Malcolm Gladwell says that he got into journalism by accident, that his real dream was to work for an ad agency. “I decided I wanted to be in advertising. I applied to eighteen advertising agencies in the city of Toronto and received eighteen rejection letters, which I taped in a row on my wall,” he wrote in his What the Dog Saw. If true, then Gladwell didn’t fail at all. Rather, he has achieved his dream of becoming an ad man beyond all expectation.The hidden histories of Malcolm Gladwell. [Previously.]
When contrarianism attacksIs Gladwell actually a contrarian? Seems like most of the things he talks about are fairly obvious. In fact, a lot of times when people criticize him, they criticize him for stating the obvious
But Lefever wasn’t just pro-corporation, he was also pro-white supremacy. In 1981, Ronald Reagan picked Lefever for the position of Assistant Secretary for Human Rights, but the nomination process blew up in his face after Lefever’s own brothers outed the man as a frothing white supremacist who believed blacks to be genetically inferior to whites. Gladwell, who is part-Jamaican, apparently didn’t mind working for a white supremacist who argued that people like Gladwell were inferior. Incredibly enough, Gladwell has continued to participate in events with EPPC outfit as late as 2005, and is currently listed on its promotional materials.Yet, apparently they don't feel the need to point out that Gladwell, unsurprisingly, is not a racist but actually takes the time to argue that whites aren't genetically superior
In my mind a contrarian is someone more interested in sounding smart then being correct.You're onto something with the character assassination, delmoi (this piece comes from the eXiled stables, after all), but this quote actually nails Gladwell's whole schtick.
In Canada we tend to talk a lot about this 'tall poppy syndrome' (resentful drudges cutting down anyone who dares rise above mediocrity) but can you name a Canadian who has actually been "shot down" before moving south and making it big? I might be wrong, but to me it just seems that the US is bigger, with a bigger job market and more opportunities for career development. I did the same thing, for quite a few years in the UK. I don't think Canadian society actively conspires against success, as this chestnut implies.Economic geography plays a huge role. SF is a hub for internet stuff, NY is a center for performing arts, fashion, writing and media (as well as banking), LA is a center for the film industry, as well as music. What kind of stuff does Canada have? I mean, I'm sure the world's most famous oil sands miner is Canadian, but he's probably not that famous.
John Cohen: I'm not a big Gladwell fan, but this is a repulsive smear job.Well, yeah, to an extent. It's a hit piece, and it's working in a long tradition of hit-piece journalism that unquestionably influences its tone and presentation. It's uncivil; it's not nice. It's, in places, unfair. This is the eXiled community's house style. And, yes, that can be pretty repulsive.
So, in order to search out truth the eXile has to print lies?Well, no. But the idea that we always have to be respectful and tolerant of those who have massive advantages over us needs a little questioning.
A lot of the criticism of the SHAME article is kinda nonsense. For example, the National Bureau of Economic Research is the preeminent economic thinktank probably in the world, but is also funded by explicitly free-marketeer foundations, and students at Harvard, where the NBER is based, have long recognized and protested its ideological bias.Yeah, but that has nothing to do with Gladwell, any more then it does with Paul Krugman (Who actually worked for Enron!!) Trying to argue about someone's ideology based on a subset of their social and business contacts is bullshit. Have you only worked for companies run by liberals in your lifetime? Seems unlikely.
Finally, this article doesn't advocate any of those simple solutions — it simply pillories Gladwell. People have complained that it's a hit piece, which, yeah, but a lot of those hits connect.And a lot are clearly, obviously bullshit. You can't have an article that's half obviously bullshit and then say well, the good stuff is still good. It may still be bullshit, but just less obvious. The Wikipedia talk page indicates that the tobacco thing was probably B.S, as his name was on a list they had drawn up internally for media contacts. It doesn't indicate any money changed hands.
« Older "Flame"... | The Las Vegas Sands Corporatio... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Uh, Malcolm Gladwell is Canadian?
posted by nathancaswell at 11:25 AM on June 8, 2012 [3 favorites]