I’ll let Felix answer the rest for himself:
Now there’s a second conflict piled onto the first: the fact that I’m employed by Reuters gives me a natural dog in the competitive fight that is financial journalism. I want to see Reuters do well, and I want to say nice things about its journalism, especially when I’m writing about people working in the same building or newsroom as myself. Saying nice things about my colleagues at Reuters is a good way of making them smile and have warm fuzzy feelings towards me—as is, to a lesser extent, saying rude things about their competitors at Bloomberg or elsewhere.
Having journalists write about other journalists is always going to involve conflicts. I’m much more comfortable doing it than most journalists, which is one reason I got the fellowship. But I’m not immune from basic human feelings about people I know socially or at work.
Does that conflict disqualify me from writing about financial and economic journalism? I don’t think so, and neither does CJR. But if you think it does, then it’s one more reason—along with the sponsorship from Peterson—not to read my posts. I would however like it if you at least gave them a taste test first. If you think I’m a paid shill for Reuters or Peterson, then by all means stop reading. But that’s not what I want to be, and it’s certainly not what I’ve been asked to be. And in this era of personal brands, it’s not in my personal interest to be such a shill, either.
If you’re wondering “Why Felix?” The answer is, the dude can flat-out blog, and he can critique the media on economic issues (among many others) like few others. Just watch.
Like I said, it’s an experiment. We’ll rely on readers to judge for themselves, and we’re not worried.
Actually, just the opposite.
Felix Salmon is a perfect fit for both Reuters and CJR because he shares their root-level philosophy on the role of the central government in the lives of American individuals. That is to say that he seems to believe that central intervention is a divine inevitability, despite historical lessons and constitutional prohibitions to the contrary. Thus:
So long as Felix Salmon does not concede that central economic planning is counter-intuitive, self-destructive, or anathema to free enterprise and free association, he is safe.
So long as Felix Salmon does not suggest that other domestic currencies, and commodities (e.g., gold and silver), should be free to compete with the artificially propped-up paper dollar, he is safe.
So long as he never suggests that equality, social mobility, etc., are best attained in the absence of federal mandates and other central aggression and violence, Felix Salmon will enjoy job security at Reuters and CJR.
So long as Felix Salmon's core philosophy is in line with Keynesian, Chicago-School, or Marxist philosophy, he is a nice fit at Reuters and CJR.
All that said, I wonder whether CJR will ever consider hiring anyone from a truly free-enterprise school of economic thought: the Austrian School, i.e., the ones whose admonitions and analysis have been proved correct all along. (See: mises.org, independent.org, and lewrockwell.com.) I won't hold my breath.
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 18 Nov 2010 at 02:50 PM
...or, for a more nuanced look at both the Austrian School and the Chicago variant, have a look at nakedcapitalism.com.
Silver. Really.
#2 Posted by edward ericson, CJR on Thu 18 Nov 2010 at 08:02 PM
Hey, Edward. Thanks for that link to what appears to be a pro-Keynesian blog. I still await the "more nuanced look at ... the Austrian School." And yep: silver. Or gold. Or copper. Or cane sugar. Or cow manure. Any honest, commodity-backed, real money.
#3 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 06:22 PM
Using dude in a post undermines your credibility.
#4 Posted by johnson, CJR on Sat 20 Nov 2010 at 11:53 PM
I don't know, I like Felix, but I feel his blogging concentrates on "small ball" issues and punts on tougher questions. My eyes glaze over everytime I see another posting on egregious banking fees or other pet topic he examines. His post on the QE2 left us to think it's merely a "technocrat vs technocrat policy debate." Sorry, but giving equal footing to views that it's something drasticlly different than normal open market operations gives credence to the most reactionary and politically motivated commentators in the debate (ala Bill Kristol as monetary economist).
It's not my fellowship to give, but this blog excels at parsing the reporting of diffcult and ambiguous topics. And I already have a pretty clear opinion on bank fees. If this fellowship is intended to examine the coverage of economic policy questions, then re-posting Felix's blog doesn't seem to fit the mandate.
#5 Posted by David E., CJR on Mon 22 Nov 2010 at 11:11 AM