Buying the ‘Right’ Opinions — Is it corruption?

The NYTimes did a little piece (huge) on corporations donating money to “Independent” Think Tanks. You know the think tank’s whose research you quote in your college papers and high school papers because it’s “independent.”

Turns out politicians and government leaders do about the same amount of verification of the independent part of those organizations.

One of the the ways I’ve seen the rich and powerful come to influence the world is not by telling them what to say but by simply finding the people who say what they want to hear and are “fiercely independent.”

It happens more obviously when Fox News uses a “fake former CIA agent” who they did not properly vet to criticize the Obama administration. For years, he would say what he knew his paycheck depended on — whatever the White House was doing was wrong and a threat to the safety of the nation. He was a literal fraud — so how did he last so long? Easy, he said what they wanted to hear.

Influencing people is big business. And those who are independent are usually given more deference and less of a suspicious gaze.

You see it in newspapers, television reporters, and now think tanks. People paying money not for the “independent” part but for the “shared opinion.”

Is that corruption? Is it corruption if I see a guy, Henrik, who loves my purple-wonder-widget and I decide to pay him money to promote it on his YouTube channel or with this newspaper readers?

Most of us would say it depends on disclosure — if we know about the payment, then it isn’t corruption, the arrangement is disclosed.

But what if I don’t pay Henrik directly but instead pay a company that he works at? Is that corruption? Oh, sure, Henrik can still claim he’s independent but here’s the rub: Would I have given the company Henrik worked at money if I didn’t know his opinion would be for his great love of the purple-wonder-widget?

Is that corruption? For me it may be more of a gamble. What if Henrik doesn’t do what I expect? If I pay him directly, I know he’s going to advertise but by paying him indirectly he may not do what I expect but he also gets to wear the hat of “Independence!”

But isn’t that gambling with loaded dice or marked cards? Sure, I’m taking a real risk but I also have special knowledge. I know Henrik is more likely to support my purple-wonder-widget because he has in the past.

And yet… somehow these reporters, think tanks, and even scientists don’t see the conflict-of-interest because they claim — with complete honesty — their opinion is independent…. but what if their opinion changes? What if they know that they’re only getting paid because they have a certain belief and they avoid considering any evidence that might challenge that belief?

Now I get to claim, “Well, Henrik is independent. I’m just paying him for his independent work.” And Henrik might can continue to claim he is independent, he came to his belief on his own.

But really?

There is always someone willing to say “something” that someone likes. Want to sell more of your “Totally Accurate 2D Map of Earth,” just pour some money into the Flat Earth Society.

This seems painfully obvious to me. We know that one of the best ways to manipulate others is covertly. Whether it’s a child trying to plant an idea in a sympathetic parent’s ear that ice-cream should be part of a complete diet or it’s the only aircraft builder trying to plant the idea that we need more aircraft carriers.

So why isn’t this obvious and why isn’t the default complete transparency?

The fuck is wrong with Congress, state legislatures, politicians and people? Why don’t we have extensive financial transparency laws? If I’m giving money to Henrik or to Henrik’s company or Henrik’s wife. That should be a required disclosure. YouTube creators have figured this out, the good one’s always disclose when they get free stuff or other compensation, why haven’t Think Tanks and News Media?

Secretly financing of anyone because you want to advance your own agenda should be considered corruption — no the “fine print” doesn’t count, that relationship has to be obvious to everyone listening.

I legitimately don’t understand why it isn’t a crime to hide these conflicts-of-interest. These fuckers are clearly engaging in morally corrupt behavior and they should face punishment and a healthy dose of public ridicule.

Free speech is sacrosanct, let them say whatever they want, let them pay whoever they want but the idea they can masquerade as independent? That should be considered fraud.