The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
Specifically, Eric Alterman in his blog post writes "[T]his Tim Groseclose fellow is apparently among the biggest crybabies academia has ever produced."
At the end of this post, I'll note the real reason Alterman is so mad at me. But first, here's ostensibly the reason he calls me a crybaby. It involves a passage from the Introduction to my book, Left Turn. (You can read the entire Introduction at PowerlineBlog.)
The most vicious response of all [to a peer-reviewed study that a coauthor and I wrote about media bias] was by Eric Alterman, a writer at Media Matters. He insinuated that we were paid by rightwing think tanks to fudge our results. “Rigging the Numbers” was the title of his essay. The following were his concluding paragraphs:
Check the fine print and one finds this study—naively touted as both objective and significant by the UCLA public affairs office and published, inexplicably, by the previously respected Quarterly Journal of Economics, edited at Harvard University's Department of Economics, was the product of a significant investment by right-wing think tanks. In 2000-2001, Groseclose was a Hoover Institution national fellow, while Milyo has been granted $40,500 from the American Enterprise Institute; both were Heritage Foundation Salvatori fellows in 1997.
And yet despite its shockingly desultory intellectual underpinnings and almost comically obvious ideological imperatives, we can be certain we will hear about this study over and over for the next decade—from the very people who have written off normative knowledge and scientific research as some sort of liberal plot to subvert the values of Heartland America.
Really, you just can’t make these people up.
At one level I can understand why so many leftwing strangers sent me angry emails, and why writers, like Eric Alterman at Media Matters, would say such false and vicious things about Milyo and me.
If people believe the results of our study, then they will begin to believe that they are not getting the whole truth from the media. They might begin to think, “Maybe lower taxes are a better idea than I thought.” “Maybe government should scale back its involvement in the economy.” “Maybe affirmative action is not such a great idea.”
Larry Greenfield, a fellow at the Claremont Institute, has made a profound observation about the psyche of the far left: “They worship the god of Equality.” A corollary of his observation is the following: While other virtues, such as kindness and honesty, are important, they are secondary when they clash with Equality.
Our study, at least in small ways, harms the goal of Equality. In at least small ways, it works to make U.S. public policy less “progressive” and less consistent with “social justice.” If you are an advocate of “social justice” and “progressive” values, then, even if you believe that our study is true, you should hate it. Further, if you value Equality more than other virtues, then it would be appropriate for you to conclude, “Smearing Groseclose and Milyo’s study is justified, even if the smears are false.” You would also be justified in attacking us personally, even saying false and vicious things about our character. As the leftwing icon Saul Alinsky advised, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it [my emphasis], and polarize it.”
In the Introduction I next discuss a colleague, whom I call Byron B. Bright. The colleague is a longtime and good friend; yet, because his political views are so liberal and mine are so conservative, we sometimes fight like brothers. I also discuss how professors--even though they are usually very liberal and must hate the fact that my study shows that the mainstream media really are liberal--were very civil in their responses to my research. I end the Introduction with the following passage:
But from a personal standpoint, the most wonderful response came from an email that I received one day. “Dear Mr. Alterman,” it began. Alterman, you may recall, was the writer at Media Matters who said that Milyo and I “rigged” our numbers and insinuated that we did it because rightwing think tanks had “invested” in us.
"I was very disappointed to read your review of my colleague Timothy Groseclose's paper on media bias. The lack of civility and the personal nature of your review struck a tone that I had not expected from you. …
"As much as you and, indeed, I want to believe that the results of Tim's study are false, they are not the result of cooking the books. Tim is nothing if not careful. Yes, he is a conservative and, yes, I am sure he is pleased with the way the results turned out. But, the method was laid out before the data were collected and I am confident that the paper would have been published regardless of the outcome.
"For what it is worth, here is the truth about the paper from someone who does not share Tim's politics. … It is academically honest research by careful and serious scholars who do not pursue a research agenda at the behest of any conservative patron."
Once I realized that the email was written by one of my UCLA colleagues, I quit reading and bolted down the hall. This deserved an immediate thank you.
But as I approached his door, it occurred to me that I might not be able to express my thanks without my voice breaking or eyes watering. So I slowed my walk, cleared my throat, and blinked my eyes. The reason the email was so touching was not so much its words but who wrote them … Byron B. Bright.
Okay. Maybe I did cry a little. Below is a video clip where I discuss the incident on Fox & Friends.
But the real reason, I believe, why Eric Alterman is so mad at me involves the following passages from Chapter 9 of my book:
I am aware of only one analyst who makes the bolder claim that the surveys [showing that mainstream journalists tend to vote about 93-7 for the Democrat in presidential elections] are inaccurate. This is Eric Alterman, a writer for Media Matters and the author of What Liberal Media?. For instance in an appearance on MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country,” he explained his view.
Joe Scarborough: …I want to look at a 1995 poll that I know that you are aware of. This is of Washington reporters; 89 percent in that poll said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992; seven percent voted for Bush.
…
Alterman: I’ve got a feeling you haven’t read my book, Joe. Come out and tell the truth. Have you read the book?
Scarborough: No, it breaks my heart to say I have not read the entire book.
(crosstalk)
Alterman: If you had read it, gotten as far as chapter two, you would see that I take that poll apart. It’s not a very good poll. It doesn’t tell us much of anything. That poll had such a low response rate that no responsible social scientist would ever use it.
...
Here’s the relevant part of chapter two to which Alterman was referring:
"Even with all those caveats, the case is not closed on the Freedom Forum poll. The study itself turns out to be based on only 139 respondents out of 323 questionnaires mailed, a response rate so low that most social scientists would reject it as inadequately representative (p.20)."
Note that the response rate of the survey that Alterman criticizes is 43% (=139/323). In the same chapter Alterman discusses two other surveys—one by David Croteau, a sociologist at the Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, and another by the Pew Research Center. The latter two surveys support his main conclusions; it is therefore not surprising that he does not criticize their methodology. He does not mention, however, that their response rates were respectively only 30% and 32%.
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
Alterman's just mad that you can do math.
Seriously, he's an ultra-hack and fundamentally dishonest and, although the Left sees honesty as a bourgeois value, probably tainted by religion, there is some ego that keeps them from being too blatant about it.
So it doesn't surprise me that Alterman quotes low response rates for a poll he hates and not lower ones for a poll he likes. A real academic might have his own work with polls and response rates that others might want to poke holes in for entirely non-political reasons and can't be as dishonest as Alterman.
Oct '10
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
Those who seek to justify their worldview will always manipulate "facts" to suit their belief system: What the heart believes, the mind justifies. But you, sir, must (and do) rely on the truth that "facts are stubborn things". Hold to the facts and you hold to the truth (Veritatum tenere)!
May '10
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
Did you send Alterman an email stating, "I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you?" That's what I would have done...
May '10
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
And don't lefties boast that real men aren't afraid to cry?
Dec '10
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
There's a bit of irony in anyone one the left calling another person a crybaby.
Nov '10
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
“They worship the god of Equality.” Precisely. Liberalism is a religion --a final, dessicated form of the Judeo-Christian tradition-- which, lacking any foundation in God, reduces faith to moralism, and must necessarily ground that morality in something that can be grasped and measured. This puts liberals on the constant, restless search for validation, leaving them fundamentally insecure --like their Puritan ancestors hoping for a sign of election. It gets them snippy when you dispute their claims; conflicted when the quest for equality runs up against some natural limit. And it leaves them haunted by the repressed truth that the mindless pursuit of equality must end ultimately in the triumph of a lifeless, flat, grey, insipid, mean.
Oh, and Amish dude: love the logo!
Edited on Nov 5, 2011 at 11:43amOct '10
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
What an interesting story. I want to say, for the record, that ever since my introduction to you through your interview on Uncommon Knowledge and subsequent posts here that I have greatly appreciated your contributions. I've seen a meekness and diligence in your character and the quality of your work that is refreshing and inspires trust. Keep the posts coming.
Aug '10
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
43% is actually a great response rate. In the good ole days they used to say 60% or 70% was good but that was before telemarketing and survey fatigue ruined it.
Oct '10
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
I suspect you've been called worse by better, Dr. Groseclose. Life is too short to be concerned by anything The Nation has to say about you. Keep your chin up. You're doing some very important work and I've enjoyed learning about you and your research.
Edited on Nov 5, 2011 at 4:28pmJul '10
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
The Nation and Media Matters, two of the deepest, dankest pits of the Dark Side. There are some slanders and takedown attempts that should be worn as a rite of passage, a badge of honor. You are now on "their" radar, a designated threat.
If you ever make a DC soirée I will buy your first pint.
Congratulations! And many more!
Oct '10
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
I used to subscribe to The Nation, out of some misguided desire for a balanced political diet. I stopped reading when they used the phrase "passionate intensity" to praise the moderator of a debate.
Here are those words in Yeats's original: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity." (Truth will out, as they say, but I give writers no credit for self-created dramatic irony.)
The writers at The Nation not only have no regard for truth, they have no regard for meaning. And in this instance, those failings seem related to scorn for history and culture.
Keep up the good work, Tim. But don't waste too much breath replying to these people. They aren't even worthy enemies.
Aug '10
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
Voice cracking , eyes watering I can only cough about Eric : Hack hack hack hack
Apr '11
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
So, if this survey was rigged the implication would be what? That a majority of Alterman's friends in academia secretly voted for George Bush? Wouldn't that be more frightening to a leftist?
I can at least respect the honesty of a leftist who responds: "of course the most brilliant minds are on the left! Where else would they be!?!"
Mar '11
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
In general, I'm of the opinion that the quality of the insults a man can conjure against his enemies is demonstrative of the overall strength of his intellect. Insulting someone properly, after all, requires both wit and a keen knowledge of the other party.
On this scale, the sort of insult that leaves the other party utterly baffled--they know in some way they've been insulted, but must spend some time attempting to puzzle out exactly how--takes top prize.
I should think that the place occupied on such a scale by "crybaby" is now sufficiently clear, rendering further comment superfluous.
May '10
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
Tim - Mate, in Australia we say "you can't kick every barking dog on the way home, else you'll never get there". Alterman reverts to ad hominem attacks because there is no way this bilious scribe can confront your actual arguments.
Go for walk in the Autumn sun, and enjoy the day.
Jun '10
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
You, Alterman, Octagon. My money's on you.
Dec '10
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
MMPadre:
Oh, and Amish dude: love the logo! · Nov 5 at 11:36am
Edited on Nov 05 at 11:43 am
I must admit, I stole it. Somebody did a "Fightin' Amish" logo and I just cropped it.
So, I guess the most you can compliment me on is my taste.
Aug '10
Re: The Nation Magazine Calls Me a Crybaby
I would distinguish between these two. Media Matters is basically a giant oppo research operation. In contrast, The Nation has always been more about developing progressive ideas than it is trashing conservative ones. It's also worth noting that the former is part of the Sorosverse whereas the latter is a venerable institution.
Another way to out it is that if they were campaign ads, Media Matters would be 100% negative whereas The Nation would be laying out a positive (albeit misguided) platform.