Gilens & Page Debunked -- news at Vox!
Ah yes, Vox... that institution of journalistic excellence we've all come to know and love. Well, it would appear that Vox doesn't like the notion that there is systemic corruption in DC.
Since its initial release, the Gilens/Page paper's findings have been targeted in three separate debunkings. Cornell professor Peter Enns, recent Princeton PhD graduate Omar Bashir, and a team of three researchers — UT Austin grad student J. Alexander Branham, University of Michigan professor Stuart Soroka, and UT professor Christopher Wlezien — have all taken a look at Gilens and Page's underlying data and found that their analysis doesn't hold up.
Remember that study saying America is an oligarchy? 3 rebuttals say it's wrong, Vox
I can certainly understand why Vox would want to press that case. After all, since the rise of Clinton they have been solidly in her corner. Some might say, too solidly:
Back in April, the watchdog group FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting), put out a story about how VOX, known for being run by former Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein, published a “glowing” story by Matthew Yglesias, about Goldman Sachs without disclosing a substantial financial interest it had in the financial giant... Though it flew under the radar of the mainstream media, to those paying attention, the piece revealed a disturbing decline for what began in 2014 as a promising new media outlet—a transformation into a source for neoliberal, pro-corporate propaganda disguised as left wing punditry, just two years after its inception.
The Sad Decline of VOX: How a Once-Promising Media Outlet Became a Bastion of Neoliberal Corporatism, Paste Monthly
In fact, there is a surprising congruence between Vox headlines and Democratic party press releases. But let's just press on because the Vox article does, in fact, reference actual science papers. And what do those science papers tell us? They tell us that science is doing what it supposed to do. The Testing Theories paper generated quite a bit of discussion after it was picked up by international media. Vox picked up on some of this discussion and labeled it as "debunking". You'd think someone would step up to defend the original paper. Someone like:
Since then, a number of questions and criticisms have been raised about our work — some offering sensible critiques and alternative perspectives and others simply mistaken. We have responded in print to some of these, and will list some of those responses at the end of this post. Here we will respond briefly to the most important challenges to our research. In brief, we don’t believe that any of these critiques, individually or collectively, undermine our central claims
Of course the other problem is that readily observable reality also supports the conclusions Gilens & Page come to.
Here’s a list ~17 issues, each polling over 70%, that are unable to get any traction. You’d think a topic that was nearing 80% support would be a shoe-in, right? Overturning Citizens United isn’t on that list but it should be, weighing in at 73%.
Or one might wonder why we can’t seem to prosecute any Wall Street executives despite the fact that the Corporations have been convicted. How is it, exactly, that a crime has been committed and yet no human was involved? In fact we can watch that happening this very moment with the Wells Fargo scam which, apparently, was not restricted to Wells Fargo and had the active support of upper management. I’ll get my bowl of popcorn while I wait to watch Hillary get Obama to pursue vigorous criminal prosecutions.
I could go over the concept of “regulatory capture” but I doubt I need to. We could look at appointees to regulatory positions… particularly those which oversee Wall Street like these here to get the picture:
And, of course, when all else fails we can always simply follow the money.
So apparently camp Hillary has finally gotten itself organized enough to try to rebut not just the Testing Theories paper but the rest of observable reality also.
Do any of you bright people have anything to correct or add? I'd like to have a well sourced rebuttal to this next Clinton lie.
Comments
Methinks they doth protest
Methinks they doth protest too much. I mean, look at the idea of some rag like Vox attacking a peer reviewed work like the paper that shows we are in fact a Oligarchy and NOT a democratic republic, albeit they still love foisting such a fantasy on us all. That also they hope they do not lose all of their "readers" "viewers" followers etc, is due to the lack of faith the majority of us all have regarding our MSM, Politicians, and other once trusted institutions(man were we silly or what?). The damage is strong, done, and they can't repair it.
So long, and thanks for all the fish
To be fair
Vox did in fact cite 3 credible papers. It's not like they just made up this stuff from whole cloth.
Where they failed was in not publishing the Gilens & Page rebuttal in the same story and by overblowing the whole thing into "debunking" rather than "the ongoing process of science".
It wasn't "Vox attacking a peer reviewed work". It was just completely skewed reporting.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Thank you for being fair
Thank you for being fair about that. but I still stand by the opinion that they actually went to lengths to rip into the paper shows the desperation of the Corporatocracy is desperate to keep folks lulled into thinking that we have something they robbed from us. This Oligarchy is not quite ready to let it be so public that our democratic republic and any semblance of "democracy" is a sham. We all still have a chance to get that back, but once they can work it completely out of our system and have a generation that knows nothing of any democracy they will have an easier time getting compliance.
For now, media tools like Vox will work at helping keep their bread buttered by their corporate puppet-masters, and that is how I call it.
So long, and thanks for all the fish
I'm with Carter on this one.
Carter said to Thom Hartmann:
Carter many not have been a good president due to his being out of his league and listening to terrible advice, but he's seen what the corporatocracy has been doing to the least among us. So when Carter says we are an oligarchy, I consider that a justification of the central premise of Gilens and Page. Anything else is nitpicking.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
I agree with you on Jimmy Carter. Since leaving office he
has continued to grow intellectually and has become a careful observer of the world order and I think he is correct in how he characterizes American politics and its economy.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
It's a damn shame...
that Carter didn't have the wisdom he now possesses when he was President. Could have saved us a whole lot of Carter deregulation and prevented the Reagan Devolution.
Yup... there's that pesky reality thing again
This whole scene reminds me of the apocryphal bumblebees can't fly story. Except in this case some intrepid scientist has finally developed the math showing bumblebees can fly. Someone else is debunking that math. In the mean time, bumblebees are flying merrily around doing their pollination thing.
Gilens & Page was only the scientific period at the end of the "of course America is corrupt" sentence. It proved what was already obvious.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
One thing I have learning in blogging
is that good journalism is hard and an incredible time sink. Not only do you have to read current articles, but you have to read the links, and then you have to read the links within the links! And then sometime you have to go to the original sources like the academic studies or white papers or Congressional record.
If you're interested in a particular topic, over time you find out who the good resources are, which writers know their stuff and can be counted reliable, etc. I have been consistently flabbergasted by a pundit and journalism phylum that often seems like they don't even keep up with the top tier of current coverage, let alone be willing to plumb along to depths 2 and 3. But then you realize that they aren't interested in presenting reality, they are interested in presenting their version of reality.
When you have developed some base of knowlege in a particular subject, it's then really quite interesting to watch the manipulation and massaging of the data or the facts in order to persuade others to a particular view.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
yes
What's even more horrifying is when you've established a mental list of people/sources you trust based upon repeated fact-checking of their work, and then one day they punch you in the face by peddling bald-faced lies and/or spin, because they've got a personal axe to grind.
That's happened to a lot of my 'trusted' sources since $$Hillary came along.
Evil is now actually pragmatism, because so many need it to be in order to keep their comfy lifestyle.
Where Vox failed, and usually fails
... is in letting in partisan blinders obscure their view of reality. Like a lot of our traditional media, they have become a precise analogue of Fox News. Their political-ideological worldview colors everything they write about. I don't even think most of them are intentionally trying to mislead. They just swim in the toxic soup of Beltway doublethink that justifies the status quo, in which they have strong vested interests they don't acknowledge.
Anything challenging that worldview, especially something that would reveal them as obsequious courtiers rather than brave defenders of journalistic integrity, must a priori be wrong, therefore. I don't think most formerly reputable media figures are trying to mislead, in the main. I think this campaign is revealing how much they are misled by their own assumptions and beliefs.
Please help support caucus99percent!
I'll add something.
That curve, from 1977 onwards, is quite obviously an exponential curve.
The curve only goes to 2012, which means the exponential trend it indicates can't possibly have continued.
Which means that the only way for the wealthy to continue getting their vigorish is ruin the rest of us by creating financial "growth" that allows the economy to "grow" at a rate that actual human production of goods and services can't possibly meet.
In other words: A bubble.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Just like in 1929
That was a "bubble economy" too, and when it popped - as it had to eventually - hoooo boy.....
We will not be so lucky as to get another FDR. Not this time.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
[deleted]
[deleted]
That's why they rely so heavily
on the "inevitability" talking point.
This is just the way the world is. Change isn't possible; only idiots think it is.
That's pretty much all they've got.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Kos=Vox
Is there some connection there beyond the spiritual?
I wondered if there's some evidence of Vox being bought by correct the record.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
[deleted]
[deleted]
Kos Media LLC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markos_Moulitsas
Vox Media
In November 2011, the company, now renamed Vox Media, officially launched The Verge, with Topolsky as editor-History
So yes Vox =Kos who is now a big time 1%er.
http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2012/03/12/markos-moulitsas-champion-of-the-9...
I'd say Kos made a fortune when he sold his interest in Vox Media
Ahhhh... it all becomes clear.
Thanks for the update.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard