Pundit Boxscore for Friday 25 July 2003

NOT MY DEPARTMENT: Robert Musil, in a very thoughtful post on his Man Without Qualities weblog, says that he is "actually rather skeptical of LIP's methodology":

Now it is unquestionably the case that a general media outlet can render itself highly partisan merely by its selection of stories. For example, assuming that the Presidential trip to Africa is objectively more newsworthy than the simultaneous "he lied" meme, a general media outlet could show partisanship by electing to devote massive coverage to the "he lied" meme - but little to the simultaneous Presidential trip to Africa.

But I have a big problem labeling a columnist "partisan" solely on the basis of topic selection - even where that selection is motivated by subjective partisan motives. One does not read Paul Krugman to find "all the news that fit to print" - or commentary on "all the topics that are fit for an academic economist to write about."

My difficulties with Herr Doktorprofessor stem largely from his reliance on (1) a constant stream of bad economics, including incomplete economics, (2) false, misleading and materially incomplete statements of fact and economic theory, (3) evasive language often intended to allow him to claim credit for predictions where none were made, and (4) a boring parroting of the then-current liberal Democratic line that he attempts to tart up as original commentary.

I still enjoy reading LIP -- but I don't see how LIP's criteria pick up much of what bothers me about Herr Doktorprofessor. Perhaps I'm wrong.

It's not a bug, it's a feature! The methodology used here is an attempt to quantify only partisanship, and is not intended as a more general guide to the quality of a columnist. There are many other important traits such as accuracy, relevance, fairness, civility and style, but Lying in Ponds makes no attempt to measure them. I highly recommend other websites such as Spinsanity and Rhetorica, which grapple courageously with some of those important issues.

I'm not sure that I understand why partisanship shouldn't be inferred when a columnist chooses to write about only topics which tend to favor their own party or disfavor the other. A columnist could choose topics with partisan intent, and write with scrupulous accuracy about those carefully-limited subjects. But wouldn't the end result of such selectivity be a parade of partisan half-truths?