Howard Kurtz writes in yesterday’s Washington Post that Bush has been attempting (without success in a few notable recent instances) to suppress stories about CIA prisons and wiretapping.
In the same article, he reports that Doug Bandow accepted payments of as much as $2,000 a story for pieces favorable to lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s clients. He has resigned from the Cato Institute in the wake of the story, exposed by Business Week, issuing a statement that “I am fully responsible and I won’t play victim … Obviously, I regret stupidly calling to question my record of activism and writing that extends over 20 years. . . . For that I deeply apologize."
Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation is unapologetic about accepting similar payments; Jonathan Adler of the National Review reports that he was offered similar payments when he worked at a think tank but declined them. It’s more evidence that think tank output tends to be generated by starting with paid-for conclusions and generating arguments and selecting evidence to support them–similar to Feith’s selection of intelligence information to support the invasion of Iraq. Think tanks supported by particular interests simply aren’t a good way of getting objective information.
More examples in Kurtz’s piece.