Blog-Hog Heaven for Wonks
The website I would most like to see is actually a series of websites. Each website would deal with a particular area of public policy.
Each site would have four sections: Facts, Opinions/Proposals, Politics, and News.
Facts would be an archive of all the relevant hard data on the subject. This data might include relevant Statutes and Regulations; government, think tank, and academic study reports; and any relevant statistical data the editors can get their hands on. I view the Facts section as being the ultimate resource for anyone writing the ultimate term paper on the subject.
Opinions/Proposals would be a collection of posts presenting specific proposals regarding the subject, plus a heavily edited collection of opinions regarding the proposals. Editing plays a crucial role in this section. This section of the site should be a politics-free zone, and a personal-attack free zone. This section should not be democratic in the sense of everyone getting to have their say. If a proposed comment or posting is political, personal, mean spirited, non productive, or simply cumulative, it should not get past the editors. The editors also should not be shy in editing any post that survives the screening process. If a proposal is found in 350 page book, the editors should write and post a concise abstract of the book (along with a link to amazon.com). If a 3000 work opinion is sent in that can be accurately summarized in 500 words, the editors should post the 500 words (along with a link to the unedited version). The one thing the editors should never do (in this section of the site) is characterize the opinion/proposal as conservative, liberal, or some other thought-inhibiting label.
Politics would be the section that most parallels the rest of the blogosphere. The views posted here would deal with the politics of the issue – a vitally important subject, but distinct from opinions regarding the merits of any competing proposal.
The News would simply be a copy of all the recent postings from the other sections. This would be the section frequent visitors would go to stay current.
Such a site would require a great deal of work. While such a site might bring its editors a certain amount of favorable recognition, it won’t bring its editors sufficient financial compensation to make such a site profitable.
I do not see how any single editor could create a site with the sufficient across-the-board credibility the site would require to be successful. Therefore, I envision each site having a team of editors. While an individual editor may be unabashedly partisan, each team must have editors from different ends of the political spectrum.
In my mind, the solution to the above requirements would be to have these sites edited by a collection of academics and think tank fellows who share a common interest in the particular subject, a common commitment to intellectual honesty, but who share little else in the way of governmental philosophy.
My last suggestion relates to the name of these sites. I suggest the good people at RealClearPolitics franchise out the prefix RealClear. The sites I most wish the internet would create would have the names RealClearWelfare, RealClearIncomeTax, RealClearDrugPolicy, RealClearSocialSecurity, RealClearEnergyPolicy, etc. etc. By making this suggestion, I give the RealClearPolitics people the responsibility to approve the makeup of the editorial teams and the authority to take back the RealClear prefix if the site fails to meet high standards of clarity and impartiality.
Each site would have four sections: Facts, Opinions/Proposals, Politics, and News.
Facts would be an archive of all the relevant hard data on the subject. This data might include relevant Statutes and Regulations; government, think tank, and academic study reports; and any relevant statistical data the editors can get their hands on. I view the Facts section as being the ultimate resource for anyone writing the ultimate term paper on the subject.
Opinions/Proposals would be a collection of posts presenting specific proposals regarding the subject, plus a heavily edited collection of opinions regarding the proposals. Editing plays a crucial role in this section. This section of the site should be a politics-free zone, and a personal-attack free zone. This section should not be democratic in the sense of everyone getting to have their say. If a proposed comment or posting is political, personal, mean spirited, non productive, or simply cumulative, it should not get past the editors. The editors also should not be shy in editing any post that survives the screening process. If a proposal is found in 350 page book, the editors should write and post a concise abstract of the book (along with a link to amazon.com). If a 3000 work opinion is sent in that can be accurately summarized in 500 words, the editors should post the 500 words (along with a link to the unedited version). The one thing the editors should never do (in this section of the site) is characterize the opinion/proposal as conservative, liberal, or some other thought-inhibiting label.
Politics would be the section that most parallels the rest of the blogosphere. The views posted here would deal with the politics of the issue – a vitally important subject, but distinct from opinions regarding the merits of any competing proposal.
The News would simply be a copy of all the recent postings from the other sections. This would be the section frequent visitors would go to stay current.
Such a site would require a great deal of work. While such a site might bring its editors a certain amount of favorable recognition, it won’t bring its editors sufficient financial compensation to make such a site profitable.
I do not see how any single editor could create a site with the sufficient across-the-board credibility the site would require to be successful. Therefore, I envision each site having a team of editors. While an individual editor may be unabashedly partisan, each team must have editors from different ends of the political spectrum.
In my mind, the solution to the above requirements would be to have these sites edited by a collection of academics and think tank fellows who share a common interest in the particular subject, a common commitment to intellectual honesty, but who share little else in the way of governmental philosophy.
My last suggestion relates to the name of these sites. I suggest the good people at RealClearPolitics franchise out the prefix RealClear. The sites I most wish the internet would create would have the names RealClearWelfare, RealClearIncomeTax, RealClearDrugPolicy, RealClearSocialSecurity, RealClearEnergyPolicy, etc. etc. By making this suggestion, I give the RealClearPolitics people the responsibility to approve the makeup of the editorial teams and the authority to take back the RealClear prefix if the site fails to meet high standards of clarity and impartiality.