Conflicted 'Reason Foundation' Attacks City-Run Wi-FiThe fine line between science and paid public relations... ( old news - 09:56AM Wednesday Dec 06 2006) tags: coverage · business · Op/Ed · Politics · municipalThe "Libertarian" think tank Reason Foundation is getting plenty of press this morning for their latest public relations effort, which attacks city-run wireless networks. Note how some papers report this as an objective analysis, while others note that the group recently received a $100,000 grant from AT&T. Reason promises, though, that the money did not fund this latest study. It's important for the press to point out that these aren't objective scientists and researchers as much as they are ideological crusaders and public relations gurus who tinker with statistics until they support their corporate donors' economic positions (less government oversight, privatization, deregulation). Assuming it's true that Reason's primary goal is to eliminate municipal broadband and not to objectively study it--what good is their analysis in the realm of economic science? As we reported, Reason recently joined forces with a slew of similarly incumbent-funded think tanks to issue an anti-municipal broadband manifesto. Among other things, the groups suggest banning your town and city from providing their own broadband services, even if incumbent providers refuse to serve your area and your community has voted democratically to do something about it. Related:- Can't We All Just Get Along?
- Nation's Largest ISPs Crafting Fake National Broadband Policy
- Friday Evening Links
- FTTH Council Wants 100Mbps For All
- Tuesday Morning Links
- Scott Cleland: Google Using 21x The Bandwidth They Pay For
- Consumer Group Wants $44 Billion For U.S. Broadband
- Verizon's Open Development Initiative? So Far It's A Joke
|
 russotto
join:2000-10-05 Collegeville, PA | In other news, dog bites man The Reason Foundation coming out against government-funded projects isn't exactly what I'd call news. They're biased (and admittedly so), but to claim they're acting based on bribes from AT&T is way over the top. | |
|  |   kamm
join:2001-02-14 Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
| Re: In other news, dog bites man said by russotto :The Reason Foundation coming out against government-funded projects isn't exactly what I'd call news. They're biased (and admittedly so), but to claim they're acting based on bribes from AT&T is way over the top. On the contrary it is absolutely proven, see their $100,000 from AT&T and the subsequent "analysis" heavily favoring a position that is sweet candy for AT&T. It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck then how should we call it?  | |
|  |  |   operagost
join:1999-08-02 Phoenixville, PA | Re: In other news, dog bites man Correlation does not prove causation.
Money changed hands, but it can't be labeled a "bribe" unless you have other evidence to the fact. | |
|  |  |  |  karlmarx
join:2006-09-18 Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: In other news, dog bites man "Money changed hands". That statement is true. Thus, it was a BRIBE. By definition, a bribe is money or goods and services changing hands to influence someone/something. AT&T paid money to this 'think tank', in order to get results they wanted. That, by anyone's definition, is a bribe. -- Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|  |  |  |  |   operagost
join:1999-08-02 Phoenixville, PA | Re: In other news, dog bites man By that definition, then every campaign contribution is a bribe. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   AnonDOG
| Re: In other news, dog bites man quote: By that definition, then every campaign contribution is a bribe.
Ayup, you are beginning to see the light grasshopper.
 | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  johnh123
join:2002-11-19 Chicago, IL | Had they done a paper on it, they would have had the same position even if the muni's had given them the money. They will always take the no-government position. Move along, nothing to see here. | |
|  |  |   Steve ho ho ho dammit Consultant join:2001-03-10 Yorba Linda, CA
| said by kamm : On the contrary it is absolutely proven, see their $100,000 from AT&T and the subsequent "analysis" heavily favoring a position that is sweet candy for AT&T.It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck then how should we call it? Perhaps if you had been following the Reason Foundation's positions for the last 20 years you would know that this was the completely predictable position by people who steadfastly value liberty and see increased government as a threat to that (even when the people want it).
There are plenty of places where the analysis follows the funding, but here it's the other way around.
Steve -- Stephen J. Friedl Unix Wizard Microsoft Security MVP Tustin, California USA my web site | |
|  |  |  dynodb Premium,VIP join:2004-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
| said by kamm :said by russotto :The Reason Foundation coming out against government-funded projects isn't exactly what I'd call news. They're biased (and admittedly so), but to claim they're acting based on bribes from AT&T is way over the top. On the contrary it is absolutely proven, see their $100,000 from AT&T and the subsequent "analysis" heavily favoring a position that is sweet candy for AT&T.It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck then how should we call it? Perhaps you didn't see the linked article where it reminds us that AT&T is a provider for the large Utah muni Utopia project, among others:
»www.muniwireless.com/newsletter/nr157.html »www.muniwireless.com/newsletter/nr150.html
It's hardly "proof" that AT&T is "bribing" the Reason Foundation to oppose muni broadband when they're profiting from it. | |
|  |  |   cdru Go Colts Premium,MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon FIOS
| said by kamm :It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck then how should we call it? A witch! Burn them! -- Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? | |
|  b10010011 Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07 Bellingham, WA edit: December 6th, @10:59AM
| Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians? The Libertarians think there should be no government at all and private companies should own everything. | |
|  |   Steve ho ho ho dammit Consultant join:2001-03-10 Yorba Linda, CA
| Re: Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians? said by b10010011 :The Libertarians think there should be no government at all and private companies should own everything. There are no libertarians who believe that there should be no government: only those who believe in limiting the government's role to those where it has an inherent monopoly (usually involving the use of force, such as enforcing contracts or preventing citizens from harming each other).
What you're thinking of are anarchists.
Steve -- Stephen J. Friedl Unix Wizard Microsoft Security MVP Tustin, California USA my web site | |
|  |  |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02
Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
edit: December 6th, @11:22AM
| Re: Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians? Eh, while you're painting an accurate picture of the Libertarian philosophy (albeit a little rosy), most of these think tanks simply use the Libertarian platform as a framework for the real agenda, which is to weaken government oversight, eliminate regulation, and increase revenue. Pretty much at any cost...
They really would be happy with no government and corporate control of everything. It's really pretty disingenuous to pretend this is a position that values liberty and independence, as they've simply bastardized the Libertarian philosophy for financial gain.
What kind of Libertarian wants the federal government passing federal laws (lobbied for by telcos) telling them their town can't vote? No, Big government is just fine with these folks provided it's creating better profit margins and doing what they tell it to.
Like the heartland Institute, who obfuscates their donors, and pretends to work the Libertarian agenda by calling claims that Tobacco smoking causes cancer "junk science" and pretending to be for "smoker's rights"....while getting funds from all the major tobacco companies.
Not that I don't find the "value liberty" schtick highly heart-warming, but it's paper god damn thin. Libertarianism in this particular incarnation is about greed. Nothing more. | |
|  |  |  |   Steve ho ho ho dammit Consultant join:2001-03-10 Yorba Linda, CA
| Re: Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians? said by Karl Bode :Eh, while you're painting an accurate picture of the Libertarian philosophy (albeit a little rosy), most of these think tanks simply use the Libertarian platform as a framework for the real agenda, which is to weaken government oversight, eliminate regulation, and increase revenue. Pretty much at any cost... Oh, I believe that any honorable principle can be used as a cloak for an self-interested position, and I don't know enough about Heartland to comment, but I do know that the Reason Foundation has had a fully principled and consistent position for years. They're not a front for anybody.
Steve -- Stephen J. Friedl Unix Wizard Microsoft Security MVP Tustin, California USA my web site | |
|  |  |  |  |   garagerock Premium join:2002-06-14 Louisville, KY
| Re: Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians? quote: "As the new century begins, dominant assumptions about government, popular culture, and many social and business institutions are in transition. Some of these shifts reinforce traditional American ideas about liberty and limited government. But the backlash against free markets and increased choices is gaining ground in many quarters
.
from: »www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti···undation
If there is such a backlash against "free markets and increased choices", then what is their beef with municipal broadband?
1. It is another choice and competitor in the oh-so idealized "Free Market" 2. If the "free market" can't handle another competitor that either serves consumers better and/or where others will not, why is that bad for anyone?
The bottom line is that if the citizenry asks their municipal government (through a voter referendum) to provide municipal broadband, the idea that corporations can quash that request is an affront to the citizens liberty, the very thing this "thinktank" is supposedly protecting. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   Steve ho ho ho dammit Consultant join:2001-03-10 Yorba Linda, CA | Re: Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians? There's a difference between having a view that you don't agree with, and claiming that view has been bought and paid for. Pick one. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| Re: Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians? said by Steve :There's a difference between having a view that you don't agree with, and claiming that view has been bought and paid for. Pick one. Yeah, however, the grant or donation or contribution or bribe or gift of money, whatever it was, from ATT certainly can give the appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest. Whether or not it exists doesn't matter. The fact is that they took it and then released a "report" that falls right in line with ATT's agenda. This, frankly, hurts the credibility of their "findings." -- Prove it... | |
|  |  |  |  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by Steve :... I do know that the Reason Foundation has had a fully principled and consistent position for years. They're not a front for anybody. Steve being consistent doesn't mean they are being straightforward and being principled doesn't mean they are right. Let them clearly and conspicuously state who they are working for (or where their funding comes from) and I don't care what philosophy or position they espouse.
Just don't pretend your position is for the common good when it only benefits your paymaster and it's widely known that paymaster has an agenda completely different from the common good. | |
|  |  |  |  dynodb Premium,VIP join:2004-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
| said by Karl Bode :Eh, while you're painting an accurate picture of the Libertarian philosophy (albeit a little rosy), most of these think tanks simply use the Libertarian platform as a framework for the real agenda, which is to weaken government oversight, eliminate regulation, and increase revenue. Pretty much at any cost... Nonsense. You clearly have no clue what they stand for, yet have no problem making accusations and strawman arguments against them. Of course they're for limited goverment intrusion and believe that will increase revenue. "at any cost"? The Black Helocopters circling yet Karl? Better get your tinfoil.
They really would be happy with no government and corporate control of everything. It's really pretty disingenuous to pretend this is a position that values liberty and independence, as they've simply bastardized the Libertarian philosophy for financial gain. Yet another dishonest strawman argument... not that you've really proved capable of intellectual honesty in the first place. Please, show me where in the charter of the Heartland Institute, Cato, or any other such organization that they'd be happy with "no government".
What kind of Libertarian wants the federal government passing federal laws (lobbied for by telcos) telling them their town can't vote? No, Big government is just fine with these folks provided it's creating better profit margins and doing what they tell it to. They're obviously (well, to anyone with any degree of objectivity) not against the right of a town to vote, but rather against taxpayer funded competition with the private sector.Like the heartland Institute, who obfuscates their donors, and pretends to work the Libertarian agenda by calling claims that Tobacco smoking causes cancer "junk science" and pretending to be for "smoker's rights"....while getting funds from all the major tobacco companies. OK, this one crosses the line from dishonest mischaracterization to flat out lie. They don't claim that tobacco smoking causes cancer, but that the claimed dangers from smoking and "second hand smoke" that drive many smoking bans and laws aren't supported by science. Their claim is that smoking deaths under age 75 are closer to 100,000 rather than the "official" number of 400,000. Are they right? I don't know, but clearly they're not arguing that tobacco smoking doesn't cause cancer.
And they're getting funds from ALL the major tobacco companies? So what if they were? Why wouldn't they support an organization that benefits them? Opposition to smoking bans in places like bars is perfectly in line with libertarian principles, which would have consumers and business owners make that decision for themselves. No different than gun manufacturers supporting the NRA.Not that I don't find the "value liberty" schtick highly heart-warming, but it's paper god damn thin. Libertarianism in this particular incarnation is about greed. Nothing more. Socialist much? Because of course there couldn't possibly have anything to do with the free market principles they stand for being violated now could it? 
Do you even try to be taken seriously in your commentary? Pointing out that an organization took donations from AT&T is perfectly valid, but your baseless accusations, straw man arguments and absurd claims go well beyond crossing the line. | |
|  |  |  |  |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02 | Re: Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians? Socialist, black helicopters, yadda yadda yadda.... | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   slim Premium join:2001-02-13 Arlington, VA
| Re: Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians? said by Karl Bode :Socialist, black helicopters, yadda yadda yadda....  | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   qdemn7 Smurf in My Loop Premium join:2003-09-16 Fort Worth, TX
| said by Karl Bode :Socialist, black helicopters, yadda yadda yadda.... Just for record, I find your continued assertions that vaccines cause autism to be in the same sort of lunatic fringe that the black helicopter / tinfoil hat folks live. Just like those kooks who claim Wi-Fi and cell phones cause cancer. And where have I read articles about those last two issues lately? Why RIGHT HERE, written by you, Karl. -- Those who complain the loudest about their loss of rights under the Patriot Act seem to be the first ones to try to take away others rights under the Second Amendment. | |
|  |  |  |  |  karlmarx
join:2006-09-18 Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Wow, you've fallen for their beliefs, hook line and sinker.
"They don't claim that tobacco smoking causes cancer". Umm, it's a SCIENTIFIC FACT that smoking causes cancer. PERIOD. The claim that it's ONLY 100,000 is smoke and mirrors. It doesn't matter if it's one person, or 1 Million people. Smoking causes cancer. As a former smoker, I recognize the fact, and fully support the ban of smoking everywhere.
They are against the taxpayer funded competition? Umm, yes, they are. And to DO that, they are against the RIGHT of the taxpayer to VOTE FOR a muni project. Your arguments is fallacious, you can't have it both ways. Either they support the rights of the taxpayer, or they don't (they obviously don't).
"Because of course there couldn't possibly have anything to do with the free market principles they stand for being violated now could it?" Umm, they don't stand for free markets. They stand for the rights of the megacorps to rape the customer. That's not libertarian, that's just plain lies. -- Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  dynodb Premium,VIP join:2004-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
| Re: Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians? said by karlmarx :Wow, you've fallen for their beliefs, hook line and sinker. "They don't claim that tobacco smoking causes cancer". Umm, it's a SCIENTIFIC FACT that smoking causes cancer. PERIOD. The claim that it's ONLY 100,000 is smoke and mirrors. It doesn't matter if it's one person, or 1 Million people. Smoking causes cancer. As a former smoker, I recognize the fact, and fully support the ban of smoking everywhere. The point is that they aren't stating that smoking doesn't cause cancer. That would be ridiculous,though Karl falsely represented them as making that claim. People should make choices based on the facts, but if the Health Nazi Nanny Brigade is making exaggerated claims then passing laws based on those false claims, the public is not well served. How very elitist that you'd make decisions for others- why am I not at all suprised? What else would you ban because it's bad for you, Komrade?They are against the taxpayer funded competition? Umm, yes, they are. And to DO that, they are against the RIGHT of the taxpayer to VOTE FOR a muni project. Your arguments is fallacious, you can't have it both ways. Either they support the rights of the taxpayer, or they don't (they obviously don't). And if they're against a town passing a law requiring that every adult under 5'2" tall pay double taxes, does that mean they're against the "RIGHT" of the taxpayer to "VOTE FOR" such a law? After all, the majority would benefit. "Because of course there couldn't possibly have anything to do with the free market principles they stand for being violated now could it?" Umm, they don't stand for free markets. They stand for the rights of the megacorps to rape the customer. That's not libertarian, that's just plain lies. Um, no. Clearly you (like Karl) are clueless about what libertarian-leaning groups such as this stand for. Out to "rape the consumer" by supporting a system that encourages competion and lowers costs by reducing costly and excessive regulation? Nice job parroting the leftist party line that anyone supporting a free market and opposed to excessive barriers to economic expansion is only looking out for the Big Bad Corporations. Without hyperbole, lies and misrepresentations you and your ilk would be lost.
Don't you have a Wal-Mart protest to prepare for or something? Maybe watch "Supersize Me" for the 8th time? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   bentman78 Bentley
join:2004-04-16 Arlington, VA | Re: Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians? that is possible the funniest thing I have read on BBR... | |
|  |  |  b10010011 Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07 Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| I don't know, I work with a hand full of Libertarians.
They all seem to think we don't need a government.
People would be "enlightened" and have no need for government.
You would simply challenge anyone that disagrees with you to a Dual to the Death. | |
|  |  |  |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02
Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
edit: December 6th, @01:43PM
| Re: Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians? quote: You would simply challenge anyone that disagrees with you to a Dual to the Death.
You'd probably die from unregulated polluted drinking water first. 
We defend toxic water drinker's rights! Our studies show that water contaminated with such pollutants as lead and mercury actually help DRIVE local economies! Let us band together under the pseudo Libertarian, pseudo free-market flag and put an end to evil big government's attempts to tell you what kind of carcinogens you can put into your body! Etc, etc, etc... | |
|  |  |  |  |  Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01
| Re: Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians? said by Karl Bode : quote: You would simply challenge anyone that disagrees with you to a Dual to the Death.
You'd probably die from unregulated polluted drinking water first.  We defend toxic water drinker's rights! Our studies show that water contaminated with such pollutants as lead and mercury actually help DRIVE local economies! Let us band together under the pseudo Libertarian, pseudo free-market flag and put an end to evil big government's attempts to tell you what kind of carcinogens you can put into your body! Etc, etc, etc... »fluoridealert.org/ Not that I buy it, just amusing and falls in line w/ what you're saying. | |
|  |  |  |  |   justncredible
@rr.com
| Karl hates the government we have but at the same time feels it should control and run every aspect of his and yours lives. Leftist are sick.
Libertarians are the responsible adult option. Crimes would be punished instead of the leftist judges letting murders and baby rapist out of prison in a few years. States would still retain the power they have always had, just in the libertarian world the responsibility would be given back to the people. No one with any common sense would in a million years steal tax money to fund wi-fi, the plans are insane. Yet the new generation of idiots coming out of the schools think the government is supposed to provide everything, Karl I fear for many years is one of them. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| Re: Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians? said by justncredible :
Libertarians are the responsible adult option. Actual, the responsible adult option is not to pigeonhole one's self into some group's ideological framework and think for one's self... Libertarians are just like the Republicans and Democrats, except that their bullshit has a different stink. -- Prove it... | |
|  Timmn
join:2000-04-23 Tinley Park, IL
| I don't see what their problem is...... Especially if the incumbent providers will not provide service.
The only argument I can think of would be that if the incumbents feel that they can't provide service for a particular area, then it would be a waste of the taxpayer's money for the local government to provide it.
So, in the end, if the incumbents feel that they can't provide your town/area with service, you're just SOL.
That is stupid, if I pay taxes to my local area and it was not served by any incumbents, and the local government said they wanted to provide it, put it to a vote, and it passed, why should anyone tell them they can't do it? | |
|  |  JosephG6
join:2006-12-06 Athens, GA
| Libertarian Views - you are all wrong Libertarians are not against this because poor AT&T would lose money. They are against this because it isn't the government's place to provide Wi-Fi. Re-read the Constitution folks. This is nothing less than vote buying. Next we will see all of you wanting free cell phone service at tax payers expense. If you want Wi-Fi throughout your city, go buy a broadband access card and leave me and my money alone. | |
|  |  bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| Re: Libertarian Views - you are all wrong said by JosephG6 :Libertarians are not against this because poor AT&T would lose money. They are against this because it isn't the government's place to provide Wi-Fi. Re-read the Constitution folks. The Constitution merely states, if read as it should be, that the FEDERAL government should not provide free wifi to the citizens as that is not its role. The Constitution does not state ANYTHING about whether or not a city or even a state can provide free wifi to its citizens. In fact, the Constitution states that it is well within the rights of cities or states to do so because those powers are not enumerated to the federal government and doing so is not prohibited by the Constitution.
And this has been today's civics lesson... -- Prove it... | |
|  |  Zoder
join:2002-04-16 Miami, FL
| If you were talking about the federal government providing wi-fi service I'd agree with you. But there is nothing in the Constitution restricting individual towns from providing such services. In fact the power lies with the people if you reread the 10th amendment. So if the people of a town or city wanted municipal broadband, they should be free to vote on it. | |
|  bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| Think Tanks... Yet another reason I'm thoroughly convinced that there really isn't any thinking going on at "think tanks". Think tanks, such as Reason, Cato, Brookings, etc. more often than not START with a position and find data that supports their position while totally ignoring ANY or ALL contradictory data. Typically there's a lot of messaging of the data before hand as well so that when they run the stats it comes out in their favor.
It is why, for some odd reason, think tanks from different from political bents can always support their argument with numbers and "data" on the same issue.
And this is of course saying nothing about the whole Libertarian political ideology... They are all the same - Republican, Democrat, Libertarian... -- Prove it... | |
|  |   qdemn7 Smurf in My Loop Premium join:2003-09-16 Fort Worth, TX
| Re: Think Tanks... said by bmn :And this is of course saying nothing about the whole Libertarian political ideology... They are all the same - Republican, Democrat, Libertarian... HOW are they "all the same"? Are you refering to "Think Tanks", political parties or what? To anyone on the extreme left or extreme right everyone does look the same. -- Those who complain the loudest about their loss of rights under the Patriot Act seem to be the first ones to try to take away others rights under the Second Amendment. | |
|  |  |  bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| Re: Think Tanks... said by qdemn7 :said by bmn :And this is of course saying nothing about the whole Libertarian political ideology... They are all the same - Republican, Democrat, Libertarian... HOW are they "all the same"? Are you refering to "Think Tanks", political parties or what? Think tanks and political parties both... Think tanks for the reasons I stated above. The all start with their conclusion, a desire outcomed, and try to work toward it while rarely, if ever, acknowledging the weaknesses and problems in their data or the fact that their data does not actually support the desired conclusion or that other data actually directly contradicts them.
As for political parties, while they may not all believe and say the same thing, they are all the same in one important regard... They are driven purely by belief, not an attempt to operate within the realm of objective reality. All three of the parties have beliefs and positions that utterly defy the established facts of world.
To anyone on the extreme left or extreme right everyone does look the same. They would probably appear to be the "enemy." -- Prove it... | |
|   slim Premium join:2001-02-13 Arlington, VA | Why "Libertarian"? Why did you put scare quotes around the word "libertarian"? | |
|  |   AmeritecTech Change we can believe in, 1922 Premium join:2002-09-06 00000 | Re: Why "Libertarian"? Yes, I'd like to know to. Reason is very much libertarian (small l, not big L. The ideology, not the party). | |
|  JohnSJ
join:2004-08-14 Lafayette, LA
| Titch, Author of Reason Study has AstroTurf History Much of the discussion here has been pretty abstract--is Reason an "astroturf" organization or not. That's a question of judgment, I suppose.
But part of that judgment ought to be based on the people it hires to do its work and their history.
Steven Titch, author of the iProvo "research" has an ugly and continuing history. He started out writing editorials-for-hire (and continues to run that business) and seems to be climbing the food chain from a direct shill, to a shill who takes dubious cover under the Heartland Instititute (which most folks do agree is an astroturf organization) to now working at the Reason Foundation which is apparently a classier joint.
But his history really should follow him. And the fact that Reason ignores that history reflects poorly on them.
I first encountered Titch during the battle in Lafayette Louisiana for a municipal Fiber to the Home plan. Early on a flood of identical and inaccurate editorials were distributed to the Lafayette newspaper and a bevy of small very local and frankly hard to locate dailies in the tiny towns within about a 200 mile radius. Titch wrote those and represented himself as an expert but was making what I thought were either ignorant or deliberately misleading claims. Expertise did not seem involved. My interest was piqued.
As a little digging revealed Titch ran (and runs) a business called "expert editorials" which, no surprise, offers to write "expert" editorials for public distribution that as the website once coyly put it:Expert Editorial adds a critical third-party viewpoint for media and customer marketing campaigns. We can provide your target audience with the context, background and significance of your technology from an analytical perspective that supports, yet remains detached from your own marketing and sales personnel. That qoute has recently vanished from the front page but I'm sure a brief perusal of their offerings will let you know the sorts of services "expert editorials" continues to offer: Opinion and "expertise" for hire from a source that is not directly associated with your company.
In a word: AstroTurf.
He wrote the "advertorial" mentioned above, he authored a slam job for the Heartland institute on Lafayette's plan that makes the same sort of BS claims he is now making about iProvo, and then placed a long "op ed" piece based on the faulty research 10 days out from Lafayette's referendum vote. Along the way his work showed up in first draft form at the Louisiana Public Service Commission hearings as information provided by the incumbent providers, BellSouth and Cox, to the commission. The final draft of that document was the one published by the Heartland Institute whose head vigorously defended it, ignoring the links to it previous use by the incumbents.
Titch byline alone should be enough to confirm the Reason Study as Astroturf.
Refs, for those as want 'em:
The editorials for sale website: »www.experteditorial.net
Advertorial: »lafayetteprofiber.com/Blog/2004/···not.html
Heartland "study" and PSC connection »lafayetteprofiber.com/Blog/2005/···ain.html | |
|  |   ncredible
@ameritech.net
| Re: Titch, Author of Reason Study has AstroTurf History The thing is from the real people response here we do not want any more socialist agendas, we do not want to pay for your health care, your food, or your internet. Some of us real men left want to have pride in working hard and earning money. You are a burden on the rest of us, 150 years ago you would have been cut from the herd, now you drag down the rest of us with how slow you are. Socialism is not natural, and leftist are not sane. | |
|   Adriantm
@aol.com
| Who is paying for what? Interesting that a) the article at top glibly accuses us of doing our report on iProvo thanks to funding from AT&T b) it appears almost no one in this entire discussion chain has even looked at, let alone read, the report. If you went to college, remember logic 101, perhaps the most famous fallacy is ad hominem. It doesn't matter what our motives were, you ought to be able to judge our arguments on its own merits. If not, you aren't knowledgeable enough on the issue that anyone should bother with your comments.
AT&T has very publicly favored muni wi-fi, so it is absurd to argue we did this study in response to their funding. Moreover, We don't get funding to do specific research. We do research and then ask for support from people and groups who find value in what we do.
We work on policy reforms that advance competition, markets, and individual responsibility and liberty. Muni wi-fi enterprises are on their face an example of the government getting involved in a business that is competitive and private and needs no government involvement. IF there is an exception, then the standard should be high before taxpayer money is put at risk in a commercial enterprise.
Our report on iProvo simply pulls together all of the existing data FROM THE CITY ITSELF and points out that if you look at the actual accounting, the enterprise is upside down and taxpayers are losing out. It isn't delivering on what it promised, and the costs just keep going up.
It is a simple story of facts. No ideology needed, or present. | |
|  | |  |
|
|