Showing posts with label MacIver Institute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MacIver Institute. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
More Theft from the MacIver Institute
This time from Wispolitics.com.
This one is so shameless the Mac even steals the editorial disclaimer tacked on by Wispol.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
MacIver: Still Stealing Content
We've pointed out several instances of Wisconsin's newest "think tank" ripping off content from other new outlets ... and they don't appear to be stopping any time soon.
Today Mac prez Brett Healy just cut and pasted an op-ed by Juan Williams on the in-house blog without attributing a source or providing a link to the original online article.
This is theft and unspeakably lazy blogging.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The Fast Food of Think Tanks
While Fred Dooley seems to have stopped appropriating the content from other web sites and news organizations, his blogging partner in crime, Mac President Brett Healy, appears to have missed the memo, copying this article from the Chicago Trib word for word on the Mac's blog.
Again, this is theft and inappropriate by any journalistic or academic standards, hardly befitting the work product of an institution that purports to be a "think tank."
The MacIver Institute has gotten off to a rocky start in the few weeks it's been up and running. Think tanks are supposed to provide food for thought. When the best think tanks are on fire in the kitchen, their meals are insightful, sometimes surprising affairs that please the palate in new ways while sticking to the ribs. Thus far MacIver's product has been predictable and pedestrian -- it's the fast food of think tanks.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The MacIver Institute: Where "Free Market" Means Theft!
How's that for a catchy slogan?
Fred Dooley, the Mac's in-house blogger, has a post on the Institute's official web page that is nothing short of an unapologetic wholesale rip-off of an article that ran in the Badger Herald. Dooley links to the original piece, but then proceeds to post the entire BH article in the text below. All of it. Word for word. Dooley credits the author, but then essentially steals the traffic that would have otherwise gone to the BH by posting the entire article on the MacIver site.
That's a big time publishing faux pas that no serious professional blog would dare commit. It's considered theft. Posting a few paragraphs and including a link is general considered proper etiquette, but the entire article is not kosher. (Dooley is clearly familiar with this practice, demonstrating it right here.) Even reprinting extended excepts from an piece is allowed so long as there is borderline Talmudic commentary to accompany it. That's not happening here. If I were Alicia Yager or her editors, I'd be pissed.
If I were in charge of the Mac, I'd be pissed too. This isn't an isolated incident (see here, here, and here; here's an instance where Dooley doesn't even link to the original article despite copying it word for word on the MacIver's site). In each instance, Dooley essentially steals another author's content and doesn't even pretend to try to add any commentary of his own. And it's not like Dooley is siphoning the works of bloggers who are using the Creative Commons licenses -- the instances cited above not only appeared online, but also in print, which usually involves a copyright.
It's theft, unspeakably lazy blogging and the calling card of a hack.
Now, were this on Dooley's personal site these words would have never been written, but since this is on the official blog of an institution that purports to be a "think tank," I expect a little -- even just the token appearance of -- intellectual honesty. If the Mac can't even abide by the most basic principles of the "fair use" of intellectual property, how does it expect to have any legitimacy promoting it's agenda? Do we have to call into question how the institute gathered the data for any of the polls it released shortly after opening?
There's always been the possibility that the Mac was nothing other than a grazing field for aging Republican operatives to go out to stud, and if that's their thing, so be it. But if Dooley is going to be stealing other authors' content under the MacIver Institute's imprimatur, that's another story altogether, because unlike some hoser with a Blogspot account (see me, for example), the Mac aspires to have credibility in the public dialog. If it's going to be a part of that conversation, it will need to abide by the same rules that other journalists and academics have agreed to.
So here's my suggestion: the MacIver Institute should pay for the content that they have previously "appropriated" from other publications and issue a public apology. They should also adopt a style guide and adhere to it on their blog and any other publications issued by the Mac. This is not a small issue for a "think tank" that supposedly advocates from "free market" economic principles, one of which is presumably the sanctity of "private property." Intellectual property is private property -- a "think tank" above all places should know that -- and until the Mac recognizes that, its only function will appear to be theft.
MORE: Dooley did it again later today: the full text of another editorial copied and pasted onto the MacIver site, this time without a link to the original article. Again, coming from an institution that is supposed to be producing ideas, this is theft.
Fred Dooley, the Mac's in-house blogger, has a post on the Institute's official web page that is nothing short of an unapologetic wholesale rip-off of an article that ran in the Badger Herald. Dooley links to the original piece, but then proceeds to post the entire BH article in the text below. All of it. Word for word. Dooley credits the author, but then essentially steals the traffic that would have otherwise gone to the BH by posting the entire article on the MacIver site.
That's a big time publishing faux pas that no serious professional blog would dare commit. It's considered theft. Posting a few paragraphs and including a link is general considered proper etiquette, but the entire article is not kosher. (Dooley is clearly familiar with this practice, demonstrating it right here.) Even reprinting extended excepts from an piece is allowed so long as there is borderline Talmudic commentary to accompany it. That's not happening here. If I were Alicia Yager or her editors, I'd be pissed.
If I were in charge of the Mac, I'd be pissed too. This isn't an isolated incident (see here, here, and here; here's an instance where Dooley doesn't even link to the original article despite copying it word for word on the MacIver's site). In each instance, Dooley essentially steals another author's content and doesn't even pretend to try to add any commentary of his own. And it's not like Dooley is siphoning the works of bloggers who are using the Creative Commons licenses -- the instances cited above not only appeared online, but also in print, which usually involves a copyright.
It's theft, unspeakably lazy blogging and the calling card of a hack.
Now, were this on Dooley's personal site these words would have never been written, but since this is on the official blog of an institution that purports to be a "think tank," I expect a little -- even just the token appearance of -- intellectual honesty. If the Mac can't even abide by the most basic principles of the "fair use" of intellectual property, how does it expect to have any legitimacy promoting it's agenda? Do we have to call into question how the institute gathered the data for any of the polls it released shortly after opening?
There's always been the possibility that the Mac was nothing other than a grazing field for aging Republican operatives to go out to stud, and if that's their thing, so be it. But if Dooley is going to be stealing other authors' content under the MacIver Institute's imprimatur, that's another story altogether, because unlike some hoser with a Blogspot account (see me, for example), the Mac aspires to have credibility in the public dialog. If it's going to be a part of that conversation, it will need to abide by the same rules that other journalists and academics have agreed to.
So here's my suggestion: the MacIver Institute should pay for the content that they have previously "appropriated" from other publications and issue a public apology. They should also adopt a style guide and adhere to it on their blog and any other publications issued by the Mac. This is not a small issue for a "think tank" that supposedly advocates from "free market" economic principles, one of which is presumably the sanctity of "private property." Intellectual property is private property -- a "think tank" above all places should know that -- and until the Mac recognizes that, its only function will appear to be theft.
MORE: Dooley did it again later today: the full text of another editorial copied and pasted onto the MacIver site, this time without a link to the original article. Again, coming from an institution that is supposed to be producing ideas, this is theft.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The MacIver Institute of Teh Funny
Finally, a "think tank" devoted to sharing e-mail forwards so all the world can cringe at the lame jokes Uncle Frank somehow finds funny.
It's only a matter of time before we start seeing LOLcats or the mentos-in-Diet Coke guys.
It's only a matter of time before we start seeing LOLcats or the mentos-in-Diet Coke guys.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Mutual Appreciation Societies
There are a few new examples of a phenomenon among conservatives in Wisconsin that are worth pointing out because both are indicative of a perceived "solution" to the problem of regaining power in Wisconsin.
The first is the creation of the MacIver Institute, a think tank in New Berlin. Any time I hear something described as a think tank I immediately ask myself "why?" Normally the answer is readily apparent, if not self-evident, but I'm not convinced that's the case with MacIver.
For starters, there is a reasonably successful think tank in the area, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, that is already responsible for producing much of the intellectual capital that comes from the state's conservatives. One would assume that if business is that good the WPRI would just mosey on over to the Bradley Foundation and ask for more money to expand ... instead we have the creation of an entirely new entitity independent of the old one.
Which is not unimportant beacuae it will be interesting to see how the organizations work with each other. Will they be competing for funding and staff or will they collude? Don't get wrong, I'm extremely appreciative of think tanks, but there's really no getting around the fact that they are vanity projects and notorious money pits -- and now really isn't a great time for someone to sink a ton of cash into something that's not going to returning any dividends.
I'm sure that as the MI matures it will evolve an identity of its own seperate from WPRI's -- an if the early signs are indication MacIver will be an unapologeticly conservative organization with little pretense to "non-partisanship." The place is named after an influential Republican operative. The man tapped to helm the ship is an old GOP aide from the capital that was most recently lobbying for the state's premier school choice org. They tapped Fred Dooley to run the company blog. These are folks with resumes long on activism and short on academics.
That doesn't mean they are incapable of coming up with new and original ideas, but one has to wonder how original ideas can be when they come from the guys who have been out selling the old one for most of their careers. Take the results of the first poll they commissioned: Wisconsinites don't like taxes. Dude, you just blew my mind ...
So until there's evidence to the contrary, it's probably a safe bet to assume that MacIver is just another way of banging the hyper-conservative drum that prevents the GOP from moderating itself. That may seem like an obvious assumption, but it's not just about promoting an agenda that is being rejected at the polls, its also about resisting reform efforts from within. If a reform-minded GOPer thinks that P is a good idea, but the institutional authority of the MacIver Institute says ~P is true, it doesn't take a genius to figure out which idea is going to fly and which one isn't. In this sense the mission of the MacIver Institute isn't to generate new ideas, its to stand like a praetorian guard over the old ones.
A far cruder example of this behavior is the Northeastern Wisconsin chapter of "Club Gitmo," which no one will be confusing for a think tank any time soon. Apparently this proposed group has something to do with Rush Limbaugh:
While Club Gitmo may be a far less organized "grassroots" effort (that apparently consists of little more than a bunch of guys, who can apparently join psuedononymously, wearing the same shirt at upcoming "Tea Parties") it essentially serves the same purpose: defend the old ideas. Presumably this is what Lance Burri meant when he observed that "conservatives were coming out of the woodwork" recently.
Which brings us to the Tea Parties themselves. It was kinda difficult to listen to conservatives go on about how successful they were. How many people who attended these events voted for Obama last fall? I haven't heard of one such person.
Right now, according to the only measure that really matters, last fall's election, conservatives are in the minority. That means they have to change minds if they want to win back the levers of government. Getting together with a bunch of like-minded folks is certainly fun, but unless the GOP starts reaching out to others it will continue to be in the minority. Republicans can create a think tank for every card-carrying member, establish a million Limbaugh fan clubs and start having high tea in front of every courthouse in America -- they're just going to be talking to themselves.
The first is the creation of the MacIver Institute, a think tank in New Berlin. Any time I hear something described as a think tank I immediately ask myself "why?" Normally the answer is readily apparent, if not self-evident, but I'm not convinced that's the case with MacIver.
For starters, there is a reasonably successful think tank in the area, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, that is already responsible for producing much of the intellectual capital that comes from the state's conservatives. One would assume that if business is that good the WPRI would just mosey on over to the Bradley Foundation and ask for more money to expand ... instead we have the creation of an entirely new entitity independent of the old one.
Which is not unimportant beacuae it will be interesting to see how the organizations work with each other. Will they be competing for funding and staff or will they collude? Don't get wrong, I'm extremely appreciative of think tanks, but there's really no getting around the fact that they are vanity projects and notorious money pits -- and now really isn't a great time for someone to sink a ton of cash into something that's not going to returning any dividends.
I'm sure that as the MI matures it will evolve an identity of its own seperate from WPRI's -- an if the early signs are indication MacIver will be an unapologeticly conservative organization with little pretense to "non-partisanship." The place is named after an influential Republican operative. The man tapped to helm the ship is an old GOP aide from the capital that was most recently lobbying for the state's premier school choice org. They tapped Fred Dooley to run the company blog. These are folks with resumes long on activism and short on academics.
That doesn't mean they are incapable of coming up with new and original ideas, but one has to wonder how original ideas can be when they come from the guys who have been out selling the old one for most of their careers. Take the results of the first poll they commissioned: Wisconsinites don't like taxes. Dude, you just blew my mind ...
So until there's evidence to the contrary, it's probably a safe bet to assume that MacIver is just another way of banging the hyper-conservative drum that prevents the GOP from moderating itself. That may seem like an obvious assumption, but it's not just about promoting an agenda that is being rejected at the polls, its also about resisting reform efforts from within. If a reform-minded GOPer thinks that P is a good idea, but the institutional authority of the MacIver Institute says ~P is true, it doesn't take a genius to figure out which idea is going to fly and which one isn't. In this sense the mission of the MacIver Institute isn't to generate new ideas, its to stand like a praetorian guard over the old ones.
A far cruder example of this behavior is the Northeastern Wisconsin chapter of "Club Gitmo," which no one will be confusing for a think tank any time soon. Apparently this proposed group has something to do with Rush Limbaugh:
This is a call to arms to join the resistance to take back our government. We agree with the teachings, values and philosophy from our leader from the EIB southern command in Florida.[I do find it amusing that when some people here the words "Palm Beach" they have a vision of NORAD rattling around in thier mind's eye.]
While Club Gitmo may be a far less organized "grassroots" effort (that apparently consists of little more than a bunch of guys, who can apparently join psuedononymously, wearing the same shirt at upcoming "Tea Parties") it essentially serves the same purpose: defend the old ideas. Presumably this is what Lance Burri meant when he observed that "conservatives were coming out of the woodwork" recently.
Which brings us to the Tea Parties themselves. It was kinda difficult to listen to conservatives go on about how successful they were. How many people who attended these events voted for Obama last fall? I haven't heard of one such person.
Right now, according to the only measure that really matters, last fall's election, conservatives are in the minority. That means they have to change minds if they want to win back the levers of government. Getting together with a bunch of like-minded folks is certainly fun, but unless the GOP starts reaching out to others it will continue to be in the minority. Republicans can create a think tank for every card-carrying member, establish a million Limbaugh fan clubs and start having high tea in front of every courthouse in America -- they're just going to be talking to themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
