Ezra Klein: "A Conservative Publication"

« My Commenters Is Smarter Than I: Budget Foodie Edition | Main | Oy, Canada »

October 17, 2007

"A Conservative Publication"

Shouldn't McMegan name the outlet that spiked her book review because she refused to toe the line on the Laffer Curve? Wouldn't it be useful knowledge for her readers?

October 17, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

The only surprise here is that they told her why they spiked it. Then again, reading her post (I feel dirty), I'm not sure they did tell her. This might just be a case of her assuming why they canned the essay.

Posted by: anmik | Oct 17, 2007 12:40:16 AM

Readers?
Oh, those pranksters from Sadly, No.

Posted by: Dick Durata | Oct 17, 2007 12:47:06 AM

I know that conservatives don't seem to think much of the rest of the world, but if the Laffer Curve wasn't bullshit wouldn't you figure some other major political party somewhere to have adopted it wholesale?

Same with global warming. What is the matter with this conservative mindset that latches onto ideas deprecated by conservative academics and politicians everywhere else in the world? Even conservative economists in America tend to discount Laffer madness, but we've got a bunch of politicians who back it up, so it must be right? WTF?

Of course, it's got to be a conspiracy against the American Right, somehow. Who benefits? I don't know. Most people who believe in massive, transnational, invisible conspiracies that involve millions of people to manipulate expert and public opinion are called crackpots. Here, in the good old U. S. of A., we call them Republicans.

Posted by: Lev | Oct 17, 2007 12:54:02 AM

I don't think it's very wise for writers working freelance to develop a reputation for being a loose cannon who will challenge editorial prerogatives and publicize internal discussions. I think you're not considering her career, which is a little more important than a minor "gotcha" point.

Posted by: David | Oct 17, 2007 1:11:55 AM

David, if she's worried about her career -- she seems to be doing pretty well, by the way -- then she shouldn't have mentioned the episode on her blog. I assume that's what Ezra meant.

Posted by: anmik | Oct 17, 2007 1:21:28 AM

For those of us that do not often have books reviewed in major national magazines, what is a "spiked review"?

Posted by: Narc | Oct 17, 2007 1:22:00 AM

Shouldn't McMegan name the outlet that spiked her book review because she refused to toe the line on the Laffer Curve? Wouldn't it be useful knowledge for her readers?

Obviously, you're new here.

Posted by: huh | Oct 17, 2007 1:23:24 AM

Narc, a spiked review is one that was commissioned, completed, and then killed before being printed. In this case for purely ideological reasons. Apparently.

Posted by: anmik | Oct 17, 2007 1:30:44 AM

actually, anmik, since she didn't mention the name of the publication, she hasn't compromised their confidence. other editors working for other publications who monitor her actions will continue to view her as someone they can trust and work with.

and whether or not you think she's successful enough already shouldn't enter into her personal professional decisions.

Posted by: David | Oct 17, 2007 2:20:06 AM

David, I don't think she weighs my sense of her success before posting. Really, I don't. As for what other editors will think of her, I suspect that you're right: they won't much care that she blogged about the incident. My point was that I assumed that was what Ezra was getting at. As my initial comment suggests, I'm more interested -- at this point only very slightly -- in whether the review got spiked for the reasons she claimed. Put another way, what I'd like to know is: did the editor spell out the objection as boiling down to ideology? Again, that would surprise me.

Posted by: anmik | Oct 17, 2007 2:27:19 AM

If you read the rest of the post, she claims that the literary editior -- who I imagine edits for style and readability -- signed off on the piece and then told her why it wasn't going to run. So, if you think Megan is lying about why her review isn't running, that means she is bringing something up that her readers would otherwise have no idea about (there'd be no reason to mention that you were going to write a review, and then say that it got canned because it sucked...especially if no one knew that you were writing it in the first place) and then lying about it.

I find this hypothesis dubious.

Posted by: Matt Zeitlin | Oct 17, 2007 3:04:44 AM

Matt, like I said, I'm surprised. But I really wasn't accusing her of dishonesty. The whole thing just seems odd. I'm probably being naive, but I've not heard of such a thing: an editor spelling out ideology, this explicitly, as the reason for killing a piece. Again, though, I wasn't accusing her of lying. I don't even know the woman.

Posted by: anmik | Oct 17, 2007 3:28:03 AM

David, I think you get to the crux of the issue that we face-- she works for the editor, not the readers. So it makes me wonder what good she is, to me, the reader. Nevertheless, from my standpoint, it would be helpful to know what conservative publication it is. As Ezra says, it would be useful knowledge for the readers.

Also, I'd appreciate more writer-on-editor backstabbing. We need to see more of that.

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 17, 2007 8:22:22 AM

What is the matter with this conservative mindset that latches onto ideas deprecated by conservative academics and politicians everywhere else in the world?

There are no games on my Sunday NFL package where both, opposing, sides wear the same uniforms.

The uniforms don't have to be aesthetically successful, they just have to be different.

Pure tribalism. Difference for difference's sake. Marketing -- cf. the Unique Selling Proposition.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Oct 17, 2007 8:31:11 AM

I'm still shocked McMegan managed to fight a right wing belief she wasn't willing to shill for.

Posted by: soullite | Oct 17, 2007 8:34:47 AM

My theory is that it is the WSJ. I can't really imagine Megan writing for National Review or the Weekly Standard. (I am too lazy to see if she has published in those magazines, if so, then, well, I don't know which one it was.) But I can see her writing for the WSJ because it is prestigious and nobody really holds it against you for publishing there as long as you are respected otherwise. In any case she must know that the Op-ed page is full of hackery, but probably thought, because the journalism is good etc., that the book review section would not be guided by such an ideologically heavy-hand. In fact, the literary editor could have thought so too, which may be why he did mention the ideological aspect--because he or she thought the piece was good and felt a little guilty.

Posted by: d | Oct 17, 2007 8:57:46 AM

Megan doesn't shill. She needlessly equivocates. Even in that post, its all "the teachers unions are just as bad" without any support at all.

Posted by: Justin | Oct 17, 2007 9:16:32 AM

I'd assume WSJ too, given their laughable Lafferism.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 17, 2007 1:59:39 PM

In the absence of a full explanation from Megan, would it be irresponsible to speculate extensively as to the publication? It would be irresponsible not to.
How bout Reason, and the "Conservative" descriptor was a bit of a red herring?

Posted by: Misanthrope | Oct 17, 2007 7:55:19 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘