Three cheers for Anna Haynes

No one likes their own weapon turned against them.

One side first

About a week back, Keith Kloor wrote in his blog, in rather nonplussed fashion, on a currently unfolding event in the US state of Wisonsin. A professor of history, William Cronon, whom Kloor admired, had become the subject of requests for his emails under the state’s ‘open records law’ – similar to FOI requests we are familiar with.

The historian William Cronon’s very first blog post appeared last month. In his post, Cronon wrote extensively about the state’s Republican party ‘legislative momentum’. He noted how ‘well-organized’ and coordinated many of the recent framed legislative bills seemed to be. In a profusely linked argument, he laid out how a purported shadowy organization called ‘ALEC‘, was behind many Republican bills that sought to wrest back environmental protection and union benefits that were previously gained. Notably enough, Cronon recommended to his readers that they use two websites to research ‘conservative groups': rightwingwatch.org and sourcewatch.org.

What did the Republican party do? They filed a FOI-like request with the University office, asking for emails from Cronon’s ‘state email address’ which included Republican politicians’ names as search keywords.

The wall of support and the firestorm of articles that followed supporting William Cronon was impressive. ‘Supression of dissent’, ‘supression of academic freedom, ‘chilling effect’, ‘FOI harassment’, ‘shabby crusade’, ‘academic intimidation’, ‘silencing of dissent’, ‘abuse of tools of democracy’, ‘concerted attempts at intimidation’, ‘silencing of liberal academics’, ‘retaliation for criticism’, etc — this was the general slant. Cronon himself protested vehemently against the FOI requests on his blog.

Keith Kloor was no dissimilar: in the post and the comments, Kloor described about how he ‘abhorred’ the Republicans’ ‘attempt’ to ‘intimidate a critic’, that their FOI requests had shone a ‘spotlight’ on their ‘own brass knuckle tactics’, that the requests were ‘nothing but naked politics’ and an attempt to intimidate ‘others who might now hesitate to speak their minds’. He saw good in FOI requests, but was ‘torn’ by its misuse and hoped there would be a debate on the ‘appropriate use of FOI’.

The other side next

Two days ago, Anna Haynes, activist climate change blogger created a page (cached) in Sourcewatch on Keith Kloor himself. It was brief, containing all of four sentences. It looked as shown below:

Keith Kloor - Sourcewatch

Kloor, surprisingly enough, did not like the Sourcewatch page on him. In an atypically long and sentimental post, he inquired strongly whether his decades-long career in environmental journalism was accurately reflected by the Sourcewatch page. Was it fair that (all) his efforts be summed as someone who ‘fostered inactivism’? Was he to be described to the world in the words of his worst critic Joe Romm? ‘Is my blogging in anyway against the spirit of Sourcewatch’s charter’? – he exclaimed to his readers. What were the result of his protests?

What happened next

Here are two instances which display same patterns. William Cronon felt strongly, that his article encouraging readers to use Sourcewatch to dig up dirt about an organization ALEC (among other things), fell wholly under the purview of academic freedom. On the other hand, he felt that the party whose politics Cronon’s article likely impacted, were in no way entitled to dig up any potential ‘dirt’ on him using FOI. In turn, Kloor, a journalist, felt that the Republican party had no business employing FOI to obtain information. And yet, on the other hand, he did not appreciate any information that he felt adversely portrayed his work and career appearing on the same Sourcewatch.

In the brain-melting discussion thread that followed on Keith Kloor’s blog, amidst the volleys of mind-numbing “he-said, she-said”, one thing becomes clear. An entrenched Kloor wrestles and bullies his commenters, demanding answers to his question – “Did Sourcewatch accurately potray me? Was I not wronged?”. “Yes, you were” – comes the much-belated, much-hesitant faint echo in the end, from a threadbare clutch of commenters.

The outcome: Anna Haynes took down the Sourcewatch page she had created on Kloor. The article was interesting because it actually cited articles from several climate change activist bloggers to support its formulation. In other words, it was accurate but perhaps not complete or unbiased. Just the same however, it would now not see the light of day as a result of the self-wrought censorship. What is more surprising is how seasoned commenters in the online climate debate, were snookered into agreeing with Kloor.

Cronon pointed out, that to learn about the forces that shape our governments and laws, is not wrong and every bit of information goes one step in that direction. So it must be then with material that inform us of Cronon’s own politics too – as long as such information is legitimately obtained. If there is information to support a view that Keith Kloor fosters ‘inactivism’ in the climate change arena, it need not be censored simply because information to support views that Kloor did not foster inactivism exist too. Would we be comfortable if ALEC exerted pressure on Sourcewatch to take down their page so full of the nasties, because Cronon publicized it widely?

In the world of Cronon and Kloor however, we would all be using Sourcewatch as a source of information about Republican politics. But Cronon’s own methods and contacts would be beyond scrutiny, because he felt it to be so. We would not employ FOI to gain information from professors just as Kloor might recommend as being appropriate. At the same time, we would learn nothing of Kloor’s contribution to slowing down climate action via Sourcewatch, because Kloor felt it ought to be so.

Ironically enough, Sourcewatch is presently engaged in an active campaign, espousing the cause of Wisconsin union rights in their tussle with the state governor – a banner appears on every page of theirs, including the ill-fated Kloor page. Even more ironically, Sourcewatch’s page on ALEC has significant, majority contributions authored by Anne Landman, managing editor at the Center for Media and Democracy, the very organization that runs Sourcewatch. Indeed it is hard to imagine this not to be a mildly conflicted position for Cronon to be in.

Academics, and increasingly journalists, appear to be sensitive to queries about their own politics, but yet wish to retain full and active participation in manipulation of policy. One can call Anna Haynes all the names one wants, but she is neither a journalist nor an agent of government. She did not post information that attacked Kloor personally. She deserves support to publish information freely.

About these ads

11 comments

  • I also cheer Anna Haynes.

    It is much more fun to sweep the other guy’s side of the street than to sweep away the debris from our own. Journalists and academicians suffer from the same self-centeredness as the rest of us.

    My comments critical of CO2-induced Global Warming exposed me to a vicious, closed-minded side of socialism that brought back memories of my visit to the old USSR 30 years ago.

    In 1980 I went to the old USSR to present a research paper and discovered for myself how “conservative” communists were!

    In the USA, communists were considered radicals. But in the USSR, I discovered that most communists were as rigid and closed minded as the most right-wing politicians in the USA.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  • Dear Vincent:
    I enjoyed reading your discussion of this issue. I would point out that Professor Cronin, whom I have not ever met, actually qualified his reference to our site, SourceWatch, thus:

    “If you run across a conservative organization you’ve never heard of before and would like to know more about it, two websites can sometimes be helpful for quick overviews:
    Right Wing Watch: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/
    SourceWatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org
    Both of these lean left in their politics, so they obviously can’t be counted on to provide sympathetic descriptions of conservative groups. (If I knew of comparable sites whose politics were more conservative, I’d gladly provide them here; please contact me if you know of any and I’ll add them to this note.)”

    I must take issue, therefore, with the suggestion that Cronin was wrong in some way to reference our site. He gave readers his impression of SourceWatch’s vantage point, although since our site is a wiki I would not suggest that every one of our 55,000 articles is somehow “liberal” and we rely on both staff and volunteers like Anna.

    Additionally, the articles Cronin mentioned contain referenced material so that readers can see the sources of the statements made about groups like ALEC.

    Similarly, I chose to put the banner on SW about our reporting on the Wisconsin protests. We have been very clear about our point of view in favor of employee rights. I don’t think this should discredit our documented research about these groups.

    Lisa Graves, Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy.

  • Dear Ms Graves

    Thank you for your comment!

    I completely agree with your comment. Cronon did not simply enthusiastically encourage his readers to seek information from Sourcewatch (SW), he adequately qualified his evaluation of what he thought readers should make of it as well.

    But if you note carefully, nor do I write or imply anywhere above that Cronon was wrong in some way to reference your site.

    Indeed, for the thrust of my article, the editorializing that will be present in any Sourcewatch piece, is completely unimportant.

    Nor do I write or imply that putting up a banner about the Wisconsin protests discredits research that is put out on conservative groups by SW. Indeed it is not relevant to the point I make.

    The irony I noted relates to the contrast between two events – one where SW is advanced as a source of otherwise hard-to-obtain information by Cronon (which it very much is), and the other where Cronon and Kloor both actively sought to suppress information, from FOI and Sourcewatch respectively, – against the backdrop SW’s active campaigning for ‘Wisconsin workers rights’.

  • Funny isn’t it…these must be the same people that snigger when Fox News claims to be reporting “the truth”.

    In reality, they’re just part of a single, uninterrupted cross-party American political mindset, where everybody just repeats the same mantra, “my side is better than your side because I say so

  • You are right.

    Just a while back, Kloor held forth on a fiesty discussion on the nuances of the use of ‘Holocaust denier’, and then here, turned around and submitted his righteous protest of someone labeling him an ‘inactivist’.

  • I think Judy Curry’s experience with Anna Haynes suggests that her methods and tactics leave something to be desired – though of course she has a perfect right to attempt to identify connections and sources of funding that might influence a “public” person’s position on particular issues.
    I don’t seem to be able to find any information on Anna Haynes – her NC blog has no biographical information.

  • Yeah, Haynes is a little weird.

  • Ah. A high-class blog.
    As I’d explained on Tobis’s blog (& perhaps Kloor’s) the reason I took down the Kloor SW page was that, after sleeping on it, I’d come to the conclusion that he was not a sufficiently public figure to warrant a SourceWatch page. (If he were being quoted fostering inactivism in news articles, or if he were writing for the NYTimes, that would be another matter.)

    “Shub”, with blogspot blogs (as mine are), if you click on “View my complete profile” over on the sidebar, you get my background – at
    http://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298

    One thing I’d add to it, if there were space (Blogger limits the #characters), is this:


    Disclosure: I have no background in climate science that would equip me to second-guess the findings of the field. See: Gutting’s On experts and global warming ( goo.gl/v0rV5 ) and Peter Watts (“science is alchemy…” – goo.gl/qVSgL)

  • Hey Shub! Looks like we’re “dishonest at heart”. I can’t wait to write on the NYT so Anna will grace my name the usual way!

    PS I have a handful of letters published by the IHT, the international edition of the NYT. Does that qualify?

  • Hi Anna,

    Unfortunately, my background allows me to see through some of the climate science stuff.

    I think you should simply get a journalist course or something done. Then your interrogations won’t seem so strange.

  • Pingback: Roger Pielke Jr: When the debate gets over « Shub Niggurath Climate

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s