Category: Old Dish

In the hopes of figuring out the issue of the ethics of stem cell research, it sometimes helps to analogize. Here’s one I thought of. Let’s say there’s a lake somewhere that for some reason is seeing too many frogs reproducing. Bear with me. These frogs are making it hard for other species to breed and exist. So the environmental authorities decide to kill off the frogs to save the lake and rescue other species. Now what would the ethical difference be between killing these frogs as tadpoles when they spawn or later as grown frogs? Obviously, killing the tadpoles might be easier and less messy. But would anyone dispute that they are being killed as surely as the frogs or that by killing tadpoles, we are effectively killing frogs? The death of potential frogs compared to grown frogs seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. So if it’s meaningless for frogs, why do we have lower standards for humans?

SALON RESPONDS AGAIN: To their credit, Salon has answered my question about pharmaceutical ads. Patrick Hurley replied that, to the best of his knowledge, no drug company has advertized in Salon ever. Somehow I think they won’t in the future now either.

I can’t wait for the New York Times front-page treatment of why president Bush has bounced back in the polls. Can we have color graphs on the front page, analysis by Rick Berke, op-eds by Frank Rich, Bob Herbert et al. pondering why this has happened – and an accompanying editorial? Oh, never mind. But Gallup’s poll suggests to me that I’m not crazy, and that Bush’s low-key style, while infuriating those who want more government for every problem, will eventually win people over. Bush is now at a 57 percent job approval rating, compared to 45 percent for Bill Clinton at this stage. An amazing 78 percent say they respect him and 70 percent say they approve of him as a person. 62 percent say he has been more civil than his opponents; yet 69 percent say he is tough enough for the job. That’s an impressive combo. The lesson? Ignore the chattering classes. Ignore Manhattan insiders who have no real feel for the way most Americans think. Trust your instincts. And keep smiling. And keep your baseball caps for inside.

IS CHANDRA ALIVE?: Drudge fronts the National Enquirer’s scoop on the Levy disappearance. She told friends she was pregnant with Condit’s child and used her computer and cell-phone a day after she disappeared. Drudge implies that this casts an even darker light on Condit. Could be. Did he hack into her computer to check records? But why would he have used her cell-phone a day later? It’s also compatible with another scenario. Has she just upped and left? I’m not defending Condit. He obviously should have been forthcoming to the cops early on. But I do think the press should focus on issues relevant to Levy’s disappearance, not to Condit’s private moral conduct. It’s still possible he’s completely innocent. And that should count for something.

Wow. One reason I read every email I get is that you guys are so smart. I’d paraphrase your responses to this latest storm in a tea-cup, but I couldn’t really put it better than you have. What this suggests to me is that the audience of readers is simply way ahead of the suppliers of journalism these days. You get it. They don’t. And you see what the Internet is doing to these old media power-structures. They’re melting! They’re melting!

Here’s a selection of some of the best emails. Thanks so much. And thanks also for the big jump in donations since this flap started. There’s more good sponsorship news coming as a result of this. When it’s confirmed, I’ll let you know. But Gloria Gaynor said it best. Here are your responses:

“”The deeper question is: can me-zines accept any financing from sponsorship and advertising without these kinds of attacks?” Of course not. And it’s not going to matter if the money is paid directly to the writer or to an intermediary, or if the negotiations are carried out by someone else. But the even deeper question is “So what?” Everybody gets money from somewhere; everybody has temptations to bend to get more–and to keep what they have coming. It’s the totality of your life and work that defends you. Sometimes advertisers support people that they know will support them. Sometimes they support others in hope they will change. So it is with politicians. Some people give money to politicians they know agree with them. Some give money to politicians to try to change their minds. And some politicians respectably shake down people with talk of restrictive legislation that then doesn’t happen–what Fred McChesney called Money for Nothing, in his 1997 book of the same name (Harvard University Press, subtitled “Politicians, Rent Extraction, and Political Extortion.”) Which is why I think campaign finance reform is as much a crock as journalism finance reform would be, and why I think exclusive public financing of politicians would be as good an idea as exclusive public financing of journalists.

“Salon, et. al., are afraid of one frightening reality (at least in their eyes): that the Internet can so leverage the power of one, truly independent thinker, that their product of many “thinkers” is shown for what it really is – a hugely expensive exercise in diminishing returns. Go, man!

“Salon and Inside ain’t worth my telling them where to get off… Their stock value (I believe approaching approximately six corn flakes per share) speaks better than any invective I could muster. Now if Lady Camille could just get a new home for her writings…

“It is kind of funny that people would think that your dependence on the drug companies for therapy is not a conflict, but as soon as they give you any money it is a conflict. I guess if you were in a car accident and say, Gary Condit, pulled you out of your burning car, saved your life, and then paid a cab to take you home, if you wrote anything about Gary Condit you wouldn’t have to disclose the lifesaving, but you’d have to disclose the cab ride.

“Your decision about the taking the Pharma shows me something. Fundamentally, the Left hates business and, of course, “profits.” See how they’re attacking Microsoft because the company doesn’t want the Philadelphia schools system ripping off its software. As Salon explains, it’s not stealing when a poor school district does it. It’s vicious corporate bullying when a company defends licensing laws, though. You’re wrong if you think this issue is just about the pharmaceutical industry, it’s also about YOU making money. You’re not allowed to; you’re a conservative.

“Next time, take the money.

“I wonder if there’s something worth discussing in conflicts of interest that arise amongst journalists who aspire to work for the New York Times. I suspect that sometimes punches get pulled because the person wonders if down the road that’s their dream job and they don’t want anything in print to screw it up. So NYT criticism is left to some specialized outlets (& you). Might also be present in relation to criticism of any big media outlet (Time, Newsweek/Post etc). If a factor, then especially prevalent at places where people keep their resumes updated given the uncertain future (Salon, Inside).

“Obviously Andrew, you need a staff of a couple thousand people. How pissed would the elitist Salon types be? They, who feel they have a divine right to control the press, are already in cardiac trauma over the insolence of Drudge. So, why don’t you get 2,000 staffers to write for you?

“If it weren’t for all the recent fuss @ salon.com, I’d never have known your site existed. I’ll read it regularly from now on. Happy crucifixion….”

To their credit, Salon has coughed up a long list of advertisers and sponsors, which they say is incomplete. It’s jammed with movie studios whose films they review, book publishers whose books they cover, companies they inevitably write about, magazines they link to, and on and on. Perhaps it’s best if I put it this way:

Salon’s advertisers in 2001: Intel, Proctor & Gamble, Audible.com, X10, Lexus, Motorola, Mercedes, Warner Bros, Buy.com, New Republic, McAfee, Harper Collins, NY Times, AT&T Wireless, Lancôme, 20th Century Fox, Oxford University Press, Discover Card, Penguin/Putnam, Inside.com, Diamondology, Gillette, Mercury Mountaineer, Hewlett-Packard, Salomon, Smith Barney, CDW, Virgin Atlantic, The New School, The Street.com, Business 2.0, E Trade, Verizon, Ask Jeeves, Esquire, iPublish, Universal Studios, I.T. World, Grey Mause Records.

andrewsullivan.com’s advertiser in 2001: PHRMA (gratuity).

Now who do you think should be asking whom about conflict of interest questions?

By the way, I’ve also asked Salon for a list of their investors. No word yet. Hmmm. I’ve also asked them if they have ever taken money from a pharmaceutical company. That should be interesting. Inside.com hasn’t responded. One word about their silence: pathetic.

Okay, they asked for it. We’re going to put up PHRMA’s ad anyway as soon as we get it – and take nothing in return. Screw the money. I’m not going to be brow-beaten by the usual combination of gotcha journalists and left-wing thought police. The point of the ads was to provide intelligent people, i.e. my beloved readers, a way to link to sites that actually give real information about the issue of pharmaceuticals instead of the thinly veiled liberal propaganda doled out by the mainstream press. PHRMA usually pays through the teeth for these ads, which is why they offered us a modest sum. I’m quite happy to forgo the money, but not the principle. We should get the ad copy soon and post it as soon as we get it. In the meantime, tell Salon and Inside where to get off by visiting these sites for yourself. Here’s one. And here’s

I’ve just emailed Daryl Lindsey at Salon.com and Whitney Joiner of Inside.com, asking them to give me a list of all of the corporate sponsors and advertizers for both webzines. Fair enough, no? Both gave me a mere couple of hours to respond to their questions, so we’ll see how long these avatars of ethical journalism take to disclose their own sources of funding. (With both, it shouldn’t take too long.)

SCRAPING THE BARREL DEPT: Condit-Levy anagrams, courtesy of Tim Noah.

THE SHEER F**KING CHUTZPAH AWARD GOES TO …: Lanny Davis, former Clinton lackey, now telling Gary Condit to come clean.

Isn’t it a little odd that the two news sources hard on the tail of my first $7500 sponsorship are Inside.com and Salon.com, two big liberal loss-making online magazines? I like both sites, link to them, praise and criticize them, and consider many people at both places friends. And there is probably a legitimate story there, if not exactly an earth-shattering one. But isn’t it a little odd that these two sites should be the first to gang up on this one, and help deprive it of its only corporate sponsorship yet? (For background, check out the next but one item.) It’s especially striking that these big-ass websites argue that the reason my lone advertizer represents a conflict of interest and their sponsors and advertizers don’t, is that I’m a small website. Since the entire editorial staff is me; and the entire technical and business staff amounts to my friend Robert Cameron and his staff at Fantascope, Salon and Inside argue I cannot insulate myself from corporate influence the way they can. But that means that a one-man site like this one can never get ads or sponsors without a conflict of interest, doesn’t it? Which means only big sites will survive … like Salon and Inside. Hmmmm. Mighty convenient argument, huh? I guess it sucks to watch a site like mine actually make money while Inside and Salon get sold or delisted. Notice also the journalistic tactics. Both reporters went to my regular editors first at the New York Times and the New Republic to get statements and then contacted me last. This technique is designed to corner people; indeed to pressure them into caving. I feel bad I did. But sometimes, you’ve got to pick your battles. They won this one. We’ll win the war.

Another affair? Read the Washington Post‘s account of Gary Condit’s alleged affair with another young woman. Can you find anything in it relevant to the possible death of Chandra Levy? I can’t. The most ominous suggestion is that Condit once told his former paramour never to talk about the relationship again. This is seen as some sort of dark threat. It sounds like boiler-plate affair talk to me. Now, look. I know plenty of people suspect Condit killed Chandra or had something to do with it. But being a serial philanderer does not make you a murderer. Thank God Bill Safire gets this today. Maybe he’ll help stem the prurient tide. Nor, as Mickey Kaus suggests, does having sado-masochistic sex with neckties (no accounting for taste) suggest to anyone but the already convinced that this is relevant because Condit could have killed Chandra in a sexual accident. Do we need to know the kind of underwear he has in case it turns out he strangled her with it? What if it turns out that none of these things is relevant? How does Condit get his privacy back? He can’t and he won’t. And his punishment by media has nothing to do with his possible culpability in the Levy case and everything to do with the feeding frenzy of a slow news summer.

Two of my editors have been called by Daryl Lindsey from Salon.com, and another reporter from Inside.com, asking them what their position is now that this website has some sponsorship from PHRMA, the umbrella group for the pharmaceutical companies. Lindsey has asked my editors whether they will now stop me writing about that issue in their pages, or insert conflict of interest disclosures in such articles, because my work is now allegedly tainted. Tainted? How is this different than bigger magazines or newspapers taking far more money from such companies in advertising? Lindsey argues that unlike bigger magazines, this is an example of an individual writer, who covers pharmaceutical industry issues extensively, accepting direct payment for the ads. I see his worry, but he’s wrong. First off, the money goes to Fantascope.com, the parent company for this site. It doesn’t go to me directly. I see none of it – and none of the donation money either. We set up a very strict editorial/corporate wall early on for financing this little site. (I was unaware until a few minutes ago that we had even actually received any money from PHRMA. It turns out it was deposited two days ago. That kind of editorial-corporate separation is the point.) I have yet to receive a cent from this venture. Everything we have raised so far has gone to expenses. Secondly, all the direct negotiations for this matter were conducted by my webmaster, Robert Cameron, who handles all the business matters. Thirdly, there is full disclosure. Robert told the New York Times about the deal before it was even completed – and it would entail a clear and blaring ad on the site as the return. We’re not trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes.

The deeper question is: can me-zines accept any financing from sponsorship and advertising without these kinds of attacks? By their very nature, these sites are individual ventures. I want to try and make this one more than a simple personal web-page – not to make myself rich off it (fat chance) but to prove a point about the economic viability of journalism on the web. But inevitably, it’s andrewsullivan.com, which makes the appearance of a conflict of interest almost unavoidable. It doesn’t help matters that my first sponsors are the target of leftist hatred and demonization, and that they are embroiled in a public controversy I intend to keep writing about. So here’s my decision. I’m returning the money and revoking the sponsorship. I don’t want to be a wimp, but nor do I want to give my critics an easy target. This is not a criticism of the drug companies. I would be proud of their sponsorship. But I don’t want to have every argument I make about the importance of pharmaceutical research to be undermined by the lie that I have been bought and paid for. It’s a lie, as anyone who has read me for long enough knows. My beliefs on this and on many things are not for sale. But I don’t see why I should give my critics any unnecessary ammunition or my beloved editors elsewhere any grief. But here’s my request in return. If you know of any company that would be willing to sponsor this site, with a minimum sponsorship of $10,000, please contact Robert Cameron at robert@fantascope.com. We need financial support, and we’d prefer it from companies which are not directly involved in major controversy. If this site is to last longer than, say, Suck or Feed or, ahem, Salon, we need your corporate help.

Well at least Larry Kudlow is honest. The economics writer for National Review weighs in this morning on the Condit case. His argument? Condit should resign already because he has committed adultery. In fact, anyone who commits adultery should resign from public office. For Kudlow, there is no distinction between private and public life – and immoral people have no right to have any privacy at all. “Judeo-Christian religions teach that marital fidelity and faithfulness are the building blocks of a civilization and society,” Kudlow writes. “Without them, there can be no stability. This is not a trifling point. It is a major point. It’s not merely that he covered up the affair, but that he had the affair.” He goes on: “Flimsy distinctions between private and public behavior ignore all this and serve merely to muddy the waters of proper conduct. Those Ten Commandments should govern our behavior at all times. There is no difference between public and private actions; they are all of the same piece.” Wow. Kudlow even looks kindly on a law in the District making adultery a crime. Doesn’t that make this public? Presumably, Kudlow supports outing anyone he disapproves of if they are gay, especially if they live in states with sodomy laws. The fact that a leading conservative writer can see absolutely no necessity for a public-private distinction in a liberal democracy shows how degenerate some conservatism now is. Give me an adulterer over an ayatollah any day.