Posted on 05/31/2005 5:33:41 AM PDT by frithguild
It's official -- according to the New York Times itself, what we've been carefully documenting in my National Review Online column and on this blog for more than two years is true:
"Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.
"...some of Krugman's enemies are every bit as ideological (and consequently unfair) as he is. But that doesn't mean that their boss, publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., shouldn't hold his columnists to higher standards."
Thus wrote New York Times "pubic editor" Daniel Okrent in his column last week, his final one before resigning his post. There it is, right in the newspaper of record.
To be sure, Okrent could have gone much, much further in blowing the whistle on America's most dangerous liberal pundit. He could have cited the dozens upon dozens of Paul Krugman's partisan distortions, uncorrected errors, deliberate misquotations and flat-out lies that we've caught over the years. For that matter he could have said what N. Gregory Mankiw, the universally respected former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, told Fortune in a recent interview -- that Krugman "just make[s] stuff up."
Okrent knows all these things. I know he knows them, because I've met with him and corresponded with him about them since he became the Times' "public editor" 18 months ago. Our email correspondence on Krugman totals almost 40,000 words (some of which was "off the record," so I'm using my honest judgment here in determining certain portions that are fair to reveal now that Okrent's tenure as "public editor" is over). Yes, I'm the one he's talking about when he says "Krugman's enemies."
So why didn't Okrent's critique go further? And why, as the self-described "readers' representative," did he feel it was necessary at the same time to take that gratuitous swipe at me -- one of his readers?
I suspect that primarily it's fear of reprisal. Indeed, the reprisals have started already. Last Friday Krugman told a lecture audience in Princeton, essentially, that Okrent had lost his marbles: his "very peculiar blast" was the result of "constant pressure" from conservatives that had "built up a list of grievances in his mind."
Let's talk about "pressure." It so happens that, by sheer coincidence, I was in Princeton on business Friday. But I decided it was best not to attend Krugman's lecture, because the one time I did attend one of his many public appearances he went on national television and smeared me by accusing me of stalking him. Okrent knows how the pressure game works. So he kept his "blast" against Krugman modest and took out an insurance policy against charges of bias by blasting me a little bit, too.
Okrent wasn't always afraid of pressure. When I first met him in early 2004 he was full of the burning zeal of the reformer, and eager for intellectual allies. His first words to me were, "You're much better looking than Paul Krugman." He told me that the Times didn't deserve to be called the "newspaper of record" and vowed, "When I'm done with this assignment, I want everyone to know that." We had a long discussion on accuracy and fairness on the op-ed page, which led a month later to the Times' new policy on columnist corrections.
It was all very hopeful, and very flattering. But I knew it wouldn't last when Okrent ended our meeting by announcing, with what seemed a certain pride, that a limo was picking him up to take him to a dinner party with Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr., and executive editor Bill Keller. I wondered how long Okrent could maintain his independence as a reformer if he was getting sucked into the glittery social world of Times management. The pressure had begun.
The pressure continued as Times staff fought Okrent in his role as "readers' representative." For example, financial reporter David Cay Johnston went so far as to organize other reporters into what Okrent called a "lynch mob" -- and accused Okrent of conflict of interest because of a board position, according to a story in the Wall Street Journal.
And as to that columnist corrections policy, the columnists and their boss, editorial page editor Gail Collins, stonewalled it from the beginning. When corrections were made at all in Krugman columns, they were snuck into the text of subsequent columns, hidden in the form of what Okrent calls a "rowback." Or they were appended to subsequent columns without the designation "correction," with the original erroneous columns remaining uncorrected in the Times' web archive.
That's when corrections were made at all. For the most part, corrections were not made. Why? Because when Okrent went to Gail Collins for corrections, she quickly learned that she could get away with stonewalling him. I couldn't get Collins to even acknowledge my emails, so at one point Okrent suggested I send corrections to Collins under a false name (she didn't respond to those, either). Finally, Okrent went directly to Krugman himself for corrections, even though Collins had set herself up as the responsible party under the policy. Okrent gave up on Collins and Krugman, and I gave up sending corrections to Okrent and Collins. Was it self-delusion or sheer gall that led Okrent to write in a December column, "judging by the shrinking volume of complaints I receive from readers, columnists' errors have become much less frequent."
But here's one complaint Okrent can't ignore. In an angry letter to the Times on Sunday, Krugman blasted Okrent for being "inappropriate" by not citing specific examples of his statistical sleight of hand, and claimed,
"...in each of those columns I played entirely fair with my readers, using the standard data in the standard way."
Now, according to a footnote to Krugman's letter, he and Okrent will be "addressing this matter further" on the Times' website this week. When it comes to coming up with seemingly credible rationales to cover over lies, Krugman's the best there is -- so Okrent is going to need some help in this debate. I offered mine, but he replied,
"I've already written my response, and now I'm washing my hands of him."
Krugman's angry letter will stand as only the last of many putting pressure on Okrent from the Times' Angry Left readers, complaining that the liberal Times isn't liberal enough and that any of Okrent's attempts to create partisan balance are "unfair." You'd think the Left would have nothing to complain about. But Okrent once told me that "the readership (at least the readership that gets engaged enough to write) is simply, and rather heavily, left of center."
The pressure from readers reached its peak just before last year's bitter presidential election, when the Times had become increasingly partisan in both its editorials and its news stories. In a long-awaited October column on whether the Times' campaign coverage was biased, Okrent cited views from readers on the Left and the Right and then concluded,
"Is The Times systematically biased toward either candidate? No."
What, you are no doubt wondering, could Okrent possibly have been thinking about? Whatever it was, it wasn't the Times' coverage of the campaign, which was self-evidently biased toward John Kerry to the point of self-parody. No doubt he was thinking about the hundreds of emails from the Angry Left that flooded his mailbox each day -- for he concluded his column with this:
"I do want you to know just how debased the level of discourse has become. When a reporter receives an e-mail message that says, 'I hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war,' a limit has been passed.
"That's what a coward named Steve Schwenk, from San Francisco, wrote to national political correspondent Adam Nagourney several days ago because Nagourney wrote something Schwenk considered (if such a person is capable of consideration) pro-Bush... As nasty as critics on the right can get (plenty nasty), the left seems to be winning the vileness derby this year...."
With this, Okrent had not only succumbed to the pressure from the Left, he had cracked under it. Here we had the "readers' representative," using the mighty power of the New York Times to lash out at one of its readers, naming that reader by name, calling him a "coward," and quoting him not only without his permission, but in defiance of his pleading not to be quoted.
In another column two weeks later, Okrent apologized -- but only for using the word "coward." Instead of admitting that Schwenk had begged him not to print his name, Okrent wrote, "Every message sent to my office gets an instant response asking if the writer wishes his or her name to be withheld," -- as though Schwenk had failed to make his wishes clear. But that was a lie -- such instant responses did not start being sent until after Okrent had cited Schwenk's name. And besides, Schwenk had nevertheless objected.
Okrent went on in the same column to liken Schwenk to a "man who vandalizes a church," and, in BusinessWeek, to "someone who goes out at night and paints a swastika on the door of a synagogue." So just whom was this "readers' representative" representing? Not the readers -- but instead the sacred institution of the New York Times, a "church," a "synagogue," a holy place, what Okrent called in a column last December a "daily miracle." It's amazing the kind of loyalty you can buy with a couple of rides in a limousine.
So Okrent ends his 18-month term as the Times' "public editor" a broken man, having turned against the readers he was supposed to represent, having failed to institute a single significant reform --and, worst of all, having acted as a fig-leaf behind which the paper has continued to do its partisan worst.
At least, just before Okrent cleaned out his desk and made his ignominious retreat from the Times building on West 43rd Street (no limo this time), he managed to pull off a small but important act of truth and courage -- to call Paul Krugman the cheater that he is. The Krugman Truth Squad is grateful for any victory at all when it comes to the flagship of the liberal media establishment and America's most dangerous liberal pundit.
Now we eagerly await Okrent's replacement, Barney Calame, formerly of the Wall Street Journal. I have no doubt Okrent has already warned Barney about what a headache the Krugman Truth Squad can be. But we won't deal with him in that adversarial spirit. After all, we (the Times' readers) and he (our new representative) are after the same thing -- the truth. Aren't we?
After all, we... and he...are after the same thing -- the truth. Aren't we?
NOPE.
Bye Bye! NYT.
"In this respect whether the NY Times prints truth or garbage is as irrelevant as the paper itself."
What shocks me is that someone has to make money. Why have a business if you are not in it for profit. I could turn the NY Times into an instant money maker by printing only one article.
"WHAT IS IN JOHN KERRY'S 180?"
This alone would increase circulation by 50%. Once the reporters start doing their jobs, this would blossom into one of the greatest political swindles of the times. Movies, TV documetaries, magazine articles. Every periodical in this country and every news channel will have people lining up to see the folly.
Think about Newsweek, "THE SWIFTIES WERE RIGHT" cover. Or the WAPO's exclusive with Sandy Berger, "I took those documents to protect Clinton."
But I digress, the old media is dead. Stick a fork in em. they are done.
bump
Happy second anniversary bump.
Wow! What happened to my text? It should have said; Happy second anniversary bump.
To answer your question, the Times does make money. Remember that any paper doesn't make money from the readership, but from its advertisers.
As far as its readership goes the Times could print blank pages and they'd still have a loyal, liberal, base. But, those who advertise in the Timers look at the readership numbers carefully. Why pay big advertising bucks to a paper that has few readers?
This is where the profit comes in. It's been reported, over the recent years, that the Times has been "cooking the books" on readership numbers to satisfy their advertisers.
Certain businesses will advertise in the Times because they want a certain type of consumer to buy their product. That's why you won't see a mom-and-pop feed store advertised in that paper. But, no advertiser wants to pay more than he thinks he should. So it's in the advertising area where papers make or lose money, and that's not about to change considering the Times is the paper of choice for most brain-dead New York liberals.
What should be changing is the political respect a liberal New York newspaper gets from Washington politicians. If advertisers look at readership numbers why aren't politicians looking at those same numbers? Why kowtow to a newspaper that represents only a small liberal portion of the country, and is losing readership?
When politicians can answer that question we may see a turn around in which papers get the big interviews, and which papers are left outside.
Good analysis. I seeit as if circulation numbers go up, so would advertising rates. Seems like the Times is trying to tax itself into prosperity by charging high advertising rates.
Think CNN is doing the same thing as their viewership falls below the Mendoza line.
*Bump!*
It remains totally amazing to me that Krugman still has a job.
Must be that Princeton has a very lenient tenure policy.
Krugman, and his printed bile, is the one reason why I would never, ever send my kids to get an education at Princeton!
hehe... "Yeah, let's go ahead and charge GM more for their Sunday placements."
Just read that Alex Okrent is the Obama campaign worker in the Chicago office who collapsed and died. I suspect he was gay and had Aids. Nothing supporting health problems in the news, but a search for his name returned an article about Lesbian/Gay groups supporting Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.