Reynolds does not deny Lott is anonymous source

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 questions about Reynolds. Second, he is impressed by Lott:

However, can you imagine the chutzpah on the part of Lott to quote an article in a book that is quoting himself as an unnamed source to bolster an argument he's advancing in the book? You've got to give it to Lott, he certainly has, uh, like I said, chutzpah.

Glenn Reynolds has posted a reply to the firearmsregprof mailing list. Perhaps the most interesting thing about his reply is what he doesn't say: he doesn't deny that Lott was his anonymous source. Anyway, he claims that I omitted that he

"published Levitt's response that he wasn't rabidly anti-gun, and took him at his word."

I did not mention that Reynolds "took him at his word" because he didn't. Reynolds published Levitt's denial, commented on the op-ed, and wrote that his source was sticking to the charge. Reynolds was quite clearly agnostic on the question of whether Levitt was "rabidly antigun", writing:

"I suppose the real test of his fair-mindedness will be how he conducts himself on the study"

Reynolds also claims:

"Kopel sent an update to the NRO piece some time ago stressing Levitt's denial of the charge. Although Lambert doesn't mention this, I imagine that he's aware of it."

Neither Reynolds nor Kopel mentioned this in their emails on this subject. I also have corresponded with Levitt, Kleiman, DeLong and Pepper on this matter, and none of them seemed to be aware of this update.

Notice also that Levitt denied the charge on the same day that the article was posted. It has now been over 18 months and the article still has not been corrected.


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…
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…
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…
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…