I can’t say I’m surprised that the Journal’s edit page would decline to do so—disappointed, yes. We’ve seen many times how ideology trumps the truth there. As Jonathan Chait wrote back in May, when Klein’s paper came out (and the WSJ declined to run an op-ed on it):
I think they genuinely deserve credit for taking into account the objections and making the effort to correct them. The interesting question is whether the Wall Street Journal could be shamed into publishing another op-ed correcting the first one. Probably not, but you never know.
Now we do know, and that, and the contrast with how honestly Klein grappled with his findings, says a lot about what you need to know about The Wall Street Journal editorial page.
So the moral of the story is we should look with skepticism on research that paints entire groups of people based on political/ideological affiliation in a negative lights especially when it plays into our own confirmation bias. Quick, someone go tell Bob Altemeyer.
But that’s probably somehow “different”.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 12:13 PM
No Mike, I think the moral of this story is the WSJ is as dishonest and biased as the NY Post and other News Corp Meda outlets.
#2 Posted by Marlo, CJR on Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 12:19 PM
In what world did the economist think that his original survey was anything but link bait? Now he wants a second bite at the apple? I think everyone should ignore him.
#3 Posted by Alexander Muse, CJR on Sun 27 Nov 2011 at 05:28 PM
Please. The WSJ editorials and op-ed pieces are so consistently shrill, generally snarky, and intellectually adolescent, they are essentially self-parody. The original "survey" fits perfectly within this "brand," absurd on its face. Remember, these are the same people that bring you Fox News. The WSJ is now just a slightly upscale version of that outlet, namely Fox for people who read.
#4 Posted by Arthur Libby, CJR on Mon 28 Nov 2011 at 08:48 AM
Feels like we are living in an "misinformation age" thanks to our media outlets and their business models. Yuck.
#5 Posted by Kris Tuttle, CJR on Mon 28 Nov 2011 at 09:28 AM
It would help to know whether Professor Klein offered to write a follow-up column for the WSJ gratis, or whether he wanted to, you know, get paid for it. Because it would be hard to fault the WSJ for not considering Professor Klein's second thoughts as entitling him to another publication fee.
#6 Posted by RobC, CJR on Mon 28 Nov 2011 at 10:34 AM
Professor Klein graciously responded to an inquiry from me that he didn't receive any fee for the initial WSJ op-ed, and I presume he wouldn't have received any for a follow-up op-ed. So as to my previous comment, in the words of Emily Litella, "Never mind."
#7 Posted by RobC, CJR on Mon 28 Nov 2011 at 04:50 PM
It's great that Klein recanted, but anyone with even an ounce of intellectual honesty would have known that the questions (particularly those cited in this article) were bogus from the start. And the intellectual dishonesty continues...
"The proper inference from our work is not that one group is more enlightened, or less. It’s that “myside bias”—the tendency to judge a statement according to how conveniently it fits with one’s settled position—is pervasive among all of America’s political groups. The bias is seen in the data, and in my actions."
How can Klein that "myside bias" is "pervasive among ALL of America's political groups" based on one well-documented instance of his own, very conservative political bias? Based on his work, one cannot make this inference.
All we can conclude is that Klein's results were skewed based on poor, biased questions. Now, I'm not saying liberals may not do the exact same thing, but you cannot draw the "Oh, well...everyone does it!" conclusion or inference based on Klein's missteps.
Then again, economics operates out in la-la land anyway, so it's not surprising that such an obvious turd [the research] would make it into the pages of the Wall Street Journal.
#8 Posted by Justin, CJR on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 06:37 AM