Comments on: A few links Free Markets and Social Justice Sat, 20 Jan 2018 07:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: alzhu4 Sun, 26 Nov 2017 23:22:00 +0000 Without agreeing or disagreeing with your stance on this question, it’s worth considering that drawing conclusions from revealed preference is highly problematic when not correctly accounting for the specific menu of available choices that the revealed preference experiment offers.

In other words, what were the options the subjects of the experiment had, as determined by law, culture and norms at the local, state and federal levels? (I acknowledge some amount of redundancy, as well as mutual reinforcement, between those three influences, of course.)

By: King Goat Fri, 01 Sep 2017 23:45:00 +0000 “That said, even a consciously pro-Hillary reporter will think the email story is newsworthy; she was, after all, under investigation by the FBI for it.”

So they have integrity, it just doesn’t go far enough, just enough to fit with the facts with the narrative here ;). So if they would have ignored the story, it’s plain they were pro-Hillary. But the fact they reported on it a lot, that’s not evidence they were not pro-Hillary, because they had enough integrity to know they had to report on it, but we can assume in a pro-Hillary way!

“the Center for Public Integrity said that 96% of surveyed journalists donated money to Hillary. ”

I don’t think this proves as much as it might. Let me illustrate with a story: at my kid’s recent game, one of the referees was actually the sister of one of my kid’s teammates. We thought we’d get the better of the calls, right? But we didn’t. In referee school these kids are taught how important it is to rise above one’s biases and *appear* impartial. The team played this time was really foul prone, but the sister, knowing she was the sister of one on one team, felt the need to demonstrate her impartiality especially. And so she went out of her way to ‘equalize’ her infraction calls, even though the other side really committed far more. FWIW, this is the ethos journalism schools push, and of course the Right has been relentlessly ‘playing the refs’ for decades now.

“I don’t think you addressed my criticisms of the study”

Hmm. I think I did. An analogy: I pointed out ‘this guy couldn’t have fled the scene, because it’s odd that there’s no footprints out the doorway!’ You seemed to respond ‘yes, but while there’s no evidence for it, the guy could have gone out the window, right?’

By: Rob Gressis Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:07:00 +0000 Well, I am predisposed to think that the media was far more pro-Hillary than pro-Trump. Here’s why: the Center for Public Integrity said that 96% of surveyed journalists donated money to Hillary. That suggests to me that they would prefer that she win over Trump. It’s not ironclad evidence, but I think it’s very good.

Second, assuming I’m right about their preferences, I think this would have an effect on how they would report and interpret evidence. I don’t have any studies backing me up about this, so this is a weak point of my argument (at least, it’s a weak point if you put lots of faith in social science and very little faith in armchair psychology). Nevertheless, I still think this general point is very plausible: if you badly want X to happen, then this will, on average affect the way you interpret evidence related to whether X happens.

Consequently, my a priori belief is that the mainstream, credentialed media (MCM) would report in a pro-Hillary way. That’s why I didn’t question Sean II’s claim. I do admit, though, that he didn’t provide any evidence for it.

Now, as to your claim, which I’m paraphrasing as, “if the MCM were really pro-Hillary, then they would report on her in such a way as to maximize her chances of winning”, well, not necessarily.

I agree with you that if the MCM just ignored the Hillary email scandal, then that would have helped her. But I think one could reasonably disagree with that assertion. For instance, the following could be the case: (1) most people who read the MCM lean or are Democrats, and relatively informed ones at that; (2) reporting on the email scandal won’t alienate them from her; (3) not reporting on the email scandal would be seized upon by Republican operatives and be used to effectively discredit the MSM; (4) discrediting the MSM effectively could be used to alienate people who are on the fence; (5) therefore, reporting on the email scandal will help Hillary.

But I don’t think the MCM thinks this way. I don’t think that they think of themselves, at least not too often, as people whose job it is to elect the Democratic candidate. I think most of them actually think that if a story is newsworthy, then it should be reported. What they think is and isn’t newsworthy will be affected by their biases. That said, even a consciously pro-Hillary reporter will think the email story is newsworthy; she was, after all, under investigation by the FBI for it.

Unless I missed something, I don’t think you addressed my criticisms of the study.

By: King Goat Wed, 30 Aug 2017 01:58:00 +0000 “Nor is it the case that people can only discuss one during the course of a four year period.”


Look, if Both Sides really Do It, but you sit around complaining about Side One, which is not and will not be in power for years, while ignoring Side Two, which *is and will be* in power for years, then you’re really not into Both Sides Do It at all. You’re doing some kind of Ryan Longish song-and-dance, where you’re worried more about One Side. Just be honest about it.

By: King Goat Wed, 30 Aug 2017 01:47:00 +0000 You think publicizing a scandal more than anything else about the person = unified behind her?

Ask yourself, if you were Hillary’s campaign manager and you had a magic monkey’s paw that allowed you to dictate what the media would write about Hillary, would you have them write ten times more about the email scandal than anything else? Methinks I’d want them to *ignore it.*

I mean, if I were Trump’s manager I wouldn’t wish ‘please, please, let them write almost exclusively about Trump’s current court case for fraud regarding his ‘university,’ but let them write in a way that tends to minimize the fraud!’

By: King Goat Wed, 30 Aug 2017 01:37:00 +0000 “The Russian hack fantasy is a nice equivalent to the mad dream of the birthers.”

The ‘Russian hack fantasy’ of course being endorsed by all of our major intelligence agencies, whose non-public briefings were so convincing that I can’t recall a single *Republican* Senator who has denied them following them. But yeah, that’s on the same level as that Obama was secretly born in Indonesia and his birth certificate is a forgery.

By: MARK_D_FRIEDMAN Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:29:00 +0000 How very odd that you make no mention of the Supreme Court, as if that were a trivial political consideration. Now, which set of appointees would be more likely to embrace libertarian-friendly principles? This would give some right leaning libertarians a completely non-racist reason to vote for him. I would also add that you have produced no empirical evidence that Trump received much of his support from self-identified libertarians. In fact, Johnson/Weld, offering a rather tame, leftist version of libertarianism, tripled the percentage vote ever previously received by any earlier LP candidate, which cuts against your claim.

By: Ryan P. Long Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:04:00 +0000

Man, this sub-thread got goated in the worst way.

The past tense of the verb you’re looking for here is “goatsed.”

By: Peter from Oz Mon, 28 Aug 2017 03:11:00 +0000 Good point. So it was clear that while activists were overcoming real racism, real levels of poverty went down. But when the left tried to keep the ball rolling by finding racism in just about every place imaginable it all went pear shaped.

By: Peter from Oz Mon, 28 Aug 2017 03:06:00 +0000 But the left always care more about the right saying bad things than doing bad things. That’s because the right doesn’t do that many bad things.