
Researchers or Corporate Allies? Think Tanks Blur the Line - chishaku
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/think-tanks-research-and-corporate-lobbying.html
======
Sideloader
It's news that "think tanks" aren't always as independent and impartial as
they claim? Really? Before the Brookings "controversy" nobody at the New York
Times suspected that these organizations, which are closely linked to the
political parties, government departments and corporate interests, might not
be as independent as they claim? Now that I find hard to believe. Or maybe
they had a tiny inkling and this shocking example of DC lies and corruption
pushed them over the edge and they finally produced an article about their
dark suspicions.

Are we to believe the "newspaper of record" has just discovered the tip of the
iceberg that will eventually lead them to conclude that the Beltway think
tanks are, in part, propaganda mills for the Dems or GOP, or DoS or NATO and
the government's corporate sponsors? What next in this brave new world, the
NYT discovering it shilled hard for the Iraq invasion of 2003 and is shilling
hard for Hillary Clinton in 2016? What other "blurred lines" will this
fantastically brave and honorable newspaper pull into focus for the public?

I don't know what's weirder...the article itself or the fact that it's taken
at face value by the target audience. Looking at the parts in isolation but
never ever zooming out and considering the links and connections between them
and the whole it reveals is a sign of these interesting times. Likewise, the
earnest and perplexed "study" of various symptoms like, Trump, say, but never
ever honestly considering what caused them to appear in the first place.

Is it simple ignorance that drives this insane game of charades or is it
something else...like a deep fear of having to face an unbearable truth...a
fear so deep that outright self-delusion is preferable to holding power to
account. Accepting the consequences of what an honest evaluation of government
and corporate power would reveal about where American society is
heading...well, that is something the mass media is definitely NOT prepared to
do.

Which raises the question of what role exactly is the media playing in all of
this? The Times article partially answers that question. When a person or
persons repress uncomfortable thoughts and feelings, these will find an
indirect outlet, often without the denier being aware that this is happening.

~~~
metaphorm
at some point you have to just admit and then get over the fact that the
NYTimes is a naked propaganda instrument and that the target audience is
actually themselves (by which I mean pundits mostly).

the paper, and its so-called "reporting", is incoherent and non-sensical from
the point of view of someone just looking for information. it is ONLY a
mouthpiece for institutional power and nothing else, despite the pretenses.

------
matthjensen
I strongly believe that open sourcing the analyses that are intended to
influence policy would be a big step to mitigating the 'money problem' in
Washington. If we could see exactly which assumptions policy researchers rely
on in their analyses, we could judge the analyses more easily and more
accurately.

Disclosure: I work at the open source policy center at aei.

~~~
Karmage
Open data should be the rule everywhere. The internet was created to share
academic and scientific data.

I dream of a world where, if you make a scientific claim, that you are bound
to release the data you used to arrive at the conclusion.

~~~
matthjensen
I agree. In the case of fast moving policy debates, open analytical code is
also important.

There are also situations when government agencies like the Congressional
Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and many many others use
private data sources like tax return data. In these cases, I think they should
be required to release the analytical source code as well as data dictionaries
that allow others to create dummy or synthesic data. They should also release
detailed summary statistics when possible-- after taking differential privacy
concerns into account.

------
kiba
It boggles my mind. People actually think think tank are independent?

~~~
laretluval
Why would a researcher funded by government grants be more independent than a
researcher at a think tank funded by a corporation?

~~~
leot
Because gov't grants are awarded by a committee of people with lots of
different opinions, while corporations have only one interest in mind.

~~~
1123581321
Careful: a government board has one interest (welfare of its constituents) and
multiple opinions about how to serve it. A corporate board has one interest
(welfare of its shareholders) and multiple opinions above to how to serve it.

Besides that, both types of boards can have a variety of unofficial/official
power structures, consideration of the welfare of non-constituents/non-
shareholders, and varying degrees of competency.

This isn't to say that any type of governing body has arbitrary properties.
Predictable inequalities exist.

------
Animats
So that's what Lennar is up to at Hunters' Point.[1] Build high-end condos on
the waterfront, downsize the public housing,[1] push out the low-income black
people. With the head of the project now a "senior fellow" of the Brookings
Institution, it's easier to sell this.

[1] [http://thesfshipyard.com/](http://thesfshipyard.com/) [2] [http://hope-
sf.org/hunters.php](http://hope-sf.org/hunters.php)

