The news cycle flows by so quickly, lately, that political actors and activists are learning it’s sometimes best to just keep your head down and let the controversy of the day join the rest of the noise tomorrow.  Nonetheless, I think there’s something worth noting in the now-passed story about Russia funding some conservative commentators.

First, my caveat is that I no longer trust America’s intelligence services or news media. Even where stories aren’t entirely fabricated, there are simply so many ways to construct a narrative. The agent or journalist can exaggerate claims or leak one-sided information that distorts the context of what’s happening. Imagine, and I’m not saying this is happening, that every commentator across the political spectrum receives some portion of his or her revenue from hostile foreign governments — that it’s simply part of the ecosystem. Releasing that information only as it relates to one group of commentators would make it seem as if they are uniquely bad.

Caveat aside, I can sympathize with some of the commentators’ defenses.  I’ve always said what I have to say, and if somebody’s wants to give me money to say it, that’s great.  That person didn’t change my view or buy my opinion.

What he or she would be doing, though, is making it possible for me to continue saying what I have to say… and to say more of it.  By selectively funding points of view, financiers can adjust the broad field of commentary.  It’s not the writer’s fault for wanting to be heard, and frankly, it’s not even the financiers’ fault for wanting to advance their visions.  We all have to have our own moral compasses and approach information intelligently and with caution.

To be sure, this is a social challenge, but it doesn’t lend itself to easy solutions.  Attempting to force transparency or, worse, ban pernicious funding or statements only amplifies the caveat expressed above.