Argument Without a Name, Fact Without a Number

Let's play the fun game of taking stupid things McArdle writes out of context to highlight her intellectually vapid brain.

Example 1:

It is hard to make people read stories in a paper they don't own.

Deep Thoughts, from Megan McArdle.


On to her 'argument.' Megan claims that it is impossible for the Media to manufacture what is investigated, covered, and printed. What the media reports is purely--that's right, thats her fucking argument--a result of customer's demands. The media does not have its own political interests, nor does it have groupthink tendencies, nor does it avoid ruffling the feathers of the Washington establishment, nor does it have any moral obligation to report on say, the destruction of the constitution. Megan believes the media simply satisfies reader's tastes.

Even by glibertarian arguments this is stupid, because it fails to take into account one important factor--that is, even if the market is free and efficient, the media relies on their perception of what the reader wants to reach their goal of satisfying the readers. As Greenwald points out, the media's reporting on Iraq is at odds with public opinion, and the establishment media thinks they know what is best for the Regular People.