« Heart Attack? No Problem | Main | The Richest Literary Tradition »
16 June 2009 12:56 PM
Bets in the Blogosphere -- Why Gambling Would Improve Commentary
At the top of the ideas page, The Atlantic's Josh Green suggests that pundits be penalized for being woefully wrong.
You can blow the biggest questions of the day, time after time, and still claim to be a discerning seer. Well, there ought to be consequences. It's not as if blogs and propaganda outlets don't keep track of this stuff. In Washington, regulation is back in fashion. If we can regulate tricky things like credit-default swaps, surely we can regulate pundits.
That pesky First Amendment prevents us from silencing them outright. But couldn't the more reputable media outlets reach a gentleman's agreement to stop inviting commentary from the very worst offenders, at least for a respectable interlude? Pundits should have to explain their bad calls (and grovel?) as a condition of return.
I've got a variation on his idea that's easier to implement: on certain matters, pundits ought to put their money where their mouth is.
This insight struck me as I debated the listeners of talk radio host Mark Levin in a blog comments section. Several comments claimed that President Obama is literally on the verge of destroying the American republic. I regarded that claim as alarmist nonsense. When I said so, they persisted in their arguments. Upon offering to wager a hefty sum on the proposition that the republic would survive the Obama Administration, however, I couldn't find anyone willing to take the other side.
If only there were an online clearinghouse where bets like this could be made publicly, professional and amateur pundits alike could call out the most absurd rhetoric clogging up public discourse -- and point out that despite the hyperbolic claims on offer, precious few are willing to back up their claims with cold hard cash. (Alternatively, the most absurd blowhards would lose a lot of money to folks more modest in their assertions--which is even better!) Another benefit would be the occasional bet between reasonable people both convinced that they are right -- what better way to draw attention to their intellectual clash than to set high stakes for added drama? The romantic in me likes the idea of prominent figures making wagers like the one in Around the World in 80 Days... and I'd even settle for Ezra Klein and Ramesh Ponnuru Megan McArdle betting on whether Obama Administration health care reforms will actually result in cost savings.
Of course, there is the problem of settling the matters in question. An epic wager between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza on the existence of God is hardly going to be settled by a panel of neutral judges. As a relatively poor young commentator, however, it's a feature, not a bug, that not every matter of disagreement be subject to monetary stakes. Were a site that popularized and tracked pundit bets to arise, it might also attract a better class of pundits to public discourse (and Charles Barkely too).
Such a site already exists and has been somewhat active, in fact; check out http://www.longbets.org It's got some interesting features; all it needs is for a social norm of pundits using to develop. You could start a trend!
I've actually made a bet in the blogosphere with noted commenter SomeCallMeTim, noted here: http://www.janegalt.net/archives/005016.php#39185
I wonder if he remembers...