More Boxing the Pox on Vox

[Valin]

Power Line:

Steven Hayward

August 27, 2015

 

 

Vox’s historical illiteracy is not their only embarrassment this week. Philosopher Brian Leiter, who runs one of the most widely-read academic blogs (Leiter Reports), tells the story of how Vox solicited an article from Torbjorn Tannsjo, a well-regarded philosopher at Stockholm University, about the concept known as the “repugnant conclusion,” which is a recondite approach to thinking about population issues. (If you’re really curious, see this, but otherwise never mind.)

 

I’ll let Leiter pick up the story from here:

 

 

 

Dylan Matthews, a philosophically-minded editor at Vox.com, solicited Professor Tannsjo to write a piece for Vox on the “repugnant conclusion.” More precisely, Mr. Matthews wrote:

 

I’m an editor for the US news site Vox.com, and we’re trying to start a new series where philosophers and other thinkers argue for provocative and/or counterintuitive propositions that our readers might find intriguing.

 

(Snip)

 

 

Prof. Tannsjo obliged, and produced this piece: Download You should have kids (00000003)

 

(Snip)

 

It turns out that Vox editor-in-chief Ezra Klein is responsible for nixing the piece. After Leiter’s blog attracted a lot of attention, Klein offered a pathetic explanation. Leiter commented that “If I were feeling generous, I would describe the response as pathetically stupid.” Tannsjo offered his own further thoughts on the pox afflicting Vox:

 

 

 

As Vox admits, they solicited a piece from me on the ”repugnant” conclusion, it went through a thorough editing procedure, and it was eventually rejected. I quoted the reasons that were given for the rejection, a concern that “people will misinterpret it as implying opposition to abortion rights and birth control, which … is a real concern”. To put it mildly, Vox has wasted my time. Furthermore, it is indeed bad policy to defend a right to free abortion and to refuse to take seriously the moral problems abortion gives rise to. That’s what pissed me off. Now other reasons are given. The argument I gave is not convincing enough for us /Vox/ “to stand behind a conclusion so sweeping and dramatic”. But I, and not Vox, would have stood behind the conclusion!

 

 

(Snip)