In the comments to the previous post, anon writes:
I think we'd rather here your views on the Yglesias controversy itself.How filtered is the blogging medium for folks like Matt and yourself? He clearly doesn't have complete editorial independence, do you?
Yes. But more than that, there's not much evidence that Matt lacks complete editorial independence. Indeed, I think folks should cut the Center for American Progress some slack here. Jennifer Palmieri's actual message, oddly delivered though it was, says something quite banal: In case it wasn't clear, CAP does not agree with Matt's contention that Third Way, CAP's coalition partners, are proponents of "hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit." Or, at the least, they wouldn't phrase it that way (however, as compared to CAP's policy agenda, Third Way's offerings are inarguably hyper-timid incrementalism). CAP is not a blog publisher. They are a think tank. They are the nerve center of the Democratic governing class. Their president has led Obama's transition effort. It's fairly uncharted territory for a think tank of that prestige -- indeed, of any prestige at all -- to hire a young progressive blogger and let him retain his voice on their site. Brookings doesn't do it, and nor does EPI, or Heritage, or the Urban Institute, or the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. But CAP is following a model in which they provide income support to promising progressives so their work isn't lost to law school or the commercial sector. That requires giving them a fair bit of editorial freedom, which will inevitably lead to conflicts and uncomfortable moments. As Ben Smith says, there are real consequences if Third Way is seen to be disfavored by CAP. And CAP has to balance that against their desire to support bloggers. The fact that Palmieri's message was public is, I think, a good sign. It's transparent. They could have called Matt into the president's office, explained that he would never ever write anything like that ever again, and the editorial intervention would have been simultaneously invisible to readers -- no one would be criticizing CAP -- and much more pernicious. They did not do that. There might have been a better way for them to phrase that post, or at least less heavy-handed (letting Matt publish Palmieri's response, say), but their fundamental instinct -- distance themselves from Matt's everyday commentary without shackling his writing -- is probably the right instinct. And as a general point, everyone is still trying to figure out how to deal with unedited bloggers, and CAP is far ahead of most outlets. Think Progress, the Wonk Room, and Yglesias's blog have all been successful ventures, and the only ones of their kind. I think it's fair to assume good faith here.
