Kopel/Lott/Reynolds vs Levitt--timeline

First, a recap and a time line on the Kopel/Lott/Reynolds attacks on Steve Levitt:

16 Aug 2001
Glenn Reynolds claims that the NAS panel is "stacked" with "ardent supporters of gun control", especially Levitt.
29 Aug 2001
Dave Kopel and Glenn Reynolds write an article in National Review Online where they claim that most of the people on the panel are anti-gun and that Levitt has been described as "rabidly antigun". They offer no evidence to support their attack on Levitt.
29 Aug 2001
Levitt emails Reynolds, denying the charge, pointing to this op-ed as evidence that he is not rabidly anti-gun. Reynolds conceals the identity of the "scholar" who accused Levitt of being "rabidly antigun".
31 Aug 2001
Fox News has a story about the attacks on the panel, quoting Lott as saying "It's not a balanced panel" and Kopel charging that the real intent of the committee was to debunk Lott's work.
18 Sep 2002
Reynolds repeats his attack on the NAS panel. Brad DeLong vigorously refutes Reynold's attack on Levitt.
19 Sep 2002
Mark Kleiman comments on Reynolds' unethical behaviour:
I still think the NRO story was shabby journalism: it made a wild, personally damaging charge based on a single anonymous source, it failed to check that charge with its subject to allow a comment, and it misrepresented the document it quoted from by selective quotation and actual misquotation. Nor was it ever updated with links to the denial and the evidence supporting it.

Reynolds has a bizarre response that completely ignores all of Delong's and Kleiman's arguments:

As a former official in the Clinton Administration, surely DeLong isn't arguing that only people's buddies are entitled to discuss questions of whether they might be biased or not. He should know better than that.

(Err, discussing it is fine, Glenn, but you should either offer actual evidence in support of your claim or retract it.)

10 Mar 2003
Lott's book The Bias Against Guns is published. On page 54 he writes (referring to the Kopel-Reynolds article):
Another panel member, Steve Levitt, an economist, has been described in media reports as being "rabidly anti-gun."

He goes on to falsely accuse Levitt of writing his op-ed to cover up his "strong opposition to guns" and misrepresent his discussion with Pepper about Lott. (For details see here.)

Now, who was the anonymous accuser whose identity Reynolds concealed? Well, who do we know who makes anonymous personal attacks on academics like this or this? And who would have a vested interested in keeping someone highly skilled in econometrics off the panel, lest their own firearms research relying on econometrics be debunked? And whose research on the abortion-crime link did Levitt describe (on June 19, 2001, shortly before the anonymous attack on him) as "just garbage"? And since the "rabidly antigun" charge has proven to be false, who do we know who has a habit of making things up?

Levitt informs me that he is almost certain that the anonymous character assassin is Lott. I asked both Reynolds and Kopel to confirm or deny this and neither one denied it. I think we are entitled to conclude that the character assassin is Lott.

It was clearly wrong for Kopel and Reynolds to print Lott's smear without telling their readers of their source's interest in the matter. And it was dishonest of Lott to refer to the Kopel-Reynolds article to make it appear that there were other people who were saying that Levitt was "rabidly antigun" when, in fact, Lott was the only source of the claim.

Tags

More like this

Mac Diva is trying to figure out why Lott does the things he does. Atrios explains why he cares about Lott. Brad Delong says that I have "a very strong case". Matt Yglesias has some thoughtful comments on appropriate behaviour in this case. ArchPundit has one two posts. On Monday Glenn Reynolds…
Some responses to Glenn Reynolds' post yesterday: Tbogg considers Reynolds to be washing his hands and changing the subject. Tom Spencer observes that it is dishonest of Reynolds to respond to criticism without providing a link to that criticism. Roger Ailes reckons that Reynolds is being…
Kevin Drum has a nice summary on Lott's anonymous attack on Levitt. Kieran Healy tells what Lott's next step will be. Brian Linse thinks Reynolds and Kopel should offer some answers. Atrios links here. And Tom Spencer has two posts. First, he observes that Reynolds' cover up for Lott raises…
Max Sawicky links here, as does Brad Delong and Hesiod. Meanwhile, in a post that seems to have drifted in from some alternate reality, the William Sjostrom take on the Kopel/Reynolds/Lott attacks on Levitt is that Brad Delong is a sleaze. In a previous message Glenn Reynolds…