4 ms·

http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/ http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/ "Malcolm Gladwell began as a college right-wing Reagan

by 482924 13y ago

http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/ http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/ "Malcolm Gladwell began as a college right-wing Reagan supporter, was trained by the tobacco-funded far-right National Journalism Center, and throughout his career has inserted pro-tobacco, pro-banking industry and pro-PHARMA messages into his books and articles. Gladwell can earn $1 million a year as a paid corporate speaker, sometimes from the very same corporations and industry groups he happens to promote and defend in print."

paul_f 13y ago
If I am understanding what you are saying, since MG's career and how he makes money is in a way you disapprove, then both his facts and opinions should be dismissed? Discuss. It is a bit pathetic to attack the person instead of the concepts they espouse.
- gammarator 13y ago
  It's not the concepts, it's the conflict of interest: We assume Gladwell is telling us the unvarnished truth in a journalistic manner. You might find Gladwell's disclosure statement (or at least its length) revealing: http://www.gladwell.com/disclosure.html http://www.gladwell.com/disclosure.html
  - paulsutter 13y ago
    That's an interesting link. Reading it improved my opinion of Malcolm Gladwell (not easy - I've generally held him in low regard). Could you point to anything specific in his disclosure that would cast significant doubts on his ability to be objective?
- marshray 13y ago
  When discussing someone who's written many books since, I think its not legitimate to focus on their college politics and early employer's funding sponsors. Nevertheless, Gladwell doesn't seem to claim to be a rigorous logician or scientist. He makes a "brand" out of his style of "food for thought" reasoning and the merits of his overall approach are certainly up for discussion.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >If I am understanding what you are saying, since MG's career and how he makes money is in a way you disapprove, then both his facts and opinions should be dismissed? Discuss. It seems like you're not understanding what he's saying. That fact that he makes money as a paid shill is directly damning to his "facts and opinions" and means they should be dismissed. Sure, part of it could be true, but why waste time checking for the truth amidst spin? What part of the: "was trained by the tobacco-funded far-right National Journalism Center, and throughout his career has inserted pro-tobacco, pro-banking industry and pro-PHARMA messages into his books and articles. Gladwell can earn $1 million a year as a paid corporate speaker, sometimes from the very same corporations and industry groups he happens to promote and defend in print." does not scream "shady practices", "conflict of interest", and "fabrications" to you?
overgard 13y ago
Ugh, what an awful site. I don't even like most of the people they "profile", but jesus, that reads more like a hate site than a movement to promote transparency.

by 482924 13y ago

paul_f 13y ago

If I am understanding what you are saying, since MG's career and how he makes money is in a way you disapprove, then both his facts and opinions should be dismissed? Discuss. It is a bit pathetic to attack the person instead of the concepts they espouse.

gammarator 13y ago
It's not the concepts, it's the conflict of interest: We assume Gladwell is telling us the unvarnished truth in a journalistic manner. You might find Gladwell's disclosure statement (or at least its length) revealing: http://www.gladwell.com/disclosure.html http://www.gladwell.com/disclosure.html
- paulsutter 13y ago
  That's an interesting link. Reading it improved my opinion of Malcolm Gladwell (not easy - I've generally held him in low regard). Could you point to anything specific in his disclosure that would cast significant doubts on his ability to be objective?
marshray 13y ago
When discussing someone who's written many books since, I think its not legitimate to focus on their college politics and early employer's funding sponsors. Nevertheless, Gladwell doesn't seem to claim to be a rigorous logician or scientist. He makes a "brand" out of his style of "food for thought" reasoning and the merits of his overall approach are certainly up for discussion.
coldtea 13y ago
>If I am understanding what you are saying, since MG's career and how he makes money is in a way you disapprove, then both his facts and opinions should be dismissed? Discuss. It seems like you're not understanding what he's saying. That fact that he makes money as a paid shill is directly damning to his "facts and opinions" and means they should be dismissed. Sure, part of it could be true, but why waste time checking for the truth amidst spin? What part of the: "was trained by the tobacco-funded far-right National Journalism Center, and throughout his career has inserted pro-tobacco, pro-banking industry and pro-PHARMA messages into his books and articles. Gladwell can earn $1 million a year as a paid corporate speaker, sometimes from the very same corporations and industry groups he happens to promote and defend in print." does not scream "shady practices", "conflict of interest", and "fabrications" to you?

overgard 13y ago

Ugh, what an awful site. I don't even like most of the people they "profile", but jesus, that reads more like a hate site than a movement to promote transparency.