Fumento addresses his corporate payment
In an update to Fumento not disclosing grants from corporations, Michael Fumento tells his side of the story:
They realized they might eliminate more of their critics by simply accusing them of being paid corporate shills, and then siccing the media on them to see what they could dig up. They assembled an “enemies list,” giving it to reporters at publications including the New York Times and Business Week. I have locked horns with green groups for the past 15 years and earned a spot on that list.
I was first called by a Times reporter in late December, who accused me of writing a pay-for-play column. I flatly and truthfully denied it. The reporter was flummoxed, having nothing more than an accusation to work with. She kept digging but found nothing.
Regardless of the motivation to turn the media dogs loose on him, he should have disclosed which side his bread was buttered on. Two wrongs and all of that.
Update: In comments, Fumento writes:
Thanks for the mention, but regarding full exclosure (sic) I have seen similar words elsewhere and it belies ignorance (I mean that literally, not as in “stupidity”) of both how think tanks work and how the rules worked prior to the new ones invented by Business Week’s Eamon Javers. Think tanks make their money by soliciting donations. They can be from the government, individuals, philanthropies, or corporations. They usually expect the fellows (the thinkers) to take an active role in this. Money comes into the think tank, part goes to overhead, part to building the endowment, and part to the fellow in the form of salary, benefits, and paperclips and note pads. This was no different. The money went to Hudson, which pays my salary. But precisely because I have been able to raise NO corporate donations in 4-5 years, Hudson has been paying me out of overhead. So in a real sense I’m drawing from grants I know not which. “Full disclosure” sounds great, like “Can’t we all get along.” But for the most part it’s inpracticable (sic). That’s why you can read 100 columns and op-eds in a week, many from think tankers, and never see a full disclosure statement. This rule was made up on-the-spot to apply to me. I could go on about how the grant was solicited for a book in 1999 and spent by 2000 and that I didn’t even begin my column with Scripps until 2003, which does raise the point of: Just HOW LONG do you have to disclose these things. But I think the point is made.
Sounds reasonable to me.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:08 am
What is wrong about listing “others who wish to remain anonymous” in the acknowledgements section? And since when has anyone expected that section to be a full accounting of everyone who has contributed in any way? Either there’s more to this story than meets the eye, or Fumento has been lamberted big time.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:15 am
That acknowledgment was in his book not to Scripps, who ran his articles, which is what I take issue with.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Kinda related, but I just had a thought regarding writing books and sources.
We just had Risen’s book released about the wire taps that had _no_ footnotes or sources: (http://varifrank.com/archives/2006/01/state_of_war_su.php – Read the two lower posts for more commentary).
Yet this guy, Fumento (whom I admittedly know nothing about) had worked for someone years before writing about them, and was expected to reveal all of this relationship – against their will – within the sources of his writings.
The whole thing is just a “wow” moment.
The Double Standards and all just floor me.
(Oh, and you’re linking to me? Geeze, must wanna torture your readers, eh? heh)
January 20th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Thanks for the mention, but regarding full exclosure I have seen similar words elsewhere and it belies ignorance (I mean that literally, not as in “stupidity”) of both how think tanks work and how the rules worked prior to the new ones invented by Business Week’s Eamon Javers. Think tanks make their money by soliciting donations. They can be from the government, individuals, philanthropies, or corporations. They usually expect the fellows (the thinkers) to take an active role in this. Money comes into the think tank, part goes to overhead, part to building the endowment, and part to the fellow in the form of salary, benefits, and paperclips and note pads. This was no different. The money went to Hudson, which pays my salary. But precisely because I have been able to raise NO corporate donations in 4-5 years, Hudson has been paying me out of overhead. So in a real sense I’m drawing from grants I know not which. “Full disclosure” sounds great, like “Can’t we all get along.” But for the most part it’s inpracticable. That’s why you can read 100 columns and op-eds in a week, many from think tankers, and never see a full disclosure statement. This rule was made up on-the-spot to apply to me. I could go on about how the grant was solicited for a book in 1999 and spent by 2000 and that I didn’t even begin my column with Scripps until 2003, which does raise the point of: Just HOW LONG do you have to disclose these things. But I think the point is made.
January 20th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
“100 columns and op-eds in a week”
— whoa – If I read that many I wouldn’t be able to keep track of who said what. 🙂
January 21st, 2006 at 4:53 am
Fumento: a uniter, not a divider
I don’t know about you, but I’ve been waiting with delicious anticipation to see what Fumento’s defence would be after he got fired by Scripps-Howard. Fumento does not disappoint. Why did he not disclose that Monsanto had paid him $60,000…
January 21st, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Had Scripps known about the payment when they hired Mr. Fumento and subsequently fired him anyway, then they would be the bad actor in this drama. However, that doesn’t seem to be what happened. If I interview with a resume that subtly elides an entire recent year of my career, nobody thinks twice when I get fired. Why should columnists get a free pass?
Full disclosure: Mr. Fumento and I have enjoyed a brief email tussle. As he is, in private correspondence, exactly as big a prick as you might expect, and as I appear to be in this case very much the typical male, I take no little schadenfruede in this particular episode. Cf http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/517271/
January 24th, 2006 at 6:27 am
Mikey,
Your reasoning suggests that the sole function of your think tank is to shill. It strikes me as a wee bit cobaggish (since it seems we are making up words anyway).