I wrote earlier of the left's tendency to try to argue from authority. Today I was struck by a related issue, the tendency of reporters, and others, to substitute reputation for truth. Now, this is not entirely a leftist issue, it occurs all over the political spectrum, but since it occurs most often in the news, it is obviously more often seen supporting left wing causes.

Of course, this is nothing new. Throughout the middle ages, the esteem in which Aristotle was held kept even his most bizarre ideas from being properly questioned. Or, in more recent times, the esteem with which people held Linus Pauling made his strange ideas on vitamin C popular enough that one still hears them today*. So it is nothing new to appeal to the prestige of a thinker in place of proof.

But today we see a variation on that tradition. Instead of appealing to the individual thinker's reputation, many, usually reporters, appeal to the prestige of the institution with which the thinker is associated. So, rather than Dr. X being prestigious himself, we are to defer to his opinion because he is associated with Harvard or the Brookings Institute.

Now, neither is a valid argument, but the current formulation is obviously the worse. At least when appealing to the reputation of an individual we are relying on his proven ability is some field. The new one simply says "the same people who hired prominent thinkers also hired this guy". That someone is employed by the same institution as other prominent thinkers says absolutely nothing about his qualifications.

In fact, it is even worse than that. Some reputations are well deserved, such as some of the prominent universities, but others are based more on historical performance than current. Just as the New York Times coasts on historical achievement more than current quality, a lot of universities have a reputation more as a legacy than as something they continue to earn. And, worse still, some organizations, such as the liberal think tanks, tend to have a reputation more for giving opinions in line with reporters' or politicians' assumptions than for any brilliant academic work.

But still, reporters will continue to try to use this "reputation" to justify their arguments, using statements by nonentities attached to a favored think tank to justify "objective" criticism of conservative politicians :"The economy is faltering, says Professor Jones of the Smith Institute think tank, and yet McCain still has not put forth a stimulus program."**

The problem is, this statement on its own is absolutely meaningless, and often it is all, or almost all, that a reporter will provide. At best we might get one more short sentence on why Jones thinks the economy is in the tanks, and often not even that. We are to believe the economy is sinking solely on the say so of an unknown individual from an unknown think tank.

Even if the think tank is famous enough to be known, that still proves nothing. Think tanks tend to become famous more on their ideological slant, or their ability to provide the opinions politicians or reporters want to hear, than on their academic merits. But ignoring that, even if we postulate that a think tanks has produced consistently high quality academic work, that does not mean that Professor Jones is bound to follow in that tradition. Simple membership in an organization, or holding a position at a university, says nothing about a professor or fellow's merit.

But that is precisely what reporters try to imply. Whenever they are stuck, left with a dubious assertion and a dearth of facts, there is always a convenient think tank, with a media hungry fellow, who will provide them with the cover they need. He may have no more evidence, he may not even be an expert in the field they need, but they know that putting a "Doctor" before his name and the name of his think tank (or university) after, they will probably be able to slip it past the editor, maybe past the public as well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

* Just for the record, taking vitamin C does nothing to ward off colds or flus. And very high doses of vitamin C are either worthless or actually harmful. I suppose there are some still pushing the Pauling doctrine, but there is absolutely no medical proof for his belief.

** I admit to picking deliberately obscure wording there, making it unclear whether professor Jones or the author made that second statement. Admittedly, your better journalists usually avoid such cheap tricks, but you can still find them fairly often in local papers and sometimes even in more prestigious publications.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

I started three different essays on my dislike for the press' tendency to try to use think tanks to support dubious assertions, and I scrapped all three. I was about to scarp this one as well, when Is aw an absurd statement on Best of the Web supported by  an "expert" from yet another think tank. I still have my doubts about the importance of the essay, but I could not resist when Fate herself prods me. So here it is. Hope Fate didn't lead me too far astray.