turkeys totally get the point Oscar is making. A degree and supposed credentials don’t seem to be much guarantee of anything these days, least of all fairness and accuracy.
… and Hei Lun Chan wins an Official Winds of Change.NET Clairvoyance Award. (Applause!)
I clicked on the link and tried to follow to the comments in case someone had asked the obvious question, but the site was loading forever, so, too bad.
The obvious question is, who is this group? That is, when was it made up and for what purpose? Has it been around for a while and can I see what else it did, and what standards it adhered to? And are all the people on this list of scholars actually people who have read Michelle Malkin’s book and have strong specific knowledge in this slice of military history, or not? I didn’t see any names of military historians I recognised offhand, and for something like this I’d be more willing to listen to the opinions of solid writers on the serious business of war than on what may be a pick-up team of liberal academics who want an apology to an approved victim group and an independent voice to go silent.
If someone like Al Nofi (from StrategyPage) went through this in his usual calm, laconic style and said, well she’s wrong here … and here … and – then I’d be impressed. But not by this.
If they were trying to get my respect, running down Michelle Makin – the pure argument ad hominem – was a bad way to start. The loaded, coercive and emotional language doesn’t help either. Nor the guild protection. Eugene Volokh is calling that fairly as far as I can see.
I have no problem with real historians denouncing frauds, for example David Irving. Most people can’t take the time to track down all the references in a big book, so if there are some bogus ones in there, historians should speak. Holocaust denial is just wrong, historians have to say that plainly. This is also true with more palatable messages. There are problems with Stephen E. Ambrose that shouldn’t be ignored because he’s popular. Again, amazing amounts of politically correct nonsense and outdated scholarship gets presented as historical fact on politically charged topics like the crusades. When this happens, real historians (like Jonathan Riley-Smith) have to say plainly what the truth is, or else what are they for? The truth about these things is their business.
Praktike: “The historians are attempting to perform a gateway function, just as the Bar or the AMA do.” My problem is that these people aren’t “the historians,” or anything like the Bar or the AMA as far as I can tell, and they’re talking more like the people who went after Bjorn Lomborg. It seems highly political and not like the proper way to exercise a “gateway” function.
Why am I not talking about the book? Because I haven’t read it. I think the right answer to terror is aggressive and pro-active, not defensive and reactive, so internment and profiling aren’t interesting topics for me.
People trying to use academic credentials to force military history into a politically correct straitjacket – that is more of an issue.
Hei Lun Chan posted before me on this ad-hoc group from nowhere, and did the Google search too. Honours to you, Hei Lun Chan.
Guess I was too wordy. Typing takes time. Things move /fast/ here. 🙂
Look, we’re talking about a very specific book here — Malkin’s — it was exhaustively debunked by two very credible scholars. I don’t care what your experiences are in any classes you had or what kinds of generalizations you want to make about academia.
The specific case here is Malkin. She’s wrong on the facts, she’s been called out on that, and people should be aware of that especially because her ideas are so caustic.
Did these historians choose a poor rhetorical approach in their letter? Absolutely. But it does us no good to have someone like Malkin spreading falsehoods like this.
AL, the context of MY’s post is that he’s been walking around NY seeing convention-goers and protesters. He thinks they’re all looney-tunes, and he’s glad they aren’t in charge, and he doesn’t worry to much about it because he doesn’t think they will be in charge anytime soon. That’s my take and I’m sticking to it.
A.L., if I may interject. I think that the article you’ve been criticizing is poorly written and therefore easy to criticize. But isn’t attacking such an easy target a bit pedantic? A better approach might be either to speculate as to what the author meant to say (thus attempting to compensate for his faulty style on our own), or ask for clarifications. Or maybe simply to ignore the piece altogether.
The main idea (as I understood it) is that the masses — of whatever political color — are basically stupid. Machiavelli would concur; in his Discourses on Titus Livy he has a few curious pages on this. They may indeed not know what to do if put in power. Worse yet, they may actually think they do know what to do. And if allowed to act on their wishes they’ll produce a total disaster, probably starting with war (history has plenty of examples of this.) Fundamentally, MY is right: it is silly to complain about the foolishness of the rank and file (on both ends of the political spectrum, as he points out) for it is to be expected. I think that’s what he is saying there.
And finally, Malkin just doesn’t fit in here: being but another scribbler making a career in the republican “noise machine”, by default she’s about as credible as Coulter (or Michael Moore, if you prefer.) She’s a propagandist. And she’s given air time and promoted precisely because of this. The “Truth Committee” is funny too, but that doesn’t change this fact; fundamentally they’re right. The accusation of elitism is spurious (that is, unless we’re willing to write off the whole concept of scientific method as elitism.)
praktike,
I think the gist of AL’s point is something like this:
It’s fine to criticise Malkin (or anyone) on the basis of factual correctness, or lack thereof.
It’s bogus to criticise Malkin (or anyone) because she wrote a book on historical occurences without being a credentialed historian.
I read the letter in question as leaning much more toward the latter than the former, and so apparently does Volokh (“How to make substantive criticism look like guarding professional turf”).
It’s not about Malkin, period. To discount the flawed assumptions implicit in the “Historians’ Committee for Fairness” letter as “a poor rhetorical approach” is to miss the point.
Checkin Out,
The fact that you seem to think of historians as scientists is a lot more troubling to me than anything Malkin has written, said, or done.
And yeah, what they said about Bellisiles!
HLCh, I’m unfamiliar with this case. But let us provisionally say this example is fine — are cases like that statistically prevalent or are they exceptions? (Scientific presses have been printing an awful lot of stuff for many years — how much of it has turned out to be fraudulent?) And if they are exceptions, then I’m sure you remember that “the exception proves the rule.”
Is the normal scientific process to be discarded wholesale because of occasional failures — not of the process, but of isolated cases of application thereof, of insufficient due diligence? When is it easier to make up sources: when a book is or when it isn’t reviewed by competent people? Yes, experts may fail, of course, but there’s high probability that they won’t. And that’s the best I can hope for in the areas where I cannot for whatever reason do the verification myself.
Anyone can scribble, and there may be many reasons for all kinds of scribbling to be published. Just ’cause it’s in print doesn’t mean it’s good; one has to be critical and selective. Well, I’m belaboring the obvious…
PS. You didn’t get a single result, what of it? I’m not following. What they say is correct regardless of who happened to say it. You can google for “Checkin Out” and find nothing as well, that won’t invalidate the scientific method even though at the moment it’s me who’s arguing in favour of it. All these guys said was that Malkin is not a historian, not a scholar, that her work hasn’t been reviewed and validated by any such people and therefore cannot be assumed competent. That’s correct! They also said that on top of it all, her book actually contains errors — that she herself seems to admit it contains! What is the importance of finding this group via google? If you go to a doctor and he’s got no credentials, no verifiable work history, is unknown to any professionals in the same area of medicine, and in fact turns out to be a journalist by background with an unstated commercial interest in cutting people open, and you can observe a couple of cut-up corpses in the back of the room — would you let him cut you open despite all of this just because the guy who brought these facts to your attention could not be googled onto easily? Facts are facts, it’s irrelevant who brings them up.
Joe, you say, “A degree and supposed credentials don’t seem to be much guarantee of anything these days, least of all fairness and accuracy”
That’s OK as far as it goes. But surely a lack of degree and credentials guarantee even less. That a degree is not necessarily a guarantee doesn’t mean that no degree is.
This Committee asks a legitimate question: why such an unknown entity is being promoted as an expert? Are they deceiving their audience by hyping her as a bona fide scholar while she’s just a politically-beholden hack sponsored by the same political players? They point to some errors too, which is fine: she can respond and prove them wrong — and if she does, they’ll have to shove it. But that won’t remove the question of why she was promoted. Usually you have to prove yourself first. First, PhD, then tenure. First credibility, then access to the media. Not the other way around. I see nothing wrong with broaching these questions.
Lewy14, I’m curious, you seem to suggest that historians are not scientists. Why, may I ask, could you explain.
Armed Liberal, two things:
1) Do you have a link which demonstrates that those intentional errors put into Wikipedia were corrected within hours? I don’t doubt that it’s true, but I’d like to see that documented. If you have that, could you drop me a note about it? Thanks.
2) I don’t have the motivation to write about this at length, but I’ve written about this before and likely will again. In short, there was a long period of time in this country when “conservatives” were generally cranky people who were sure the unwashed masses were too stupid for their own good. They tended to utter such sentiments most often when they were not in power.
Lo and behold, while they certainly don’t get everything they want whenever they want it (the system simply won’t allow for that, which is why it works), the people we think of as “the right” (mostly a motley crue of libertarians, classical liberals, traditionalists, and social conservatives) are pretty well dominant–and all of a sudden the old line left is beginning increasingly to sound like surly, grumpy conservatives who think the world’s going to Hell in a handbasket and the unwashed masses are just too slack-jawed stupid to trust.
Funny, huh?
My ongoing warcry for a while now has been that “the left is no longer liberal,” and I stand by that. They’ve become mean-spirited, reactionary, and far too often they don’t have ideas so much as irritable mental gesture that seek to resemble ideas (which is how John Stuart Mill used to describe conservatives).
The left needs to reassemble itself. It’s become an incoherent mess. I’d love to be part of that, I really do, as I’m no conservative at heart. But what can be done? Where to start?
Lewy14, I’m curious, you seem to suggest that historians are not scientists. Why, may I ask, could you explain.
That was Kirk, not me, but I’ll bite anyway. Last I checked, History was not in the Science department, but the Humanities. There is a debate about whether Social Science deserves the name, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. And the postmodern techniques applied within History departments these days are derived from literary criticism, not the sciences.
I think the conventional wisdom holds that history is not a science, and the burden is on you to explain why it is. (Although I’d grant you that some aspects of Popper and the idea of paradigm shift may play an analagous role in the field, something worth exploring).
Science is overrated anyway. I’m an engineer.
Malkin has attacked an entrenched idea of elite (mostly leftist) academic historians, that internment wasn’t solely and irrationally driven by racism. The response is predictable. Instead of attacking her work, they engage in simplistic ad hominems. It’s revealing that they think so poorly of their audience that they believe this approach is persuasive. If Malkin’s work is poor, let them demonstrate it with their own scholarly writing. Isn’t this their job? Instead of bitching and moaning, shouldn’t they do it?
(As an aside, did these historians protest when Chomsky moved from linguistics to opine on history and political philosophy? Did they request “equal airtime” to rebut Chomsky’s more outrageous charges? If not, why not?)
The defense that history is like science and thus requires experts is controversial. It’s not clear that history is like science at all. (Indeed, if it was, one might expect alot more agreement in the field than exists.) The view that history can be objectively discerned is not a view that has fared well in most humanities departments, as far as I know. So the claim that we need “expert” historians to interpret history for us benighted non-experts is unsupported.
In my view, part of the strength and vivacity of America is its citizens’ distrust of authority and the reliance on independant judgment. (Go to the Patent Office and check out the percentage of patents filed by individual inventors vs. large institutions; compare American stats to European stats on this point.)
Attempts by elites (left and right) to impugn or degrade this irreverent attitude should be met with scorn.
Instead of attacking her work, they engage in simplistic ad hominems.
Actually, that isn’t accurate. Muller has pretty much issued a point-by-point refutation of the book.
praktike,
I disagree. While the press release does offer some cursory counter-arguments, it consists mostly of an appeal to authority and ad hominem: “Malkin isn’t a reputable historian, and her work has been rejected by lots of other important people”. (I don’t really care how many important people disagree with her, and neither should you.) The time these historians spent drafting this drivel could have been used to refute her work.
Of course, that would take some effort, and it seems these comfortable elites would rather we take their word for it; saves them the trouble of doing their job and us the trouble of thinking for ourselves.
A couple of responses:
Praktike –
Checkin Out –
Mark –
A.L.
Let me be clear, because I think there is some confusion.
1. The press release is bad, for the reasons Volokh states.
2. The scholar most associated with this story — Eric Muller — has exhaustively refuted Malkin’s book and identified numerous instances rank dishonesty and shoddy history. He did not do so in the press release, he did so in painstaking detail on his site.
3. I am losing faith in this “free marketplace of ideas” because Malkin has been discredited, yet certain media outlets are still carrying her when by any normal standard they should be ashamed to be associated with her. Like I said, history is far more difficult to “professionalize” than other disciplines such as law, but there remains room for an informal gatekeeping function. That’s what these professors are clumsily attempting to exercise; nowhere are they trying to “coerce” anyone.
4. The context of Yglesias post is that he has been walking around NY all week and writing about it, on his website. I won’t defend all of his remarks, but I will say that AL is choosing to misunderstand what MY means by focusing on one or two sentences. His prerogative.
I’m a scientist (biologist), and have been engaged on both sides of peer-review, as reviewer and reviewee.
IMO, Peer-review is an excellent idea, and leads to higher-quality research publications. It might help to talk more specifically about what the process entails, at least as it’s understood in the hard sciences.
Authors (or a sole author) submit a manuscript (text and figures) to the Editor of the most prestigious of the journals in the field that they think might accept the work, based on its strength, comprehensiveness, and subject.
The Editor scans the MS and either:
–Rejects it out of hand as irrelevant or weak; or
–Sends it along to 2 or 3 expert reviewers for their opinions.
Each of the reviewers spends a few hours reading the MS carefully, and submits a page-long review and a rating back to the Editor. Almost always, reviewers make suggestions to ‘improve’ the MS.
The Editor reviews the reviews and sends a form letter back to the lead author:
–“Sorry, wunnerful work but unsuited to our journal”;
–“Major weaknesses, fix ’em if you can and resubmit some day if you want”;
–“Reviewers found some problems, address ’em and we’ll publish the revised MS”;
–(rarely) “Fantastic MS, in it goes.”
You can see from this outline what the peer-review process can and can’t accomplish. Some of my typical comments:
–“Figure 2 lacks error bars, and the Y-axis scale appears to be incorrect”
–“Statements in the Results section are speculative, and should be identified as such and moved to the Discussion”
–“The authors must be more cautious in interpreting how these test-tube results on mouse cells could be applied to therapies for humans”
–“The work of Katzman et al (2002) must be referenced and discussed.”
You can see why peer-review is unsuited to detect fraud, or to settle large controversies. Reviewers lack the time and the resources to adjudicate such matters. Instead, cheating is usually revealed when competing labs can’t duplicate results, or when suspicious co-workers speak out. Larger controversies get “settled” over years, by the weight of accumulated evidence.
If peer-review doesn’t resolve these issues in the physical sciences, I see no reason why it should be expected to do so in the social sciences. Instapundit’s archives provide many entrees into the Bellesiles / Guns-in-Colonial-America controversy/fraud that’s already come up. The shortcomings of some of Steven Ambrose’s work has also been mentioned (also not uncovered by peer review).
Perhaps more relevant to the Malkin book are the right-wing criticisms of standard leftist history publications. “Here, Daniel Flynn slams Howard Zinn’s popular ‘A People’s History of the United States’ for factual misrepresentations.”:http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8145 Zinn is a mainstream historian; his book presumably went through the standard peer-review vetting. “This interview”:http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10932 with historians Haynes and Klehr discusses their fascinating book ‘In Denial,’ a damning scholarly documentation of the misrepresentation of the record of the US Communist Party by mainstream American historians (in mainstream, peer-reviewed historical journals).
Jeez, this thread moves fast and is now well beyond “peer review” as it might concern Malkin. However, FWIW, I hope my thumbnail description of the actual process adds to the skepticism of the ad-hoc anti-Malkin committee’s Appeal to Authority. In contrast to Eugene Volokh’s arguments on the facts and their merits that praktike described.
I am losing faith in this “free marketplace of ideas” because Malkin has been discredited, yet certain media outlets are still carrying her when by any normal standard they should be ashamed to be associated with her.
No disagreement on Malkin, praktike, but I’d point out that it took a LONG time (a couple of years of carping from the “amateur” Clayton Cramer and his friends) for “professional” historians to dissociate themselves from Belliles, and good ol’ Chomsky still has both his tenured position and the occasional media appearance, when “by any normal standard” he should have been forced to get a real job a long time ago.
So I’m having a hard time seeing how the free market is doing worse than the oh-so-respectable professional gatekeepers.
praktike,
It’s not at all clear that Malkin’s theory has been conclusively refuted, whatever this means in the context of academic history. If you want to make this argument you are going to need to do more than rely on an authority.
Your dismay should properly be directed at poor intellectual talents of journalists, not at the “free marketplace of ideas”. Why bother having debates with slobs like us if we’re so unable to see through Malkin’s shoddy work?
I think some of us are having problems accepting that there is any value in academic “gatekeeping”, at least in the context of the humanities departments of Western univiersities. As others have noted, this gatekeeping often comes down to asking “Do you have the proper bias? Are you saying anything offensive about group X? Are you a member of our elite class?”
Mark (4:46pm),
I hope my lengthy diatribe (4:42pm) demonstrates that, as currently practiced in my corner of the physical sciences, peer review does not (IMO) serve illegitimate gatekeeper functions (proper bias? anything offensive? member of the elite?).
Even if the desirable traits of peer-review could fully map to the social sciences, count me as skeptical that it would greatly help “solve” cases like Malkin’s, or Zinn’s.
Do we “solve” the problem of “bad history books” by preventing their publication, by seeing lots of negative reviews published in academic history journals and the MSM, or by having Google show lots of brickbats near the top of the ranking when the title is the search term?
Bloggers–not to mention commenters–should opine carefully on this one! Glass houses and stones, and all that.
It’s not at all clear that Malkin’s theory has been conclusively refuted, whatever this means in the context of academic history. If you want to make this argument you are going to need to do more than rely on an authority.
Well, I read all of the criticisms of the book on Muller’s site, and I read Malkin’s responses, and I agreed that Malkin was wrong. If it’s not clear to you that Malkin has been discredited, then you and I will have trouble seeing eye to eye on much of anything.
Your dismay should properly be directed at poor intellectual talents of journalists, not at the “free marketplace of ideas”.
I’m saying that there is, in fact, no free marketplace of ideas.
Why bother having debates with slobs like us if we’re so unable to see through Malkin’s shoddy work?
Well, if Muller can’t convince you that I can’t. Sorry.
I think some of us are having problems accepting that there is any value in academic “gatekeeping”, at least in the context of the humanities departments of Western univiersities. As others have noted, this gatekeeping often comes down to asking “Do you have the proper bias? Are you saying anything offensive about group X? Are you a member of our elite class?”
Either Malkin has her facts right, or she doesn’t. Reading Muller, I’m convinced that Malkin is misrepresenting the historical record. I don’t see what claims of bias have to do with this.
Lewy14,
> That was Kirk, not me, but I’ll bite anyway.
Oh, sorry :-). And thanks for taking a stab at it. I will readily concede that history is not a hard science. But it is still done according to stated methodologies, logically, and objectively (as much as possible.) All of which can be verified. Yes, the methodologies and conclusions can be questioned, but it is still possible to make sure the guy did a bona-fide research: for example that he did not manufacture his sources, and that his logic is sound, and that his conclusions — however controversial — are actually based on these good sources and sound logic, rather than made up, say, in order to serve some ideological agenda.
History may not be a hard science, but the fundamental attributes of the scientific method are still fully applicable; yes, the degree of certainty achievable in history is lesser than that of physics, yet still the difference between “hard” and “soft” sciences is one of degree: after all, like you seem to believe yourself, even “hard” sciences do not give us a 100% certainty; any knowledge is statistical by definition. But for the purposes of this discussion none of this matters, and we can very well disregard the hard/soft-science differences.
Mark:
> The view that history can be objectively discerned is
> not a view that has fared well
The researcher’s methods and expertise is what is at issue here, not the degree of objectivity that history allows. Iow, it is possible to repeat and verify a historian’s work. That’s all. I’m not arguing that history (as compared to the quality of a researcher’s work) can be established with full certainty. No science can give us a 100% certainty, btw — physics included. Sooner or later any science hits uncertainty, probability, and statistics; even in hard sciences there’s no agreement (Einstein had a problem with quantum mechanics, remember?)
> I disagree. While the press release does offer some
> cursory counter-arguments, it consists mostly of an
> appeal to authority and ad hominem: “Malkin isn’t a
> reputable historian, and her work has been rejected by
> lots of other important people”. … The time these
> historians spent drafting this drivel could have been
> used to refute her work.
First, they did refute her work, and she seems to agree with at least some of the criticism. Second, if you read their statement carefully and avoid engaging in the subtle art of selective quotation you will see that they do not suggest her work must be invalid because she’s not a reputable specialist.
Here’s what they say actually when quoted meaningfully: “Michelle Malkin’s appearance on numerous television and radio shows and her comments during these appearances regarding her book (…) represent a blatant violation [blah-blah[ Malkin is not a historian (…) It is irresponsible of your producers to permit Michelle Malkin’s biased presentation of events to go unchallenged as a factual historical presentation. We therefore respectfully demand that you [the producers, not Malkin] formally apologize [to your audience] (…) and invite a reputable historian to present a more even-handed view of the evidence.”
They are not addressing Malkin here — neither do they address the viewers. They’re questioning the media outlet that promotes her and are asking for an opportunity to debunk her findings. Which is fair — especially since Malkin is not a historian (but not purely because of this.)
They may be right or wrong about specific errors they ascribe to Malkin’s work — this is to be established in debate (hopefully among the competent.) But this is not what the letter’s about: the letter is about a media outlet’s pushing a priori questionable (no credentials, no reviews) information w/o bothering to verify it (which could be done either via peer reviews, or open debate with such peers.) In terms of historical science, Malkin is, at best, an unknown quantity (they do say she’s no good, but it’s not an ad hominem: they do say why — in this case not in order to attack Malkin, but to explain why they question her media appearances. They don’t say shut her up: they say, she’s not an authority and ask for a chance to debate her ideas.) Not a darn thing wrong with that.
Now, it may very well be that Malkin is right and the Committee wrong — fine, let us have a debate and find out. But dont’ feed your audience agitprop disguised as science, says the “The Historians’ Committee for Fairness” — and all of this is eminently fair; indeed they should have invited someone else to participate in the show (in fact, not only did they neglect this, they had deliberately prevented this kind of debate from taking place: Eric writes (from the same page, http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2004_08_29_isthatlegal_archive.html#109404158526053875) :
“Life on a Fox News Farm Team
I was booked this morning to go on Michael Smerconish’s radio program on WPHT radio in Philadelphia, right after a segment he did with Michelle Malkin, to rebut her claims about the Japanese American internment. [so far so good] I listened, on hold on the telephone, as Michelle did her fifteen minutes (…) The interview with Malkin closed (…) Then the show hung up on me.”
Iow, there’s a justified suspiscion that, knowing that “Eric” disagrees with Malkin, they did not let him present his views.
A.L.:
> I’ll suggest that while Machievelli is a useful read,
> the political structure of America (..) is far
> different than that of the Italian principiates, and
> that valid political insights into how best to run a
> aristocracy have limited value in deciding how best to
> run a Republic.
He’d worked under both a principate (under Medici) and a republic. And while you’re right about differences — and strictly, everything is different from everything else — I would also argue that there are many commonalities that can be derived from even different things by extracting the relevant and abstracting from the rest. Moreover, M doesn’t write about any specific system(s) per se: he covers many, and talks about his views on politics in general — as they apply to different systems; his is not a work on republics, or monarchies: on the opposite, he’s dealing with universal human values as they apply to any of them — and that’s why his work is still valuable.
praktike,
You’re still not making arguments. You’re simply claiming that you agree with an alleged authority figure. I’m happy for you. But I find this considerably less persuasive than you seem to think I should. Tell us why you think Muller’s position is more tenable than Malkin’s or just admit that you are relying on Muller’s authority (and we should rely on yours) and be done with it
Perhaps this is why we’re having a problem: you think Muller’s authority counts for something, and, thus, his position as a gatekeeper should be respected. I’m suspicious of academic authority figures of university humanities departments because I think their claims to objectivity conceal biased elitism.
“I’m saying that there is, in fact, no free marketplace of ideas.”
You’ll have to flesh this out a bit. Are we struggling in a Chomskyesque media-created illusion? Or is it more like a traditional marxist false consciousness? If we are not free to arbitrate between good and bad ideas using the free marketplace approach, how come you are free to discern your controversial thesis? If you used another truth-seeking process to come up with your “no-free marketplace” idea, why not tell us what it is and rid us of our ignorance?
Blogger/Professor Eric Muller has compiled his and Robinsons’ rebuttals (~18 pages’ worth) of Malkin from his and Volokh’s blogs “here.”:http://www.isthatlegal.org/Muller_and_Robinson_on_Malkin.html
From an initial read, it seems like many of Muller’s issues with Malkin are about the historical record, specifically on MAGIC decrypts, and the 1942 attitudes of white Americans towards the Nisei, as shown by contemporary documents (newspapers, etc.). Disagreements about interpretations follow because Muller/Robinson and Malkin don’t agree about so many underlying facts.
Perhaps one useful narrowing of the focus could be from general issues (e.g. “peer review”) to specific ones, in this case, “fact checking.” Is this a required part of publishing a book? Do publishers or editors of authors of non-fiction employ fact-checkers? Should they as a matter of course, or issue a disclaimer? Or is non-fiction publishing just blogging writ large, caveat lector?
I recall the New Yorker, which prides (prided?) itself on its fact-checking department, has gotten into some disputes on this point regarding some of its more contentious articles.
Checkin out,
I disagree that the Committee refuted her work. Feel free to argue (argue mind you, not simply assert) that they did refute it. Note: appealing to the authority of historian A or B is not persuasive.
The Committee chose to attack Malkin personally, and that her work suffers because of her lack of credentials. There is no other reason for suggesting she is not a “reputable historian”.
Your attempt to isolate methodology & expertise from objectivity is untenable. The three concepts are closely related and you have not suitably explained how they interact. You seem to have chosen to focus on verifiability to establish that historians can be like scientists. But it is not clear that “verifiability” is the appropirate basis for science. (See Ayer or Karnap’s work on this if you like.) Also, it is not clear that the conclusions of historical studies are verifiable in the same way as physics (and not just to the same degree). Do historians experiment like scientists? Do the “facts” marxist historians use in their analysis count as “facts” for a non-marxist? Are facts underdetermined by theory? If not, what meta-theory are you using to decide between facts and non-facts?
As you probably know, all of these issues appear in any first year history text, so I’m not sure why your characterization of academic history ignores them.
Mark (6:50pm) wrote:
I disagree that the Committee refuted her work.
I don’t know about “the Committee,” but one of the signers of the letters, Eric Muller, has compiled his critiques of Malkin’s book “here.”:http://www.isthatlegal.org/Muller_and_Robinson_on_Malkin.html
I am only through page 4 of my 18-page printout, but this is not a refutation to take lightly. Muller is citing and documenting errors of fact and of interpretation, not making appeals to authority.
Thus, I would like to know what you make of the Muller and Robinson (and similarly linked) challenges to Malkin’s thesis. They seem to undercut the line of your argument.
AMac,
I applaud your diligence. If you decide, after reading through the debate between Malkin and Muller, that one is more coherent, truthful, consistent than the other, then feel free to repost your thoughts. Perhaps I’ll do the same and we’ll have an interesting discussion. Which is more than what praktike and Checkin Out have done; both have said the Committee conclusively refutes Malkin’s work. All I’ve done is dispute their reasoning, which, so far, consists of nothing more than bare assertions, with some suggestions that we should trust these historians because they are gatekeepers and/or like scientists, and we are not.
Mark:
Eric Muller is on the list of this Committee. Now, if you disagree with his argument, that’s fine, no problem, but he is on the committee and he — and therefore they — did issue a refutation (though not in the letter itself): where do you see a problem? I have a hard time following your thought here.
> The Committee chose to attack Malkin personally
Where do they attack Malkin personally? A personal attack (ad hominem) would go something like that: “Malkin’s a whore and therefore her book’s not good.” But to say that Malkin is not a reputable historian is not a personal attack: it’s a statement of a relevant fact rather. Not every critical statement about a person is a personal attack, did you know that? It only becomes an ad hominem when it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand.
> Your attempt to isolate methodology & expertise from
> objectivity
I’ve attempted nothing of the kind. What I’ve said is that ascertaining the quality of a researcher’s work is separate from achieving scientific knowledge with certainty. A very good, verifiable research can very well result in uncertain, tentative scientific knowledge — there’s no contradiction here. You seem to conflate the two together by implying that since historal record cannot always be established absolutely objectively we should also not worry about the quality of historical research. Not so.
> See Ayer or Karnap’s work
LOL. We will not get into Carnap here — first because based on what you’ve posted so far I don’t believe you know Carnap from a hole in the wall 🙂 (I do appreciate your attempt to impress the reader by injecting something “smart” -sounding in your post though; while not good enough for “elitist” bastards, it could impress a dittohead), but even moreso because it’s irrelevant to the discussion. What’s relevant is: Whether someone did a bona-fide job (in any area, really) can surely be verified, and it just so happens that Malkin’s a hired scribbler with no scientific background whose book hasn’t been exposed to the normal scholarly publishing process — none of which means that her book must be bad, but all of which means that she’s not automatically credible, and that it is at best irresponsibe for a media outlet to force her on the audience w/o prior (or any) critical exposure (and I’ll drop it at that.)
PS. Btw, the whole argument on this page is not about the book — I’m surprised it’s not obvious to you. I dont want to get into an argument about whether the book is good or not, or whether anyone has conclusively shown which it is.
The thread is about the fact that Malkin’s an unknown quantity and that a discussion of her work is legitimate and necessary; it’s also about the propensity of certain media outlets toward spreading propaganda under the guise of scientific research; it’s about the right of response that this group of historians — who surely aren’t any less qualified than Malkin here — are asking for.
Even if Malkin were a fully credentialled, reputable historian, fundamentally this would change nothing — it would still be quite all right to analyze her writing, criticize it, and so on (even if it were peer-reviewed); it is also about the duty of the media to inform rather than misinform, which implies that whatever they report must be credible.
Malkin-the-journalist posturing as a historian is not credible (which doesn’t mean she’s necessarily wrong); her work needs to be discussed and evaluated; the Committee asks for a chance to do just that, and also questions the motives of this media organization who not only gave Malkin exposure before such a discussion could took place, but seem to deliberately avoid it.
Mark:
> praktike and Checkin Out … both have said the
> Committee conclusively refutes Malkin’s work.
Where did I say “conclusively”? You’re putting words in my mouth, I’m afraid…
“But to say that Malkin is not a reputable historian is not a personal attack: it’s a statement of a relevant fact rather.”
I disagree. The reason the Committee claims that Malkin is not a “reputable historian” is to discredit her work without addressing its merits. This is an ad hominem. It is a fallacy because even if Malkin is not a reputable historian, her arguments may still be correct. It’s there soley to trick us into believing the Committee rather than Malkin about the credibility of her work.
You and I are apparently using “refute” in a different manner. I understand it to mean “to prove that a person’s work or statement is wrong”. The Committee did no such thing. A Committee member, Muller, posted a response to Malkin, which you claim proves that her work is wrong. The basis for your claim is an appeal to authority (Muller is an important person/reputable historian/great guy). I deny that this is sound reasoning.
“What I’ve said is that ascertaining the quality of a researcher’s work is separate from achieving scientific knowledge with certainty.”
This is a recharacterization of what you claimed earlier. Earlier, you claimed that it was possible to repeat and verify a historian’s work. This is what made it like science (science is uncertain too, etc.). I disputed your claim that verification and repetition make historical studies like science. You failed to address this issue; in particular, you failed to grapple with the difficult problems of fact & theory in historical analysis. I suspect this is because once the “verification/repetition” basis with which to distinguish “good” historical analysis from “bad”, the Committee looks more like fatuous elitists than experts. We’d then have to ask why these historians are trying to exclude Malkin from their ranks – something you’d rather not do.
“Whether someone did a bona-fide job (in any area, really) can surely be verified, and it just so happens that Malkin’s a hired scribbler with no scientific background whose book hasn’t been exposed to the normal scholarly publishing process … all of which means that she’s not automatically credible, and that it is at best irresponsibe for a media outlet to force her on the audience w/o prior (or any) critical exposure (and I’ll drop it at that.)”
Is this really the case? Can we verify that a poet has done a bona-fide job? An artist? A sociologist? A philosopher? A political theorist? A historian?
Look, either Malkin’s personal status (hired scribbler, journalist, reputable historian, etc) is relevant to the truth or falsity of her position or it is not. If it is, tell us why, otherwise we can rightly claim that you and the Committee are just spouting ad hominems.
Finally, I’m not sure why it is dangerous, in your view, for people to listen to someone who is not “automatically credible” by your measure. What is your fear, exactly? Aren’t we entitled to decide for ourselves? As brilliant as you may be, I find myself asking why I should cede my meagre ability for independant thought to you or the Committee.
> with some suggestions that we should trust these
> historians because they are gatekeepers and/or like
> scientists, and we are not.
That, too, is not something I’ve ever suggested — where do you get all this stuff you ascribe to Praktike and me?
What we should do is, first and foremost, let these scientists speak — and only then, having heard everyone out, decide for ourselves. Which we cannot do so long as the media pushes Malkin alone and keeps everyone else silent. It’s not that you should trust these historians, it’s that you should not automatically trust the Malkin-only version.
That’s why we use the adversary system in courts where all sides take turns pleading their case; when they have spoken, the jury will make their decision based on what they’ve heard. Whereas what you seem to be advocating is letting only one side speak, while shutting up everyone else under a phoney pretext that, well, that they’re “elitist” or no good in some other way… (which is precisely what ad hominem is, btw: elitist or not, who cares, it’s irrelevant: Malkin has spoken, now let us hear what the others have to say.)
I agree that the tone taken by the letter is unhelpful. Whenever people (well, Americans—I feel this is an American trait) are told by professionals that something is not to be considered, whether it’s African Americans’ (alleged) genetic lack of intelligence, the (alleged) wondrous cancer-curing power of Laetrile, the (alleged) literal correctness of Genesis 1 and 2 notwithstanding the internal contradictions, the (alleged) good reasons to lock up the Japanese Americans, and, my favorite, the (alleged) possibility of trisecting an angle with straightedge and compass, we smell some sort of cover-up and charge full-speed the other way.
I can think of only one exception to this rule: the Holocaust. So I ask, how should amateur historian authors like David Irving and Michelle Malkin be treated? Sure, the former lies because he is a Nazi sympathizer while the latter is probably just hopelessly confused by desires to write something dramatic and against received liberal wisdom, but in both cases their “facts” and their “interpretations” are bogus. How do we stop Malkin before her drivel is taken up by FOX News as the latest in revealing that post-FDR liberals are wussies who won’t defend America. Oh, wait? You mean, she’s already done that?
Mark (9:48pm):
Contra Checkin Out’s point (8:51pm) that this isn’t about the truth or falsity of Malkin’s book, at some point it is. Else, per Andrew J. Lazarus (10:13pm), are we obliged to give every Holocaust-denier the benefit of the doubt, at least initially?
Read “Muller’s and Robinson’s criticisms of Malkin,”:http://www.isthatlegal.org/Muller_and_Robinson_on_Malkin.html and decide that they are invalid, or arguable, on their merits, before proceeding with this spirited defense of Malkin on hypothetical and theoretical grounds.
Mark-
Pardon me if I’m simply not interested in getting into a discussion here about the minutia of the case against Malkin. Just go to Eric Muller’s blog and make up your own mind.
1. I use the word “refute” as in “offer a refutation”; to forward a contradicting argument, that is; to deny the thesis. Whether it is successful or not is to be determined via argumentation. A refutation (as well as the initial thesis itself) doesn’t need to be proven before being presented (well, that couldn’t be done if we wanted to, no? :-)) No appeals to authority in sight.
2. You don’t need to address the merits in order to “earn the right” to address the demerits of a work. Though I don’t know how this is relevant to the case.
3. You say, “I disagree”.
That’s OK, I’m not trying to make you agree. I’m simply presenting my view of the problem. I couldn’t force you to agree, even if you were denying that 2×2=4. The reader will decide himself who’s right or wrong.
4. You say, “Look, either Malkin’s personal status (hired scribbler, journalist, reputable historian, etc) is relevant to the truth or falsity of her position or it is not.”
To the actual truth or falsity of her position it is not relevant. To her overall credibility, especially in a layman’s estimation, especially in the absence of prior review, it is — among other things. It is not the only thing that’s relevant, but it is relevant. We’re talking her credibility here, not the actual truth of her ideas. To establish the latter we need to debate these ideas (which is being actively prevented by the media); in the absence of a critical evaluation the only thing we can somewhat rely on is her credibility — and she’s got none.
5. You say, “This is a recharacterization of what you claimed earlier.”
No it’s not. An elucidation, an elaboration, restatement in different terms — perhaps.
6. “you claimed that it was possible to repeat and verify a historian’s work.”
I still do: why not? Check the same sources, trace the logic, see if this will support the author’s conclusions as presented. Sure it’s possible.
7. Poet and artist? Probably not, in the scientific sense at least. They don’t claim to supply historical or even factual information though, they produce fiction. You either like their work or not, nothing objective here at all. Sociologist or historian? Yes. What’s that got to do with anything? Poets, artists? Gotta stick to the issues, otherwise there’s a risk of drowning in a sea of irrelevant verbuage.
8. You say, “Finally, I’m not sure why it is dangerous, in your view, for people to listen to someone who is not “automatically credible” by your measure.”
Once more I have to ask you: where did you see me propose that? Chapter and verse, please.
While you may not choose to waste your time on such a source, it is not dangerous to listen to someone not automatically credible — provided this is not the only opinion you are allowed to listen to. There’s no danger of Malkin’s not speaking, is there? — she’s already had a chance to expound her theories. Now others want to comment — and this is what is being prevented from happening. Malkin? No problem. Malkin-only? Big problem.
“What we should do is, first and foremost, let these scientists speak — and only then, having heard everyone out, decide for ourselves. Which we cannot do so long as the media pushes Malkin alone and keeps everyone else silent. It’s not that you should trust these historians, it’s that you should not automatically trust the Malkin-only version.”
You seem to be suggesting that the Committee has been prevented from speaking. This is demonstrably false. First, contrary to your assumption, free speech does not depend on equal access to expensive private media airtime. Second, the Committee chose to used speech to bitch about Malkin’s lack of reputation; they could just as well have used their broadband time & money explaining why they think her work is wrong. Crying about not getting on FOX News is a poor way to prove the Committee was prevented from speaking and, thus, the public is prevented from hearing both sides. You cannot seriously be arguing that the media is keeping these poor academics silent. Does it not strike you as bizarre to claim you are being kept silent by going online and voicing your complaint?
praktike,
“Pardon me if I’m simply not interested in getting into a discussion here about the minutia of the case against Malkin. Just go to Eric Muller’s blog and make up your own mind.”
Thank you for extending me the courtesy I’ve been asking for over the last few posts.
Andrew,
I agree with the first part of your post: we should raise red flags when purported experts tell us something is true.
You lose me, though, when you equate Malkin with a holocaust denier. This is a poor rhetorical trick.
“…in both cases their “facts” and their “interpretations” are bogus. How do we stop Malkin before her drivel is taken up by FOX News as the latest in revealing that post-FDR liberals are wussies who won’t defend America.”
This is a little disturbing. It’s not clear that Malkin’s work is bogus. If you disagree, feel free to argue otherwise. Moreover, I simply don’t accept your assumption that wrong political, philosophical, moral or historical interpretations need to be “stopped” before people hear them. I dread living in a world where only ideologicially correct media outlets are able to broadcast proper interpretations. Evidently, you do not.
So I ask, how should amateur historian authors like David Irving and Michelle Malkin be treated? Sure, the former lies because he is a Nazi sympathizer while the latter is probably just hopelessly confused by desires to write something dramatic and against received liberal wisdom, but in both cases their “facts” and their “interpretations” are bogus.
If both are contradicted by the facts (Irving obviously is – I’m not touching the Malkin thing), that should speak for itself. Reviewers will write scathing reviews, historians will tear it to shreds, etc. Irving is a pariah amongst all but Jew-haters, and that has nothing to do with his not being a bona fide historian.
Checkin Out (6:08pm) –
You inadvertently nail the problem I have with this. The press release isn’t directed to Malkin, or to her readers – it’s addressed to the media who – GOD FORBID – might allow our innocent minds to be polluted by Malkin’s work without the appropriate ‘errata page’ inserted by the helpful Committee.
Can you guess why I might have a problem with this, and why you should too?
A.L.
Because I know more than a few people will automatically dismiss the link to criticism of Zinn from FrontPage Magazine, I wanted to link to a takedown of Zinn from the left, from Dissent Magazine.
Actually some friends of mine in the anti-cult community are having a pretty rough time getting fair play out of the Wikipedia folks, and I don’t consider it any sort of authoritative source.
And I also have to suggest that there’s a great deal of truth to the maxim “garbage in, garbage out.” Now clearly I don’t think we ought to become a society run by elitists, but rather one where elites have to compete with one another for the approval of the public, and by so doing inform, enlighten the public as it grows wise.
A friend of mine once said, about systems of public discourse that consume “expertise,” that the public has a vital form of expertise, of the stort that knows in no uncertain terms whether the shoe hurts. And it’s a foolish expert indeed who ignores such insight.
But seriously, are you hiring?
A.L. –
>Can you guess why I might have a problem with this, and why you should too?
No. Please explain.
Mark –
>You seem to be suggesting that the Committee has been
> prevented from speaking. This is demonstrably false.
Well, if it’s “demonstrably false”, why don’t you go ahead and demonstrate? 🙂
Eric Muller reports on his page (there’s a link above, and we’ve already talked about it) that he was invited but not allowed to speak. Seems like it’s demonstrably right, not false.
>free speech does not depend on equal access to expensive private media airtime.
Irrelevant — I didn’t say anything about free speech, and neither did the committee. The issue is not about free speech. It’s about — once again now — the media’s duty to inform and not disinform.
>Second, the Committee chose to used speech to bitch about Malkin’s lack of reputation;
>they could just as well have used their broadband time & money explaining
>why they think her work is wrong.
Yeah… except they did — “#28217 Posted by AMac on September 2, 2004 06:29 PM” ; direct link here: Muller and Robinson.) 🙂
>Crying about not getting on FOX News is a poor way to
>prove the Committee was prevented from speaking
Poor or not, it’s proof enough: They were not invited/allowed to speak. In fact, Muller was invited to this radio show he mentions — but still not allowed to speak. We’ve already talked about this: why are we going in circles?
>Does it not strike you as bizarre to claim you are being
>kept silent by going online and voicing your complaint?
No, not at all. Malkin’s been promoted by a multitude of major media outlets with very large audiences, as a result of which she was listened to/watched by millions of people. A page on the net is no match for that kind of exposure: e.g., the drivel we post here is probably read by a dosen people at most.
Many more people have TVs than computers — and of those with computers only some have access to the net — and only some of those use the net to read anything (rather than, say, watch porn) — and only some of those read what’s in general relevant here — and only some of those… etc. etc., you catch my drift, I trust.
To respond to someone on Fox (and the like) via posting a page on the net is like attacking tanks with a fork — in practical terms it amounts to being silenced.
And I don’t even want to start again about Malkin’s not being a trained scholar, and definitely not a reputable scholar — which makes it strange that she was given this kind of media exposure to begin with, and then if she was, then why alone, w/o a debate, and furthermore, why promoting her (and her alone) continued so energetically even after it’s become known that her findings are at least controversial, and maybe even faulty, etc., etc. — but I mean… c’mon, knowing who promotes her, we know the answer: it’s propaganda, and propaganda isn’t informing, it’s misinforming rather, so all falls into place. Fox (and you) won’t admit to it, OK, but we know, we truly do. Like Goebbels once said, “We don’t speak to communicate information, we speak to produce a certain effect.” Malkin wrote a book (sponsored by whom?) to produce a certain social effect which doesn’t need to be spoiled by unwelcome debate-seeking interlopers. That the intruders are competent — and possibly, and even likely, right — is irrelevant, ’cause verification and objectivity is not what’s being sought here.)
Eric Muller is again blogging on this issue at Volokh Conspiracy. Personally, the hair on my neck rose when I read Malkin, completely unchallenged, was on radio to say
Right now, a big segment of the population wants to hear what Malkin has to say and imply. Aggressive acts by the US government are all good. Evidence that we have from time to time screwed up can not be true. Liberals and civil libertarians are pussies. And because their audience is now trained to bark at these fish, FOX and other “fair and balanced” VWRC outlets can’t wait to book Malkin, whose work is every bit as sloppy and incorrect as David Irving’s Holocaust-denial crap.
The truth is, I really don’t understand the exemption Holocaust-denial gets from the respectful treatment of outré and unsubstantiated pseudo-history, especially targeting liberals and minority groups. I bet right now Fred Korematsu doesn’t understand either.
Checkin Out,
By showing that the Committee posted their grievances online, I thought I demonstrated that they did, in fact, speak, and were not silent. I would think this would be enough to demolish your contention that the Committee was being kept silent; apparently it is not, but I am at a loss to figure out why. Please tell me why you think this does not show that the Committee is not being kept silent.
If you want to recharacterize your claim that the Committee could not speak on FOX News, then do so explicitly. But note that this is not your original claim. Your original claim was that we, or the media, or some combination thereof, keeps the Committee from speaking:
“Now others want to comment — and this is what is being prevented from happening.”
“What we should do is, first and foremost, let these scientists speak — and only then, having heard everyone out, decide for ourselves. Which we cannot do so long as the media pushes Malkin alone and keeps everyone else silent.”
It doesn’t seem, for you, that FOX News is keeping the Committee silent: it is us (“we should…let these scientits speak”) or the media (“which we cannot do so long as the media…keeps everyone else silent”) – notice it’s “the media” and not FOX News alone, that is doing the silencing, in your words.
Your claim that Muller wasn’t allowed to speak on FOX doesn’t help you here. You need to prove that we or the media prevented the Committee from speaking. Since the Committee has a website from which to speak, this is rather difficult. Claiming, as you seem to do, that the historians weren’t allowed to speak enough (because they can’t get on FOX, presumably, or because there are more TVs etc.) is a different argument entirely.
You are more comfortable than I am about your ability to clearly discern truth from propaganda. Since I’m not likely to cede my ability for independant thought to you, the Committee, or any other entity who is not me, we are at an impasse. In your world malevolent forces are working to spread propaganda while keeping others silent, and you, and others like you, are the virtuous purveyors of truth. To me, this sounds like either marxism warmed-over or the plotline from the Matrix. When you decide which, let me know.
The points that A.L. raised in the orignial post have been tossed around pretty thoroughly at this point. Rather than strive for an elusive (… very elusive! …) consensus, I’ll offer my thanks to everyone (else) who participated in this thread, contirbuting ideas and some good links to the discussion.
Signing off, AMac.
I am not the only one comparing Michelle Malkin’s contrarian argument to David Irving’s. See here (via Muller chez Volokh).
Andrew et al –
A debate with me on the merits of Malkin’s silly book is going to be a short one; the book is vapid and wrong.
But the point I’m trying to make is that any scheme that attempts to ‘protect’ us from vapid and wrong ideas will be far more harmful than any ideas that might in it’s absense be promulgated.
And the fact that relatively serious people – and I include Muller in that category – don’t see that is just freaking amazing to me.
A.L.
And the precise link I wanted was this, sorry…
A.L.— as I said in my first post, the “squelch” tone of the letter will work no better than similar attempts against “scientific creationism” and angle trisection. No dispute between us there.
What I’d like to know is, what, instead, should we do about such poison? Isn’t it alarming that (mysteriously unlike fellow amateur David Irving), Malkin is getting a respectful and in some fora uncontested hearing? Do nothing, and her “vapid and wrong” ideas will be seen as equally valid, if not superior, to the truth, amongst the Fox News credent portion of the population.
Andrew,
Your claim that Malkin (or someone) is pushing the line that: “Aggressive acts by the US government are all good. Evidence that we have from time to time screwed up can not be true. Liberals and civil libertarians are pussies” is rather odd. I don’t think this is Malkin’s position at all. I could be wrong, but you won’t mind if I kindly ask you to source this claim.
“…whose work is every bit as sloppy and incorrect as David Irving’s Holocaust-denial crap.”
Again, you’ll have to provide evidence for this claim. Otherwise it just seems like you’re trying to identify Malkin with a holocaust denier as a poor rhetorical trick.
“Right now, a big segment of the population wants to hear what Malkin has to say and imply.”
I’m not sure what source you have for this statement, but, even if true, isn’t the dissemination of viewpoints (even uncomfortable, wrong-headed, unpopular viewpoints) and the debate that inevitably ensues a good thing? What, exactly, is your problem with this process?
To be honest, this seems like a standard move for the left: when you don’t like what the public believes or some (un)popular commentator is saying, construct an explanation that avoids dealing with the truth-value of the statements themselves but still gives the appearance of intellectual sophistication. Chomsky, marxist false consciousness, your pet theory, above, all share this features. How many people do you expect to convince with this approach; don’t you think people would prefer that you address the actual arguments instead of giving them an explanation of their intellectual deficiencies?
“…because their audience is now trained to bark at these fish, FOX and other “fair and balanced” VWRC outlets can’t wait to book Malkin..”
I suppose this is our fundamental disagreement: I don’t consider people who listen to ideologically different media outlets to be trained dogs. You, apparently, do.
AMac,
Thanks for the debate.
When did we stop believing that truth will out? Any alternative to the free marketplace of ideas would reduce liberty, either by suppressing minority viewpoints or by promoting orthodoxy.
Liberty is the more important principal here. Everyone should bring their best game.
A.L., how would you react if you were a scholar who had done serious work on a topic and suddenly someone with no background in that area was appearing on numerous media outlets promoting a “vapid and wrong” account of that topic? The historians’ letter wasn’t particularly well-worded, but why the vitriol? They’re watching the media fawn all over a hack while making no effort to get a more informed account from people who are in a position to comment on the merits of the hack’s work. How are they supposed to break through that? Emphasizing their own credentials and Malkin’s lack of credentials may be clumsy PR, but it’s a pretty natural place to start under the circumstances.
It’s not possible to waste enough electrons dinging Matthew, nor to ding Yglesias too often.
You probably did give him a much more lengthy and eloquent ding than he generally rates though. ;]
Mark:
>Please tell me why you think this does not show that the
>Committee is not being kept silent.
Same reason as why the FCC regulates media ownership. (Also consider the recent creeping attempt by the current chairman of the FCC (and apparently a corporate whore) Powell Jr fully to deregulate media markets — as well why it produced such an uproar and, thankfully, failed.)
>Your claim that Muller wasn’t allowed to speak on FOX
>doesn’t help you here. You need to prove that we or the
>media prevented the Committee from speaking.
Muller is one of the signatories. I’m using the words “Miller” and “Committee” as synonyms.
>Since I’m not likely to cede my ability for independant
>thought to you, the Committee, or any other entity who
>is not me, we are at an impasse.
Well… I don’t know why you decided that I, with the Committee’s connivance, want you to cede your ability for independent thought to us. All we say is, hear us out too. Or, even more exactly — don’t limit yourself to one particular source. Notice, I didn’t say don’t listen to this one source: I say, fine, go ahead — but also give an ear to others. Then make your own conclusions. Your ability for independent thought should only gain from being exposed to multiple and potentially conflicting points of view.
There should be no impasse (but it’s OK to disagree, or break off the discussion.)
Btw, perhaps you’ll find it strange, but I actually don’t have anything against Malkin’s book. On the issue itself, I’m rather pro-Malkin than, say, pro-Miller (to wit, I don’t believe rounding up the Japanese was terribly wrong; I don’t think it’s a big deal even if it was somewhat wrong or not absolutely necessary or justified in hindsight; and I’m all for racial profiling.) Yet. Yet. Despite all this — and perhaps you’ll find this stranger yet — still I’m with the Committee, Praktike and A. Lazarus when it comes to procedure.
>I suppose this is our fundamental disagreement: I don’t
>consider people who listen to ideologically different
>media outlets to be trained dogs. You, apparently, do.
You’re attacking a straw man you’ve made yourself, admit it :-). You imply as axiomatic that Andrew qualifies some viewers as “trained dogs” because they listen to ideologically different media outlets. But he’s never said or implied that.
A more likely situation is that most people are stupid (as a given) and therefore “trainable” — for example by a media outlet — of any ideological orientation. And that’s why no media outlet (or point of view promoted by an outlet) should be allowed to dominate: otherwise there wouldn’t remain any obstacles to brainwashing the always-trainable-because-stupid-as-a-given masses in any direction the media outlet’s bosses might want. Otoh, if there’s no such predomination, brainwashing is difficult (but not for lack of trying, or ’cause people somehow got all smart though! — but owing to the simultaneous existence of differing points of view, to whose contradicting, and thus balancing one another out influences we, still-just-as-stupid, people are exposed. “Fair and Balanced”, man! 🙂 .)
***
Andrew Lazarus (Re: 09:22 PM):
Right on the money (and well expressed to boot.)
“>Please tell me why you think this does not show that the
>Committee is not being kept silent.
Same reason as why the FCC regulates media ownership.”
Muller et al. set up a website to spread their viewpoint. They exercised their speech rights. They spoke. Contrary to your claim, above, they were not silenced by either us or the media. How does FCC regulation help you to dispute this?
“All we say is, hear us out too. Or, even more exactly — don’t limit yourself to one particular source. Notice, I didn’t say don’t listen to this one source: I say, fine, go ahead — but also give an ear to others. Then make your own conclusions. Your ability for independent thought should only gain from being exposed to multiple and potentially conflicting points of view.”
Since Muller and the Committee have exercise their speech rights (see their website, above), I fail to see how I am unable to access their views. No one is limited to Malkin’s view, because they can easily click on links to find opposing views: Malkin herself provides the links. Those buttons tend to destroy your contention that Muller’s group is being kept silent. What I think you are trying to suggest is that Muller and co. don’t have enough speech (and that stronger speakers are dominating). This is a different (and more difficult) argument that you seem reluctant to make.
“>Your claim that Muller wasn’t allowed to speak on FOX
>doesn’t help you here. You need to prove that we or the
>media prevented the Committee from speaking.
Muller is one of the signatories. I’m using the words “Miller” and “Committee” as synonyms.”
This is unresponsive. You said: The media is keeping Muller et al. silent; we are not letting these “scientists” speak; others (presumably Muller et al.) are being prevented from commenting.
I pointed out the availability of their views online. If any Committee member wants to explain their position further, they can simply go online and post away. They can stand on a street corner; they can hand out flyers; they can publish in a peer-reviewed journal; they can go on a public access TV channel. Failure to get booked on FOX News does not prove that Muller and/or the Committee are being kept silent by you, me, FOX News or anyone else.
Here is what Andrew said:
“And because their audience is now trained to bark at these fish, FOX and other “fair and balanced” VWRC outlets can’t wait to book Malkin, whose work is every bit as sloppy and incorrect as David Irving’s Holocaust-denial crap.”
Here is what I said:
“I don’t consider people who listen to ideologically different media outlets to be trained dogs. You, apparently, do.”
Here is what you said:
“You’re attacking a straw man you’ve made yourself, admit it :-). You imply as axiomatic that Andrew qualifies some viewers as “trained dogs” because they listen to ideologically different media outlets. But he’s never said or implied that.”
Andrew considers the audience of FOX to be trained animals (I said dogs but he might have meant seals; perhaps he’ll clarify). He didn’t say they were “trainable”; he said “trained”. I didn’t speculate about how they were trained (Andrew will have to clarify this bit as well). FOX News is ideologically different than most other major news media (NBC, ABC, CBS, etc), and I know from prior conversations with Andrew, and the tone of his post (trained, barking seals, etc), above, that he considers this difference to be notable. If you want to dispute any of this, please be specific.
“A more likely situation is that most people are stupid (as a given) and therefore “trainable” — for example by a media outlet — of any ideological orientation. And that’s why no media outlet (or point of view promoted by an outlet) should be allowed to dominate: otherwise there wouldn’t remain any obstacles to brainwashing the always-trainable-because-stupid-as-a-given masses in any direction the media outlet’s bosses might want.”
I don’t think this situation is likely. You need to prove that most people are stupid, that this makes them “trainable”, and that some one or several media outlets “dominate”. Again, those little buttons in front of you that provide access to opposing viewpoints make this difficult to argue.
Mark, obviously many Fox News viewers bring a skeptical attitude towards their broadcasts, just as they should when watching or reading other media.
Nevertheless, Fox has marketed itself as an ideological alternative to mainstream media and a great many people who watch them do so in the belief that they will learn “truths” that are suppressed in other media sources. And this audience is indeed eager to see more liberal pieties (Japanese internment was wrong, Muslim internment would be wrong, civil liberties are good) exposed as fraudulent. Malkin’s work, which is a popular recension for non-scholars of a fringe scholarly work known for biased, inaccurate, and unfairly selective use of primary sources, intends exactly this.
The Nazi-phile “Committee for Discussion of the Holocaust” takes the same approach in its advertising: that there is (or should be) some legitimate controversy over the facts of the Holocaust and that a veritable conspiracy is suppressing them. Whenever these toads appear near a college campus, the response, which is probably what was desired in the first place, is nothing short of hysterical. Even against this unsophisticated reaction, CODOH seldom succeeds. Maybe it’s the fact their public face comprises bibulous old men whom everyone guesses keep Hitler-fetish memorabilia under tarps in their basements. Maybe it’s the fact that, as we are morally involved in the Holocaust as the good guys, we don’t want any interference with the Received View. (Indeed, popular culture even believes atrocities about the Nazis that are exaggerated: they didn’t, at least as a general policy, turn Jews into soap.) It certainly isn’t that Malkin’s position on internment is better-grounded than CODOH, because it isn’t.
“And this audience is indeed eager to see more liberal pieties (Japanese internment was wrong, Muslim internment would be wrong, civil liberties are good) exposed as fraudulent.”
You’ll have to source this claim. I don’t believe you have any basis to infer the psychological attitude of the members of the FOX audience. They could be watching because the mainstream left media has been exposed for biased, incompetent journalism, and lost the trust of their viewers, for all we know.
I’m all for pieties of any sort tested and re-tested. I don’t care who does the testing. If nutty holocaust deniers want to make their lunatic claims, let them do it: we can all have fun blowing their “evidence” out of the water. And, having exercised our debating skills, we’ll all be much better able to resist the bad arguments of demagogues and marxists.
I don’t see what the problem is: if Malkin’s view is so easily defeated, you and others should have no trouble disregarding it.
Mark:
>Andrew considers the audience of FOX to be trained animals
Which doesn’t mean that he considers them such because they’re the audience of FOX. You see? Nor does this mean that only the Fox audience can possibly be “trained”. Neither of which, in turn, excludes the possibility of their having been “trained” by FOX, or this particular media outlet’s propensity to “train” their audence (or both! I’m being lawyerly here, but that’s ’cause you force me to belabor the obvious.)
>This is unresponsive. You said: The media is keeping
>Muller et al. silent; we are not letting these
>”scientists” speak; others (presumably Muller et al.)
>are being prevented from commenting. I pointed out the
>availability of their views online. If any Committee
>member wants to explain their position further, they can
>simply go online and post away.
I’ve already addressed that and don’t want to belabor the same stuff over and over again. Briefly, not only the fact of exposure matters — the kind of exposure matters as well. An hour of Fox primetime cannot be balanced by a mingy net page that few members of the same audience even know of; can get to, even when they do; or simply will bother to, even if they can.
>FOX News is ideologically different than most other
>major news media (NBC, ABC, CBS, etc), and I know from
>prior conversations with Andrew, and the tone of his
>post (trained, barking seals, etc), above, that he
>considers this difference to be notable. If you want to
>dispute any of this, please be specific.
Why should I even worry, let alone dispute, that? It may very well be true, of course, but true or not, it’s irrelevant here. (Btw, whatever the case may be, it would not be inconsistent with what I’ve said, or Andrew. Fox may very well be both more driving ideologically than ABC et al., and enjoy a highly “trained” audience. In fact, the two aren’t unrelated: the harder you drive, the farther you tend to get sorta thing… Also, that FOX and ABC etc. differ ideologically, says nothing of how hard-driving each of them is in their own respective directions: Fox can be driving harder than ABC, and it can do that to a notable degree. Where’s a contradiction? I’m trying to grope onto something but have no clue about what troubles you here.)
> You need to prove that most people are stupid
No I don’t (not necessarily, that is.) Along with the Founding Fathers, I hold some truths to be self-evident :-). And there’s nothing wrong or extraordinary about this approach: it would be hard to imagine an argument that wouldn’t, at least to some degree, be based on assumptions — even in math we use axioms. Otherwise we’d be stuck! Try it some time yourself. You can’t just keep digging deeper and deeper proving the proofs of the proofs of the proofs… you gotta cut it off at some point with a reasonable assumption.
And again, it’s quite all right for you to disagree: like I’ve already said, my goal here is not to convince you but to state my case; my words are directed towards the hypothetical judge and jury — after all, they, too, have a life experience, which probably is not entirely dissimilar to mine. I happen to believe that most people are stupid (a huge simplification, yes.) I also happen to believe that many people share this view. So I take it axiomatically. Some will disagree, which is fine: for now, it’s not important, and if/when it does become important, we can, I suppose, design an experiment, run it, and watch the results. For now it’s not necessary — in my view.
“I happen to believe that most people are stupid (a huge simplification, yes.) I also happen to believe that many people share this view.”
Quite clearly you do. Since I don’t think you are entitled to this assumption, I suppose we’ll have to disagree. I’m just not satisfied that you can base a political or moral argument for a program of media content-compulsion on the alleged stupidity of people. But I think we’ve both made our arguments, so I’ll let it go.