|
|
December 29, 2003
Why Do Paul Krugman's New Year's Resolutions Lack Resolve?Don't cover things you define as news, cover things I define as news. That advice for campaign reporters came from New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. He's an outsider to the press with a big platform inside it. But his list of resolutions is limp and predictable.Ordinarily we make New Year’s Resolutions for ourselves, not for other people. “Here are my resolutions for you guys” is just one of the odd things about Paul Krugman’s year-end advisory to colleagues in the press. It explains how to cover the 2004 campaign, and how not to approach it. Krugman’s bulleted list amounts to saying: Don’t cover the dumb things you define as news, cover the smart things that I see as news. This is not an effective way of addressing the national press, although it is a common way of giving voice to one’s complaints. A key figure in national politics since September 11, 2001 is Paul Krugman. The New York Times columnist has been advancing a view of the world in direct opposition to Bush Administration policy and the political aims of the Republican Party. Before a word is written, Krugman is therefore placed in a certain category by journalists who might have read his Dec. 26 column. To them, he is the partisan observer telling an officially nonpartisan press what it should observe. Not a promising rhetorical situation. For the sad likelihood, journalists think, is that the partisan will wind up saying: see as I see. Denounce as false what I denounce as false. Treat as urgent what I treat as urgent. “That’s how you would report the campaign— if you were serious,” where serious turns out to be the worldview the writer had going in. And that is what Krugman did. He conformed to the very low expectations that journalists have for press criticism in this genre. From his Times perch and in his recent book, Krugman has written against an “ideology that denigrates almost everything, other than national defense, that the government does.” To him, Bush, Cheyney, Rumsfeld, Rove and crew are radicals, secret revolutionaries, not conservatives. They took what was beyond the pale in politics and economic policy, and made it happen overnight— without any real debate, without coming clean about the real agenda, without the press noticing or raising basic questions. The amazing thing, of course, is how this one columnist’s world view spoke to a substantial portion of the country hostile to Bush. So much so that Krugman began to represent, for a good many people, a form of opposition normally expected from the party out of power in government. Krugman is not in government, but he is a figure in politics because the oppositional chord he struck from his platform at the New York Times was more coherent and convincing than anything coming from the political system at the time. Coherent and convincing for a portion of the public, that is. Another portion is hostile, not to Bush for his revolution, but to Krugman for his rejection of all things Bush. (See the comments section of this post for proof of that.) Starting in mid-2002, I began to hear it. People on the left would be discussing the political scene, especially the intimidating climate after September 11th, and someone would say, “only Krugman is taking on the Republicans over this.” Or: “Krugman is onto it, none of the Democrats are.” To realize how unusual this is—a Times columnist regarded as the unofficial opposition—glance across the op ed page at Bob Herbert. There he is with passionate opinions opposing the Republicans on the welfare state, urban policy, education, health care. But no one looks to Bob Herbert as the one standing up and saying NO. That’s because Krugman’s NO is different in kind. More than any top columnist in recent times, Krugman has been openly at war with the press in a domain that might be called its “base line view of reality.” This is an elusive matter within journalism. When you try to discuss it, the central categories become hazy items like conventional wisdom among reporters, or a climate of expectations in the press. Or assumptions that precede acts of reporting and are only half-conscious to begin with. At PressThink, I sometimes talk about the standard script as an elusive factor in what journalists wind up covering. I also call it the master narrative, a term with roots outside the press (in academic criticism). These are all attempts to describe something nebulous, but not entirely unreal: the press helps establish a day-to-day narrative for politics. It sets in outline the acceptable terms of public debate. Krugman is at war with the base line reality the press sets. He thus jeers at its performance in holding the Bush government accountable. For he doesn’t think reporters and columnists are up to describing reality— the reality his work describes. In a review of The Great Unraveling, Krugman’s best seller on the Bush years, Russell Baker, a former political reporter and former Times columnist himself, remarks on this dissent: The vocabulary Krugman applied to the President bristled with words such as “dishonesty,” “lying,” “mendacity,” and “fraud.” Among political pundits such language verges on the taboo. As a class, political columnists do not shrink from the occasional well poisoning, but on matters of etiquette they are conservative to the verge of stuffiness, and they tend to view plain speech as the mark of the ill-mannered bumpkin. But the good opinion of colleagues does not seem important to Krugman, Baker adds. “His indifference toward journalism’s conventional etiquette may even contribute to his success.” I agree with that. Krugman’s great advantage as a journalist is that he is not a journalist. Economist, tenured professor, writer serve quite well as his identity anchors. Nor does Krugman show signs of wanting to be “in” the fraternity, although he certainly likes the visibility and power of writing opinion for the Times. (And what author would not?) To maintain his prominence in the press, no position in the journalism profession is required. He can even be a pariah, and remain effective. This is from a profile in the Washington Post by Howard Kurtz: What makes Krugman’s rapid rise even more remarkable is that he rarely ventures from his Ivy League enclave to either Washington or New York and almost never talks to the people he is writing about. An international trade expert, he merely moonlights as a Times pontificator and is more worried at the moment about finishing a new textbook, “Principles of Economics.” “I hereby propose some rules for 2004 political reporting,” Krugman, the pariah, wrote. Aware of the special base line he begins from, he might have shown his colleagues how different the presidential campaign looks when you assume, for example, that Bush and gang are revolutionaries. How do you cover a revolutionary, running for re-election? If anyone could enter imaginatively into that puzzle, it would be Krugman. Alas, here is his counsel to journalists: 1.) don’t talk about the candidate’s clothing, it’s trivial; 2.) do scrutinize Bush’s proposal for tax-exempt savings accounts; it will be terrible; 3.) don’t fall for cheesy anecdotes about what a nice back-slapping guy Bush is, he isn’t; 4,) look at the candidate’s records and determine (as I, Krugman, did) that Bush is the radical and Dean the cautious moderate; 5.) don’t fall for insider baseball and its histrionics about the candidates’ flaws, they’re trivial too; 6.) don’t puff yourself up, this is not about you. So lackluster and condescending are the ideas here that Krugman himself wrote them off: “I don’t really expect my journalistic colleagues to follow these rules.” That too is part of the sad predictability in this genre. The recommender with a world view knows in advance that the press—taking the view from nowhere—will pay no attention. This is what generates the weary tone. What’s shocking about Paul Krugman’s journalism is that he’s so good at politics— the kind of politics practiced by public intellectuals. They interact with events by broadcasting their ideas, by injecting themselves into public debate and becoming a factor in opinion formation. Which also means an actor. Krugman had an advantage. He was trained as an economist— not as a writer or political actor. On the other hand, he had not been trained (by journalism) never to think of himself as an actor. So he had more freedom of identity when crossing over into another line of work. When the moment came and he was thrust by the economy of public argument into a politician’s role (in the sense of representing a broad body of opinion going unheard) he was more capable of a flexible and creative response. In his case that meant: keep going. Mount the case against Bush and don’t let up. Krugman, I think, was not frightened by the ambiguities in being a columnist, spectator at the scene, and a lightening rod for political opinion, both the kind drawn to him, and the kind coming at him as attack or counter-argument. He didn’t have to pretend that he was not a key member of the “opposition” party to Bush. Strangely, this made it easier to stick to the columnist’s role— and just keep it going. Because of the way he wasn’t trained, Krugman turned out to be very good as a newspaper columnist. That makes his limp advice to campaign journalists all the more disappointing. The media scholar Daniel Hallin once sketched a simple model for understanding the politics of news. He drew a big circle on a piece of paper, and a smaller circle inside it. The inner circle he called the sphere of consensus. This is “the region of motherhood and apple pie,” the things all—or nearly all—Americans agree upon, including journalists. The next ring he called the sphere of legitimate controversy, where we find argument and evidence offered in the normal course of debate. Outside the second ring is the sphere of deviance, which is the domain of actors and ideas widely thought beyond the pale. Journalists participate in defining all three spheres, although this act is often missing in their self-definition. In today’s New York Times, for example, an article on Michael Jackson and the Nation of Islam describes “the group’s philosophy of black separatism.” Reporter Sharon Waxman wrote: “The Nation of Islam is a small group that advocates black self-empowerment and a separate African-American state, and some of its leaders have espoused anti-Semitic, anti-gay and racist rhetoric.” In other words, they’re beyond the pale. Take note that the group is put there by flat descriptive language in a front page news story— not by “opinion” journalism. Hallin’s device helps us grasp the tension between someone like Krugman and others in the press. For he actually places the current Administration in the sphere of deviance. Or rather, he argues that Bush and company have tried to take policies from beyond the pale straight into “consensus” without being forced through the space of legitmate controversy. This, he thinks, cannot be done without the acquiescence of journalists who patrol these boundaries. In effect, then, Krugman and the national press live in two different moral universes. But “advice” cannot really flow across such a profound gap. He would have been better off writing about the gap itself. Political reporters are not going to jump into Krugman’s world and view the campaign from there. What they can do, however, is expand, strengthen and properly animate the sphere of legitimate controversy, which is in some measure their own creation. And here we come upon one of the biggest problems in current press think: The job of the political journalist exceeds the job description most journalists are prepared to accept, in part because that description is so apolitical (“we cover the campaign.”) If political work done by the press goes unrecognized by people in the press, then critics who object to that work will find themselves talking about journalists, but not really to them. This situation is not necessarily the critic’s fault. But a writer as smart as Paul Krugman could have faced it head on. To me there is no question that for his courage and relentlessness Krugman should be this year’s Pulitzer Prize columnist. Who even comes close to his kind of impact? But that award would itself be a political statement about the breakdown of consensus, a development of deep consequence for American journalists, as it is for American citizens. Paul Krugman, “New Year’s Resolutions,” New York Times, Dec. 26. Russell Baker, “The Awful Truth,” Review of The Great Unraveling by Paul Krugman, New York Review of Books, Nov. 6, 2003. Cal Pundit published this excellent and detailed interview with Krugman (Sep. 2003) Recently I came across this site about “the absurdity of partisanship.” It has a rating system for columnists that is supposed to show how relentlessly partisan they are— or is it just being consistent? Krugman ranks second on the list, after the notorious Ann Coulter. This attempt to quantify the drift of a writer’s opinions is interesting, but I don’t see how it counts as “absurd” to be ranked at the top. see PressThink Basics: The Master Narrative in Journalism: “A given work of journalism will have an author’s byline, but in some measure the author is always ‘journalism’ itself and its peculiar habits of mind. You can’t interview that guy.” For some reason—maybe it’s Krugman—the comments section on this post has a lot of humor. Check into it.
Posted by Jay Rosen at December 29, 2003 11:46 PM
Comments
Your Krugman piece and the Lying in Ponds site would seem to fly in the face of one of the main thrusts of Press Think: "Denouncing bias in the media has become a dumb instrument." If you still believe that, how can Krugman be _excessively_ partisan? If you still believe journalism is inherently partisan, how can you denounce Krugman for being "partisan observer telling [the] press what it should observe"? Aren't you tripping over the same self-imposed standard of 'objectivity' that has afflicted American media for almost acentury and made it such a "dumb instrument"? Posted by: John Garside at December 30, 2003 3:31 AM | Permalink Jay, I don't think Krugman wrote his own proposals off. I think he understands the political media well enough to know that they have absolutely no interest in discussing policy issues, bringing light to bear on the candidates' records, or divorcing themselves from the DC spin game. You're right, Krugman falls squarely outside the political-media-corporate axis of influence, which gives him an almost unique vantage point in observing Howard Dean's "people-powered" uprising against the political establishment. Posted by: JD Lasica at December 30, 2003 3:39 AM | Permalink John: I was trying to paraphrase how journalists regard someone like Krugman and his apparent "partisanship." I was not saying that I buy the contrast between his subjectivity and their objectivity, only that this attitude in the press would affect how his resolutions were received. JD: That may be what Krugman was thinking, but if the assumption is that the political press has "no interest" in discussing policy issues, that makes his resolutions a work of satire. And satire is supposed to be funny. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 30, 2003 11:20 AM | Permalink It isn't Krugman's ideas, but rather the coverage of the Bush administration and presidential campaign by the "officially nonpartisan press" that is lackluster and condescending -- to readers/viewers. Krugman's resolutions are faulted for their predictability but not their validity. It seems ironic that people in the business of truth-seeking, should use the sanctity of the "nonpartisan press" to avoid the truth about their shortcomings - predictable or otherwise. In fairness, the whole of Krugman's work shows that he is both resolute and brave -- little wonder that he has struck a chord among the disaffected. Posted by: L. Spalinski at December 30, 2003 11:45 AM | Permalink Jay writes: "I was not saying that I buy the contrast between his subjectivity and their objectivity, only that this attitude in the press would affect how his resolutions were received." Isn't this another form of the wishy-washy and historically bleached: _You can't Convert if you Shock_ contention? Krugman wears his colours on his sleeve and shoots from the hip; he's emphatically outside the US genre and community of journalism. But isn't this refreshing; isn't it an asset? I'd go further: Robert Fisk is considerably more hard-hitting and uncompromising than Krugman; he is also an actual journalist. His approach continues to break winds in the States. Posted by: John Garside at December 30, 2003 12:30 PM | Permalink John: you caught me as I was still revising this piece. I don't think we disagree that much on Krugman's value as an "outsider." Anyway, the essay is more complete now. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 30, 2003 1:25 PM | Permalink Krugman is, frankly, what is exactly wrong with the press these days. 1) Why should anyone care what he thinks more than any other citizen? 2) How does some guy like that, who's opinions are no better thought out than anyone else's, and certainly worse than some, get access to the NY Times editorial pages? I want to get paid for venting my spleen like that. Posted by: eric at December 30, 2003 2:18 PM | Permalink
I'm sure the feebleminded press corps appreciates your bravely sticking up for them. They would be in tough shape if they had to think, and write intelligently, instead of focusing on trivia (like clothing) and mindlessly repeating falsehoods (like the 'Gore invented the internet' garbage). But, hey, I guess what they learn in J-school. Posted by: Jon H at December 30, 2003 2:39 PM | Permalink It would be more imopressive if Krugman would stick to the job he was hired for: discussing the economy. Posted by: shark at December 30, 2003 2:40 PM | Permalink "That may be what Krugman was thinking, but if the assumption is that the political press has "no interest" in discussing policy issues, that makes his resolutions a work of satire. And satire is supposed to be funny." There's nothing funny about it, Jay. It is a plain and very simple FACT that the "mainstream" press has no interest in policy issues, and nothing but contempt for those who do. Ted Koppel's performance at the last Democratic candidates "debate" (it was actually a contest to see who'd trump Dean and win the "mainstream's" much-coveted "Miss Congeniality" award) is a pluperfect example. He was amazed at the hostility of the audience to his sneeringly superificial questions. They were ready to lynch him. Hell, had I been there, I would have been sorely tempted to hand them the rope ! The "Mainstream" is nothing more than a coven of elite, upper-middle-class snobs. We don't call the "Heathers" in Blogistan for nothing. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 30, 2003 2:45 PM | Permalink "the press helps establish a day-to-day narrative for politics. It sets in outline the acceptable terms of public debate." Thus letting them slack off. By unquestionably accepting the terms (like 'Gore is a liar') they can move on to more important things, like what color blazer is the candidate wearing, and what nickname did George give me. Checking facts might cause a reporter to leave the outline. And we can't have that, can we? That might leave the approved narrative in tatters, and that would mess everything up. Following the outline is SO much easier than doing actual reporting. Posted by: Jon H at December 30, 2003 2:46 PM | Permalink Robert Fisk?! Isnt he still waiting for the US forces to storm Baghdad? Look, there is a thin line between journalist and advocate, and Fisk for sure and Krugman quite often live across that line. Its fine, but make sure not to allow them to portray themselves any other way. Besides that, you have to hold people to their words, and not let them shoot prediction after prediction and accusation after accusation. Its not journalism to throw a bucket of crap against the wall and see what sticks. Krugman is basically unhinged in his hatred of Bush. That in itself prevents him from being a legitimate journalist, or even a useful editorialist. Taking the polar opposite position of the white house automatically and then figuring out how to defend your position might make for some fascinating gymnastics, but as far as actual journalism goes its less than useless. Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 30, 2003 2:47 PM | Permalink Most people write new year resolutions for themselves. Most people write resolutions about themselves. Most people write their own resolutions. Paul Krugman writes resolutions for others to follow and they are all concerning Dean? I love it! Here are my new year resolutions. 1. Bill Gates should release that check for 1% of his massive wealth in my name. 2. Steve Jobs should begin my lifetime subscription for everything-apple-ever-makes-for-the-rest-of-my-life-forever. 3. Jennifer Garner should return my calls. 4. Arafat and Sharon should take a steam and work all these problems out. 5. Osama's bodyguard should deposit his desicated corpse at the nearest Pakistan Fedex office. 6. Kim Jong Il should switch to pomade. 7. Johnny Cash should be awarded the "Greatest Entertainer and Philosopher of all Time" medal. 8. Jack Bauer's daughter should just be killed already and be done with it. 9. Howard Dean should grow a pair. 10. Paul Krugman should shut his piehole. I don't really expect these people to follow these self-evidently brilliant resolutions. It would be too much to ask of their puny brains. Oh well.... Posted by: bbridges at December 30, 2003 2:59 PM | Permalink All I can say is right on Jay! Krugman is a perfect example of why Americans don't trust the media anymore. Writers like Krugman are the equivalent of that little old lady standing at the window commenting on what goes on down in the street. She never sets foot outside.
Posted by: Rich G at December 30, 2003 3:14 PM | Permalink David, I love the Heathers term. It's so very. What I think Jay is pointing to is that Krugman's critique isn't going to appeal to journalists, because they will see it as a partisan attack rather than a convincing essay on why they *should change their coverage*. He's basically saying 'stop being stupid, stupid'. While I agree that generic editorial priorities are way out of whack, it's hard to pin this on any specific person. THE MEDIA has no single address, as Jay Rosen has drilled into my head. Moreover, it's counterproductive to lump good journalists in with bad ones. When you do that, it becomes a game of shouting, and in a shouting match, he who owns the network wins, and most Americans stop paying attention. On the other hand, so what? Krugman isn't really talking to journalists, just as Dean isn't talking to Clinton money people. Now, THAT SAID: Jay, I posted this comment on BOPnews as well: The idea of the 'sphere of deviance' makes a lot of sense. One of the key elements of journalistic (I would argue this is the role of the editor) is defining the various spheres. The right-wing press - led by Fox News - has been remarkably successful at pushing the spheres towards territory that emphasizes the values of a reactionary minority. My piece on Brooks speaks to this dynamic, as does Narrative as Battlefield. One of the key drivers of this spherical outreach is the pretense that the right-wing press is guided by the same journalistic standards that govern the rest of the media. That is, they are to be observers, not actors, and they are to actively work against imposing their values on the stories they cover. By and large, they have been successful at this pretense, so much so that a single heavily politicized memo drives the daily spin at Fox News. They are actors, and they know it. They - and the rest of the press - pretends that they are not, that Fox News is just there to observe. While perhaps unbiased on many individual stories (which speaks to your point that categorizing THE MEDIA as biased is oversimplified), Fox News does generally push a right-wing narrative, one often at odds with the norms of a liberal democratic society. Paul Krugman is responding to this journalistic drift; he is saying that the journalistic edifice is basically a fraud, sustained largely so that a vocal minority won't scream and shout about liberal bias. Unlike right-wing commentators and the press, Krugman doesn't pretend he's not an actor. He also doesn't pretend that the press bears no active role in narrative creation. Unlike the right-wing, he's open about his contempt for the now-false norms of this larger narrative, and this makes him powerful, because a substantial minority of the American public watches the news, reads the paper, and only Paul Krugman makes sense to them. Only his stories explain their unease about the narrative they are told. Only he seems legitimate. But you're right. He really isn't trying to convince the press, he's reaching beyond them directly to a different audience, much as Dean angrily does. I agree, he could have written it differently; I wonder, though, if he would have broadened his audience to include journalists as well as angry liberals, or if he just would have diluted his message to both groups. At any rate, I hope there would be room for a liberal David Brooks, the guy who can appeal to conservatives by conceding the validity of some of their aesthetic critiques while pointing out the incoherence of their politics. Krugman isn't the right person for that role. But there doesn't seem to be anyone else. Except you, perhaps? Hmmm.... Between critiques of Campaign 2000 and the situation in Iraq, nothing brings left and right blogistan together like media bashing. If we can get Howard Fineman, MoDo, Peter Jennings and Chucky Krauthammer on a one way trip to Mars, all that's left for the Unified Front to do is let gays marry and end farm welfare. Posted by: SamAm at December 30, 2003 3:34 PM | Permalink Your article about Paul Krugman's suggestions for New Year's resolutions for journalists is a prime example of the kind of sneering insiderism that fuels the public's contempt for mainstream journalism. Your summary of Krugman's article as telling journalists, "Don't cover the dumb things you define as news, cover the smart things that I see as news," is grossly unfair. One has to read through three-fourths of the article to get to your boulderized version of what Krugman actually wrote. What he actually said was, Posted by: John H. Otto at December 30, 2003 3:52 PM | Permalink A nice piece, but I must part with your assessment of Krugman as an effective political actor. Nothing could be further from the truth. A little story: I'm a political conservative, and we conservatives like tax cuts. So, I was enthusiastic when Bush proposed his first round of cuts. That enthusiasm took a hit when I read Krugman's essay in TNR, criticizing the cuts from a number of economic perspectives. It was a very persuasive piece, and although it didn't change my mind, it gave me much to think about. I rarely find much to think about in Krugman's columns today. They are bitter polemics - which, I must concede, have a place in political discourse, possibly even a place at the NYT - which could not possibly persuade ANYONE. Not unlike Limbaugh, Moore, or Franken, Krugman's pieces remind the like-minded why they feel that way, but offer nothing to the undecided or the many who honestly (and perhaps incorrectly) disagree. I would be astounded to learn that anyone reading his NYT columns has ever put one down and thought, "Now, I understand the error of my ways." They are, in short, a far cry from the Platonic motto, "Come, let us reason together." Moreover, Krugman is well outside his expertise on noneconomic matters. I actually would welcome a focus along the lines of his discipline, because (I am told) Krugman is a brilliant economist. Great. But, when he writes about....well, anything else, I'm reminded of the insight that sent me away from the Sunday talk shows years ago: "Not only are these people no smarter than I, but they don't even know more than I do." As a conservative, I should welcome Krugman's "dissent" into irrelevance, but I do not. We need an active, robust debate in this country - one carried on by actors who have a chance at PERSUADING their way to consensus. We've had enough bombthrowers, and I defy Krugman or anyone else to argue that the character of our political dialogue has improved. I hope Krugman keeps it up long enough for Bush to be re-elected. But after that, it would be better for all concerned if he retreated to write within his own limitations. I'm not holding my breath. Posted by: Adam at December 30, 2003 3:57 PM | Permalink "To me there is no question that for his courage and relentlessness Krugman should be this year's Pulitzer Prize columnist. Who even comes close to his kind of impact?" First, is impact the only consideration? Shouldn't we expect a Pulitzer Prize winner to be right once in a while? Secondly, I think Friedman has had more impact. Krugman has become a flagwaver for a leaderless political group. Friedman has foreign policy makers incorporating his his thoughts into their policies. I suppose you can make an argument that without Krugman showing them the way Democrats (Dean, for example) wouldn't have known how to attack Bush, but I don't think this is true. Krugman's approach is basically "Back to Basics" for the Democrats: attack on Big Business vs Workers. Even for those that think it is true, his political impact is basically as a cheerleader: he rallies those who already hate Bush. Is this more important than directly influencing foreign policy during wartime? Posted by: mj at December 30, 2003 4:13 PM | Permalink Adam, Just because Krugman isn't convincing to conservatives like you doesn't make him irrelevant. He is quite relevant as a political journalist, because he challenges the narrative and gives others the rhetorical firepower to do the same. That is, Krugman isn't into the soft-sell, but his interpreters could frame him that way. At any rate, your call for unilateral disarmament would be a lot more persuasive in intent if you also criticized the incendiary and largely dishonest Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter etc. and recognized that there is a substantive difference in quality between someone like Franken and Krugman - whose research and footnotes stand extreme scrutiny - and Coulter, O'Reilly, Brooks, Limbaugh - do not. Failing to do so makes it seem like it's a big heathers kewl kids game. They can yell and scream and lie but when liberals call them on it they are being uncivil. At any rate, what the right-wing proved under Clinton is that partisan screeching is a very effective political strategy because it scares journalists (which it shouldn't). After all, even though Clinton won his elections, look who's in charge of everything now. MJ, Krugman has no immediate impact on policy, of course, but he has substantial political impact in creating the terrain on which policy can be crafted. His messaging strategy is already giving the Democratic opposition a more partisanized approach to opposition. This is not to say that it's a good thing (I hold that to another discussion), merely that it's impactful. I suspect also that when the Democrats return to power, Krugman's messaging will have largely shaped the party, much as neocons did in the 1990s despite not having access to the levers of policy. John Otto said (and pray pardon the ...s look up a couple of posts to see what I omit): Those should not be controversial resolutions for journalists. Unfortunately, these days main stream journalists try to emulate Ted-Koppel-like ambushes in order to make themselves look better." I agree the resolutions Krugman suggested should not be controversial. However he then ruined the whole thing by giving remarkably one-sided examples. Every single example is used to make either Bush look bad or Dean look good or both. Now I'm not even an American but I'm pretty sure I can pull up examples that work the other way with no more than a few minutes thought. If Krugman really wanted to tell Journalists what to do instead of, effectively, get in a pre-emptive whine about hoiw the press is a bunch of rabid Bush loving conservatives, he would have done the same thing. Posted by: Francis at December 30, 2003 4:20 PM | Permalink Krugman wears his colours on his sleeve and shoots from the hip; he's emphatically outside the US genre and community of journalism. But isn't this refreshing; isn't it an asset? I'd go further: Robert Fisk is considerably more hard-hitting and uncompromising than Krugman; he is also an actual journalist. His approach continues to break winds in the States. Posted by: John Garside at December 30, 2003 12:30 PM I concur that Robert Fisk continues to break wind in the US. Must be all that roughage. Posted by: Francis Burdett at December 30, 2003 4:34 PM | Permalink In other words, Francis, you'd approve of Krugman if he followed every column with an insistence that all his readers vote Republican. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 30, 2003 4:41 PM | Permalink Thanks, Matt. I thought I WAS criticizing Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. So, I'm happy to include them in my call for "disarmament." I would agree also that one can find a lot of footnotes in some of these critiques, and that is better than simple assertion. But, can one "prove" that rising income inequality is "bad"? I don't think so. I'd also disagree with the suggestion that Krugman's pieces are careful, fact-laden arguments. Indeed, that is what is so frustrating about them -here we have an economist from whom we might learn something about ECONOMICS, and instead we get Krugman the political columnist - an exercise for which, I repeat, he is no more qualified than I. (Yes, I recognize the frequent interdependence of these two subjects, but Krugman is very rarely making great use of his specialized knowledge in the pages of the NYT. The idea that Krugman is bravely speaking truth to power seems a bit of a stretch. Certainly, not even a casual reader of the NYT would entertain the idea that, broadly speaking, its pages support Bush economic policies. Moreover, there is no fine line between candid incivility (something a writer once described as "respectful contempt", and being an ass. Those (like me) who decry the absolutism of the "endless campaign" do not expect those with whom we disagree to roll over and play dead. That is a straw man, and Krugman is a coward for retreating behind it in the face of criticism. What I want is some acknowledgment that people who disagree with Krugman might do so from honest disagreement, rather than silent treachery. I assume that people who disagree with me are wrong, often misguided, and occasionally stupid. But I assume some people could disagree with me without being any of these things, let alone evil. I sense no such humility (if I may call it that!) in Krugman's NYT work. Posted by: Adam at December 30, 2003 4:44 PM | Permalink MattS, Did you really write: > the pretense that the right-wing press is guided by the same It's fine to point this about about Fox et al, but do you *really* think the Peter Jennings and Peter Arnettes of Posted by: Kirk Parker at December 30, 2003 4:47 PM | Permalink So, calling the Republican administration liars and deceivers places a journalisty outside the pale. Trouble is, what if it's true! From that standpoint, Krugman is the child calling the emperor naked. Or he could be. It's exactly that culture of politeness that has made the press so ineffective against the Republican administration... that plus some very clever manipulation by conservatives in general. When tax cuts are justified first because we have prosperity, then because we don't, isn't somebody, somewhere lying and deceiving about the true motive? When Bush keeps saying that the average American gets a $1000 tax cut, when that is economic nonsense, though artihmetically accurate, isn't somebody, somewhere being deceitful? (Why not use the median, like people who really want to tell the truth about this kind of thing with numbers.) When a war is sold on one pretext and then switched to another after the fact, can you call it anything less than deceit? Nope, insisting that journalists stay with that outer ring of so-called politesse will guarantee that, sooner or later, we will have a government that does not answer to the people. In fact, we may well have one now. --David. Posted by: David Lewis at December 30, 2003 4:53 PM | Permalink Adam, I don't mean to get into a partisan slugfest with you, and I wasn't defending Krugman's ardency, merely trying to understand it. Whether Krugman is 'right' or not is a separate discussion. In terms of the disarmament question, I applaud your call for less vitriol among all sides. Just a note, though. Those pundits I mentioned, and I include Michael Moore as well here, tend not to tell the truth on very basic things, not on value judgments like income inequality. While I might disagree with you on a basic value judgment like that, I would accept that disagreement as legitimately ideological. What I do NOT accept as legimate is the propogation of basic falsehoods, like 'Clinton is a murderer', 'Bush knew about 9/11', or 'Clinton didn't do anything about Al Qaeda' or piddle like that. Or notions that inequality hasn't increased over the last 25 years, when it clearly has. Again, maybe that's a good thing, maybe not, but it's clearly a trend. I find the rejection of basic factuality disappointing, and I believe that if you make a mistake and refuse to admit it in journalism, it's a serious problem. Al Franken and Paul Krugman, when they are proven wrong, do retract what they say. They should be commended for that. It's not a reductionist matter of footnotes. It's a matter of ensuring that those footnotes bear a resemblance to the material they are trying to get across. "It's fine to point this about about Fox et al, but do you *really* think the Peter Jennings and Peter Arnettes of The fact that you consider Jennings and Arnette to be left-wing speaks for itself. You think we're morons, don't you? "In terms of the disarmament question, I applaud your call for less vitriol among all sides." Frankly, there isn't ENOUGH vitriol! My loathing of Republicans and their enablers ( ie. Lieberman) knows no bounds and I will use EVERY opportunity put at my disposal as a professional journalist to express it. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 30, 2003 5:11 PM | Permalink This is sometimes a conversation among incommensurate worlds. These comments also show it. I think that's the main point I was making. When you are in one of those situations--and Krugman often is--it pays to show you're aware of the incommensurate worlds. My sense is this is best done through writing style, and not flat statement. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 30, 2003 5:26 PM | Permalink But when style fails a flat statement will do quite nicely. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 30, 2003 5:29 PM | Permalink "My loathing of Republicans and their enablers ( ie. Lieberman) knows no bounds and I will use EVERY opportunity put at my disposal as a professional journalist to express it." And that is precisely why David E. no one--except the choir--will pay you, and other Krugmans, the least bit mind. Posted by: Lee Kane at December 30, 2003 5:38 PM | Permalink You cant begin to have this conversation until you've read and addressed Bernard Goldbergs assertions in 'Bias'. Jay is dead on, there are two utterly different worldviews here that simply arent communicating. We have to start at some point of agreement, to deny that NPR and Bill Moyers types arent left wing, bordering on advocates is simply denying reality. To deny that Fox and the O'Reilly factor is the right wing equivalent is the same. The vast majority of network journalists and employees are personally left leaning, most of us can agree on that. Whether their coverage reflects that is open to debate. The problem is when every debate has to devolve back to dissagreements over these type of fundamentals, nothing gets accomplished. Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 30, 2003 5:41 PM | Permalink "And that is precisely why David E. no one--except the choir--will pay you, and other Krugmans, the least bit mind." Krugman wouldn't agree with me on that point at all. Nice to see you rising to the bait! "The vast majority of network journalists and employees are personally left leaning, most of us can agree on that." No we can't. Unless of course you define anyone who isn't a shill for Richard Mellon Scaife to be "left leaning." Then you're covering an enormous amount of ground. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 30, 2003 5:47 PM | Permalink "My loathing of Republicans and their enablers ( ie. Lieberman) knows no bounds and I will use EVERY opportunity put at my disposal as a professional journalist to express it. " What about Thomas Kean, the Republican on the 9/11 commission who bristled at the lack of access from the White House? Or John McCain? Or Chuck Hagel, who has said the movement conservatives have caused the GOP to 'come loose from their moorings'? Again, this isn't a partisan divide. If it were, you would like Lieberman and loathe McCain. Jay, "I think that's the main point I was making. When you are in one of those situations--and Krugman often is--it pays to show you're aware of the incommensurate worlds. My sense is this is best done through writing style, and not flat statement." But this isn't precisely what you argued. You said that Krugman's critiques are limpid in substance, as well as style. But the press did pay attention to candidate clothes in 2000, and doesn't generally do a good job of policy analysis. Bush pretty much went unchallenged on his 'the vast majority of the tax cuts go to the bottom half' statements, whereas Gore got a lot of grief for the 'inventing the internet' comment which he never made. Why should it be Krugman's burden to point this out nicely? Perhaps you could argue from the perspective of efficacy in persuasiveness, as you do when you write that writing style is the best way of conveying it rather than flat statement. But your essay goes beyond a stylistic critique, and by implication exonerates the press establishment for any problems. Or am I misreading you? You tend to say a lot, and I don't always catch it all. If I am, how would you propose Krugman write his critique so it's received better? If you can answer that question, as I think you can, I suspect you may be able to rhetorically lead the way out of this poisonous discursive environment. Well, of course we cant all agree. The hardcore radical left always views the moderate left as actually being moderately conservative (and vice versa with the right). Fortunately the extremists dont really bring much to the table to begin with, negotiation isnt an option. I'll define left leaning in this case as voting democratic. If 90% of the major media votes democrat, I think thats a pretty fair statement. Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 30, 2003 6:02 PM | Permalink
Posted by: am at December 30, 2003 6:12 PM | Permalink Have a hard time believing Krugman is taken seriously beyond the "tinfoil hat" leftists. Though, reading the comments, it's apparent there are more tinfoil hats out there than I would've suspected. Posted by: BradDad at December 30, 2003 6:34 PM | Permalink "What about Thomas Kean, the Republican on the 9/11 commission who bristled at the lack of access from the White House? Or John McCain? Or Chuck Hagel, who has said the movement conservatives have caused the GOP to 'come loose from their moorings'?" What about them? They're utterly ineffectual. Less than useless. "I'll define left leaning in this case as voting democratic." So Joe Lieberman is a leftist? LOL! "If 90% of the major media votes democrat, I think thats a pretty fair statement." No it isn't and you know it. Smarter monkeys, please! Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 30, 2003 6:54 PM | Permalink Matt: Krugman isn't wrong to say stories and columns about Al Gore's earth tones are trivial. They are. Most journalists would agree, even the ones who wrote them. More careful vetting of allegations like "Gore says he invented the Internet" is certainly a good idea. But most in the press would agree there too. "It's not about you." Smart journalists know that and obey the scruple. Self-inflated ones don't. Can they use a reminder? Definitely, but it is not important that Krugman give it. These points are not invalid. Neither are they urgent. Peddling commonplaces is not the standard he has set for himself. What's urgent, then? The incommensurate worlds, not only in politics, but increasingly in journalism. Krugman should have written about that. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 30, 2003 6:57 PM | Permalink That's a really good insight. We need urgency back in journalism, much as urgency has returned to politics. Most of the press would NOT agree, Jay. Bob Somerby at "The Daily Howler" has been tracking the "A Gore claims to have invented the Internet" lie in considerable detail. THEY'RE STILL PUSHING THIS LIE -- EVEN AS LATE AS LAST WEEK! >"Can they use a reminder? Definitely, but it is not important that Krugman give it." Yes it is. Who else in he "Mainstream" is going to? Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 30, 2003 7:16 PM | Permalink "My loathing of Republicans and their enablers ( ie. Lieberman) knows no bounds and I will use EVERY opportunity put at my disposal as a professional journalist to express it."
Ladies and Gentlemen, children of all ages, I present to you a living example of the all-to-ubiquitous (and iniquitous) Leftist Media. I give you David Ehrenstein. Bark for us, little moonbat! Bark! (Enough vitriol for you, cur?) Posted by: Iron Fist at December 30, 2003 7:27 PM | Permalink "Objectivity" is a steaming horse turd, "Iron Fist." Too much "integrity" to post under your actual name? Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 30, 2003 7:33 PM | Permalink Wow! Impressive comeback. My actual name would be meaningless (it is, in fact one of the most common names in the US. I make no claims to eithe fame or fortune), while my chosen nick has a certain name recognition. Unlike you, of course. I knew I'd heard the name. Quite the narcissist, aren't you? http://www.ehrensteinland.com/index2.shtml Posted by: Iron Fist at December 30, 2003 7:43 PM | Permalink "Quite the narcissist, aren't you?" No, that would be you. I stand behind my words. You stand behind a pseudonym. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 30, 2003 8:01 PM | Permalink Actually, my words stand for themselves. After all, who am I? Either my words strike with effect, or they do not. That you would make such a point of my mere name (and, of course, your's), as opposed to the substance of our various arguments, is, in fact, proof of my essential point. You said: "My loathing of Republicans and their enablers ( ie. Lieberman) knows no bounds and I will use EVERY opportunity put at my disposal as a professional journalist to express it." I said, essentially (in a very sarcastic and intentionally offensive manner), "So why should we trust you? Your biases are so obvious that it is clear that you are not objective, but a propagandist." You said: Fine, sir. You are a wonderful propagandist. If that is what constitutes a "professional journalist" in your mind, so be it. Just don't expect the rest of the country that doesn't live in your little Left-wing hothouses to take you seriously. We don't. We’ve burned enough of this gentleman’s bandwidth sniping at each other, and so, I will bid you a good evening. Posted by: Iron Fist at December 30, 2003 8:16 PM | Permalink ""If 90% of the major media votes democrat, I think thats a pretty fair statement." No it isn't and you know it. Smarter monkeys, please!"
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present you a troll. Congrats David, I hope the sky is a pretty color in your little universe. Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 30, 2003 8:36 PM | Permalink Hi, All. two comments: (1) these comments about who is far-right, moderate-right, moderate-left and far-left are hard to substantiate. Does even half of the commentariate agree where the "center" is? The point about journalists voting 90% Democratic by itself does not establish that they are all left or far-left; but it certainly does establish that they are all Democratic, and that's a clear bias in a nation where at least 40% of voters regularly vote Republican. Of all the people who can't figure out which party is left or right of center, the journalists would seem to be least qualified. (2) To anyone who reads even a small variety of economics, it is clear that Krugman is unreliable because he presents as clear economic facts assertioins that are in fact hotly debated among economists. Take the Bush tax cuts: there is a substantial economic argument that the private economy will grow faster if the government takes less of it as tax -- we may be witnessing that effect right now. Furthermore, there is a substanital argument that the present federal deficits are not due (mostly) to Bush's tax cuts. When Krugman has written on these topics, he has generally written as though everyone with sense and education agrees with him, but plenty of people with sense and education disagree. Even among the Nobel-winning economists there are disputes about (a) what actually happens in economies; (b) what the real effects of diverse policies are; (c) what outcomes are good and just for society as a whole. Posted by: MatthewRMarler at December 30, 2003 9:20 PM | Permalink Why are the candidates' clothes unimportant? In the case of Al Gore, it wasn't so much that he wore a particular style of clothes, but that he changed his cloting to appeal better to voters, after some consultants advised him to. He did this along with changing a lot of his political views (pro-tobacco/anti-tobacco; anti-abortion/pro-abortion, etc). In fact, he changed many of his opinions, between the times that he campaigned for senator and the times that he campaigned for president. More than most candidates, you had to wonder "Who is he this time". Similarly, the canard that he claimed to invent the internet. As a member of a particular senate committee he played a small role. What made the misquotation sting was that he exaggerated his role slightly in that sanctimonious and self-important style of his. If he had said something simpler like "I am grateful to have had the opportunity to review American science policy thoroughly and make some modest contributions" he would have been more credible. He could have said that his book grew out of his curiosity on some of the technical topics, etc., etc, and the goal of eliminating the internal combustion engine in 25 (?) years was achievable and cost-effective despite the protestations of vested special interests. He wouldn't have won in a landslide, but he'd have had 1% more of the vote [I conjecture] and he might have carried Tennessee, which has automobile factories, and Florida which has auto parts factories. He came across as a "know-it-all", so the misquotations of his slight exaggerations were especially effective. I agree with the writer above: Krugman's resolutions would be less risible if the examples were not so pro-Democratic in their bias. Posted by: MatthewRMarler at December 30, 2003 9:35 PM | Permalink Elsewhere in the Blogosphere much of these last few postings would be deleted as the ravings of a troll who is merely trying to derail the civil discourse in a demonstration of preteenage rhetorical power. The assumption is that one of these days they may turn their vast intellectual achievements to more practical purposes. Maybe turning into a webbie Rush Limbaugh isn't quite so high on the right wing wannabe agenda as it used to be, but I daresay the cheap shots and noisy straw men will still be useful. However, if you make the very broad assumption that what we've got here is a real confrontation of grownups on either side of an ideological divide, it closely parellels the style of political discourse I've been seeing in this country since before the last Presidential election.
Posted by: Heather Gladney at December 30, 2003 9:48 PM | Permalink >"I agree with the writer above: Krugman's resolutions would be less risible if the examples were not so pro-Democratic in their bias." In other words Krugman must submit to the non-negotiable demand of a One Party State. NOW who's the propagandist? Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 30, 2003 11:44 PM | Permalink "One assumes you hold the same contempt for Deep Throat, ja?" As a matter of fact I do. I am currently preparing a lengthy and detailed article about Unnamed Sourcing and how it has not only destroyed serious journalism in this country but served as a conduit for officially-approved lies and (dare I say it?) propaganda. Wen Ho Lee anyone? Valerie Plame? How about Katrina Leung? Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 30, 2003 11:50 PM | Permalink Katrina Leung is an interesting case in point... I should mention my Al Gore "invented the Internet" story resources page. Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at December 31, 2003 12:29 AM | Permalink More than merely "interesting," Matt. She was the REAL Chinese spy. A credulous press was fed Wen Ho Lee to put them off the scent -- because Leung was working as a fund-raiser for the RNC! Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 31, 2003 12:42 AM | Permalink The larger point is the shift of journalism (and political debate in general) from fact to tone. Ideally, assessment of tone should be grounded in fact. If someone is clanging an alarm bell and yelling loudly that there is a fire, we should ask whether there is (factually) a fire or not before we make a judgement on that person's sanity. Or even how "shrill" they are. Just repeating that yelling about a fire is a loud and uncool thing to do, or that it is partisan because the other party says there is no fire, is not any kind of argument. The whole issue is whether there is a fire, and if so how big it is. The shift of the debate away from this question to who is "angry" or "shrill" is (obviously) not a coincidence. It serves the interests of those who want us to ignore the fire. I am an economist who considers himself a centrist Democrat (hence, discount my views, right!). I think that Krugman may exaggerate the extent or spread of the fire on occasion, but it is abundantly clear that there is a fire. We are in a serious long-term fiscal hole, and (contrary to Marler above) it is completely clear that the Bush tax cuts and defense buildup played a major role in leading to that situation. Look at the CBO numbers...the CBO is run by a Republican appointee, and overseen by a Republican Congress. The CBO numbers are an underestimate too, because they have to assume under current law the Bush tax cuts will expire before their major fiscal impacts are felt -- something that will certainly not happen if the Administration stays in office. But if you trust the likes of Don Luskin, who repeats any spin point fed to him by the Republican press, then you can construct a fantasy world in which these facts don't exist. On foreign policy...I don't have much expertise there, but it seems clear enough that pissing off the entire world against us and using up our military strength in exchange the dubious benefit of getting to invade and occupy a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 will tend to strengthen our enemies. Another smouldering fire. I could go on, but I won't. There needs to be some kind of consensus reality that people on both sides can appeal to. That ground is disappearing, even on issues where the reality is unusually clear and measurable, where there is a fact of the matter be (such as on the relationship between the tax cuts and the deficit). The press has totally abdicated its role in creating that consensus factual reality and holding people responsible to it. Instead, it is policing whether people have legitimate *tones* and *attitudes* and *clothes*. This is a bad thing. Posted by: Marcus Stanley at December 31, 2003 12:56 AM | Permalink P.S. note that I said that Krugman may exaggerate the extent of the fire. I think there is plenty of room for disagreement about this. To take just one example, you can agree that we are in a fiscal hole, but that we can continue to borrow unprecedentedly large amounts indefinitely while not having a significant effect on interest rates (a tough sell, but not quite as outlandish as it sounds given how little we really know about macro). Or that it will not be harmful to quality of life to cut back massively on Federal spending in the future. And so forth. At least then you are being honest and taking on the legitimate intellectual challenges of your view. But IMO you cannot simply dismiss the kinds of points Krugman is making as "partisan". There is just too much truth to them, and at some level and at some point you should either engage with that truth or be exposed as engaging in just the sort of mindless partisanship you are pretending to criticize. Posted by: Marcus Stanley at December 31, 2003 1:02 AM | Permalink Jay writes: "What's urgent, then? The incommensurate worlds, not only in politics, but increasingly in journalism. Krugman should have written about that." As a non-American onlooker, I have trouble with this. 1) The breadth of political positioning in Congress and the mainstream US press is far less than in other developed countries, even Japan. 2) Where's the "urgent problem"? Again, if you accept that journalism is (and should be) inherently partisan, then lots and lots of partisans is goodly. The problem has been the narrow, corporatist, access-anxious, purportedly partisan press. Krugman is merely a heretofore isolated mainstream press example of a weblogger. He is as commensurate or incommensurate as Instapundit, Josh Marshall, Juan Cole etc. etc. The debate burns brightly in such diversity. Posted by: John Garside at December 31, 2003 1:40 AM | Permalink Marcus curiously opines: "On foreign policy...I don't have much expertise there, but *it seems clear enough that pissing off the entire world against us* and using up our military strength in exchange the dubious benefit of getting to invade and occupy a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 will tend to strengthen our enemies. Another smouldering fire. ================ The entire world is against us? OH like those 50 nations who sent troops? Or the 60 nations who sent money? Or would that be a whopping total of 3 nations who now have jumped on the bandwagon? The only thing that is clear here is that Marcus is a delusional partisan hack, much like Krugman. Then Marcus says... "I could go on, but I won't." But yet he does for another paragraph and a whole second post. Posted by: Paul at December 31, 2003 2:14 AM | Permalink I note that USA Today has a piece relating to my previous post, although it does really respond to the question in the title: _Freewheeling 'bloggers' are rewriting rules of journalism Objectivity?_ "the start of a fundamental reordering of democratic energy and political influences" ... ''We all wear our ideology on our sleeve.'' http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20031230/5797129s.htm Jay is in it. Posted by: John Garside at December 31, 2003 2:22 AM | Permalink David, I know about that. The weird thing is that none of the facts are in dispute and yet ... there are no consequences. Few people have even heard of the story. This is terrifically criminal and an obvious sell-out of national security for partisan gain. Even the blogs didn't run with it, actually. Just weird. Marcus, Indeed. Krugman has a long history bashing pseudo-economists (similar to Luskin but he usually goes after smarter and less crazy targets) for acting as well-educated snake oil salesmen. Peddling Prosperity and all that. The lack of serious or even any rigor in economic discourse in the press has been evident for a long time now and Krugman was on the case way back when, experiences which have armed Krugman especially well for when that intellectual collapse happened in all these other spheres. As a professional journalist and a serious writer by turns, I have to point out from beneath both hats that reporting politics is, unadorned, stultifyingly boring, and good journalists dare not be boring (unless they care nothing for attracting readers). Sadly, a lot of US "mainstream" papers seem to think dry and boring equal serious a lot of the time. The business editor of a wellknown London paper remarked to me once that "great newspapers always have a streak of vulgarity in their make-up". This is a lesson weighty American columnists ought to take to heart. Krugman's advantage may be that he is not a professional journalist. It is also a serious handicap for him in seeking to tell journalists how to cover anything. As far as objectivity is concerned, it no longer exists in the "mainstream" press. Opinion and fact, once so scrupulously segregated, are entwined in a mortal embrace. The public is turning its back on this spectacle, as most of us are painfully aware. Posted by: Dave F at December 31, 2003 6:10 AM | Permalink Someone wrote: Either you are being deliberately provocative or you are in fact blind to the possibility that other people may have a different viewpoint on things to you. No one says Krugman should be forced to do anything, what some of us are saying is that if he wished his "resolutions" to be taken seriously he would have been a bit more balanced about the examples he chose. There is no coercion involved, but as it is I see no reason to believe that Krugman is anything other than a pundit with his own political agenda. Posted by: Francis at December 31, 2003 6:35 AM | Permalink "1) The breadth of political positioning in Congress and the mainstream US press is far less than in other developed countries, even Japan." This is patently ridiculous, of course. Look at Europe and tell me where the divergence of opinion lies? The only debate going on there is whether soft neo-socialism of the nanny state should be trumped by either full blown communism or a giant EU socialism. Trotskiites vs Bolshevicks, wow what a bredth of opinion. Meanwhile, in America, you had a radical green party candidate spoil the election of a supposed moderate liberal and hand the election to a supposed moderate conservative who in turn was nearly derailed by a full blown isolationist from the independant party. At least here we actually bother to debate anymore. Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 31, 2003 9:10 AM | Permalink "We are in a serious long-term fiscal hole, and (contrary to Marler above) it is completely clear that the Bush tax cuts and defense buildup played a major role in leading to that situation" Marcus, you have just perfectly illustrated the problem. Ok, economists claim to be scientists of a sort. Fine. But no scientist takes his pet theory (which may even have widespread support) and pretends that it is the universally acknowledged truth, while utterly ignoring the fact that there is a raging debate in the field and nothing even close to consensus. Krugman is the king of this kind of disdainful rhetoric. Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 31, 2003 9:19 AM | Permalink >"The weird thing is that none of the facts are in dispute and yet ... there are no consequences. Few people have even heard of the story. This is terrifically criminal and an obvious sell-out of national security for partisan gain. Even the blogs didn't run with it, actually. Just weird." Man does not live by Blogs alone. This is one of the biggest stories around. But it can't be covered by a handful of Bloggers with next to no resources to do so, and it won't be covered by a "mainstream" press that far more than "partisan" is unspeakably lazy. The "disconnect" between the press and the public it supposedly serves that everyone speaks of is merely symptomatic of the fact that the "mainstream" is an elite -- a gaggle of upper-middle-class snobs without so much as the vaguest interest in doing the real work that it takes to get a story told. The reliance on unnamed sourcing is simply a way for these lazy bastards to let someone else do their work for them. Equally lazy editors -- anxious that someone else might "get there first" -- snap to the bait. As a result there's precious little interest in the "there" to which everyone is supposedly "getting." In the few televised reports about Leung back in the Spring, what were the images used to illustrate it? Al Gore at the Buddhist Temple "fund-raiser"! (Which, needless to say wasn't a "fund-raiser" at all!)REAl reporting requires the expenditure of shoe leather. But that's beyond the pale for a pampered press that thinks that access to Beltway cocktail parties and "off the record" meet-and-greets with select parties in the administration constitutes real work. So how is the rising tide of public complaint about journalistic failure met? With the dog-and-pony shows of Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass. Hue and cry over a pair of silly Phoebes (see the lastreel of "All About Eve" if the reference eludes you) and jack shit about Challabi shill Judith Miller or Jeff Gerth -- the RNC's favortie pencil. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 31, 2003 9:54 AM | Permalink Mark Buehner writes: "Look at Europe and tell me where the divergence of opinion lies? The only debate going on there is whether soft neo-socialism of the nanny state should be trumped by either full blown communism or a giant EU socialism. Trotskiites vs Bolshevicks ..." This opinion underscores my point about the problem being the narrowness of political debate in US media, rather than of "incommensurate worlds". It is patently ill-informed, not just in regard to a few European countries, but to every one of them. It lumps all European policies in the perjoratively 'lefty' camp whereas the converse is closer to the truth: it's American attitudes that are narrowly conservative. (Check out Le Pen in France, Pia Kjærsgaard here in Denmark etc.) In addition, the majority of Europeans electorates are moving to the right. One can only hope that blogs, the BBC, the new American Guardian and so on will broaden awareness, and later political perspectives. Posted by: John Garside at December 31, 2003 10:41 AM | Permalink John, I think its pretty fair to say that everyone considers themselves a moderate, and view the political spectrum in both directions from that starting point. Im sure Chomsky views Mandela as a moderate liberal and Chirac as a staunch conservative. I have no illusions that the same tunnel vision affects me as well. But from a stance of political theory, modern Europe is clearly well down the socialist path at least in comparison to the US. Is there a major political party in Europe today promoting cutting taxes and shrinking government? Republicans in America at least claim to champion that, and democrats at least claim to honor the intent. Is there a major European party promoting gun rights? Repealing speach codes? A larger military? Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 31, 2003 11:56 AM | Permalink Mark Buehner writes: "[m]odern Europe is clearly well down the socialist path at least in comparison to the US. Is there a major political party in Europe today promoting cutting taxes and shrinking government?" I think we're veering off-topic here, and I need to go and welcome in the new year. Still, your rubric that all European political parties are socialist is utterly wrong-headed. European countries not only have parties which advocate tax cuts, but cutting taxes has been the trend in western Europe for many years. Even France -- arguably the most stalwart socialist these days has had a tax cutting program. And France has a fine selection of partisan newspapers - perhaps three to the left, three to the right; as the Press Think interview recently portrayed. Bottom line: the diversity is vibrant; the recent conference on EU integration illustrated this clearly. Posted by: John Garside at December 31, 2003 12:24 PM | Permalink >>Your article about Paul Krugman's suggestions for New Year's resolutions for journalists is a prime example of the kind of sneering insiderism that fuels the public's contempt for mainstream journalism. Your summary of Krugman's article as telling journalists, "Don't cover the dumb things you define as news, cover the smart things that I see as news," is grossly unfair. One has to read through three-fourths of the article to get to your boulderized version of what Krugman actually wrote. What he actually said was, John - i'm glad i wasn't the only one who noticed what krugman was saying. Posted by: brad306 at December 31, 2003 12:39 PM | Permalink "2) How does some guy like that, who's opinions are no better thought out than anyone else's, and certainly worse than some, get access to the NY Times editorial pages? I want to get paid for venting my spleen like that." And this pretty much sums up both Jay Rosen and the blogosphere -- pissed off that they're not getting paid like others. Take away pure envy from the blogosphere and you'd have nothing. Posted by: Bombo Rivera at December 31, 2003 12:39 PM | Permalink "Robert Fisk?! Isnt he still waiting for the US forces to storm Baghdad? Look, there is a thin line between journalist and advocate, and Fisk for sure and Krugman quite often live across that line." Of course he does. HE'S AN OPINION WRITER. He's supposed to be an advocate. Jay, you really should know better than to write something as insanely silly as this piece. it is also insanely silly (and intellectually dishonest) for you to lump Krugman in with the national press: to argue that the state-goverment reporter for the Billings Gazette is equivalent with Paul Krugman on any level is simply absurd. "Krugman, I think, was not frightened by the ambiguities in being a columnist, spectator at the scene, and a lightening rod for political opinion...." What ambiguities exist here? Should a columnist NOT observe a scene? What an absurdly silly statement. Posted by: Bombo Rivera at December 31, 2003 12:52 PM | Permalink Brad and John: I gave "boulderized" summary of what Krugman said? Well, that's an odd charge. Here is what I wrote in summary: 1.) don't talk about the candidate's clothing, it's trivial; 2.) do scrutinize Bush's proposal for tax-exempt savings accounts; it will be terrible; 3.) don't fall for cheesy anecdotes about what a nice back-slapping guy Bush is, he isn't; 4,) look at the candidate's records and determine (as I, Krugman, did) that Bush is the radical and Dean the cautious moderate; 5.) don't fall for insider baseball and its histrionics about the candidates' flaws, they're trivial too; 6.) don't puff yourself up, this is not about you. The summary of Krugman's points comes 3/4's of the way down? So what? That is why the *link* to the original is the very first thing in the post. Links: web writing is different because of them, and so too must be web reading. That link says, "don't take my word for it, go read Krugman himself" and then consider what I have to say. I then repeat the link at the end for those who want to do the reverse. No one has to depend on my summary of Krugman's points. But if I gave a wholly prejudicial one, my treachery would be made instantly apparent by the link, so why would I do that? Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 31, 2003 12:58 PM | Permalink Let's see if I can sum this up: A) The media, roughly, likes to natter to itself about trivialities. It's safe and easy. B) Paul Krugman, who has a non-media job, points this out. C) Further, he's blunt about what he thinks, since again he's got a non-media job, so isn't 100.0% constrained by the politeness conventions D) All of this isn't likely to have much effect on the media though, since it's both unpleasant and doesn't really solve problem (A)
Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at December 31, 2003 1:27 PM | Permalink David, You wrote:"In other words Krugman must submit to the non-negotiable demand of a One Party State." Not at all: he's free to publish and we're free to laugh at him. He used to be thought-provoking, but now he's among the 35% or so of the left who have no concern at all to stimulate the thoughts of the middle. Am I representative of the famous "middle"? I don't know. I have voted for 6 Democratic presidential candidates and 3 Republicans. I don't know that my choices were wise, but they weren't reliably partisan. Krugman is reliably partisan. He's free to write what he wants, and he's risible. Posted by: MatthewRMarler at December 31, 2003 3:35 PM | Permalink Mark: I would not claim economics as a hard science, nothing close to it really. THe points Krugman is making about fiscal policy are much closer to an accountant trying to point out what the balance sheet is showing. That is somewhat different than science. Yes, these deficits are worse than the Reagan deficits. The current deficit is not out of line with the Reagan deficits as a % of GDP, but the projected ones under continuations of current policies are way, way worse. You may recall that it took some time to dig out of the Reagan deficits. We do not have time now, because the baby boom retirement is about to hit. This is demographic reality. I would also note that the fiscal turnaround here is much greater than under Reagan. Reagan came into office with a deficit and increased it; Bush came in with surpluses and replaced them with some of the largest deficits recorded since WWII. It is easy to adjust for the factors you point to about the economy. By measuring deficits, receipts, revenues as a percent of GDP, we are cancelling out shrinking in the measured economy. It is easy to show that a large share of the deficit growth as a % of GDP comes from a huge drop in government revenue as a share of GDP. Most of that is tax cuts. There is also a continuing high level of government spending. You are right (and I stated) that there is much controversy about the exact relationship between deficits and interest rates. But few mainstream economists disagree that there is some relationship so long as inflation is held constant (one can also inflate oneself out of debt). Some conservative apologists have run the idea that government debt bears no relationship to interest rates up the flagpole. I would suggest that you think about that one. If there is no relation, why not eliminate taxes altogether and fund government entirely through borrowing? Frankly, most of these points are pretty easy to figure out if you do some research on your own. The tone of your message was non-partisan Your general handwaving about "oh, it's the economy" instead of engaging with the publicly available facts makes me wonder how partisan you yourself are. America is a rich country and there are plenty of ways out of deficit. One can also sustain some level of deficit indefinitely, although not at the current and projected levels. The problem is that all of the ways out of the current fiscal imbalance involve political choices such as raising taxes or cutting spending that the Republicans apparently don't want to be responsible for. An honest libertarian anti-tax position would clearly lay out for the public a set of large spending cuts that will occur now or in the future. This would be good government, even though I would probably disagree with it as a voter. The problem is I think a political (as opposed to an accounting) one. If these deficits had been accumulated for a purpose most of the population thought was a worthwhile one, then there would not be a problem. But much of our new debt burden has been accumulated in the course of transferring huge amounts of money to the rich. Some is also being created for cleaning up Iraq. If we end up in a situation where people can't pay for their retirement because of this, people will be pissed off. So the actual transfer that is taking place must be denied or concealed. The role of the media ought to be to hold politicians responsible for speaking to the facts -- what we are spending, what we have committed ourselves to spend in the future, how we are paying for it and plan to pay for it, etc. Let the politicians debate the distributional consequences of various policies. Personally, on a partisan level I am motivated by distributional concerns, and I accept that my views on those legitimately differ from the views of others. I would just like the facts of the matter clear as a background to debate. But I think the issue is that the Republicans don't think they can win that distributional debate if it is conducted honestly. Krugman has been making these kinds of points since well before the start of the war on terror, so your argument about his motivations does not fly. Furthermore, Krugman went after both Republicans and Democrats in the 1990s. He spent more time in the 90s criticizing Democrats, actually. The Republicans are in power in this country now, and they are pursuing policies that he thinks are bad for the country (I agree). He is under no obligation to hunt around for things to criticize the Democrats about when the Republicans are the ones running things. Posted by: Marcus Stanley at December 31, 2003 5:05 PM | Permalink "He would have been better off writing about the gap itself." I don't know; I'm not a journalism academic or professional. But to me, the notion that Krugman should be expressing himself in terms that more explicitly relate to a theory of political journalism is perhaps somewhat unrealistic for someone who is writing for a mass, albeit sophisticated, audience. I think the author's description of the gap makes a lot of sense, and it would be nice for Krugman to address it from time to time. But I don't think you could write that column too often. Posted by: Ken at January 11, 2004 12:08 PM | Permalink Smart journalists know that and obey the scruple. Self-inflated ones don't. Can they use a reminder? Definitely, but it is not important that Krugman give it. These points are not invalid. Neither are they urgent. Peddling commonplaces is not the standard he has set for himself. Posted by: Ken Macleod at February 25, 2004 6:53 AM | Permalink |
|
Print
