Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Summer Of Our Disconent (Krugman Forced To Issue Corrections! HA!)
New York Times ^ | 8/26/05 | Paul Krugman

Posted on 08/25/2005 9:03:25 PM PDT by crushkerry

For the last few months there has been a running debate about the U.S. economy, more or less like this:

American families: "We're not doing very well."

The administration and some political commentators seem genuinely puzzled by polls showing that Americans are unhappy about the economy. After all, they point out, numbers like the growth rate of G.D.P. look pretty good. So why aren't people cheering?

(snip)

Corrections: In my column last Friday, I cited an inaccurate number (given by the Conyers report) for turnout in Ohio's Miami County last year: 98.5 percent. I should have checked the official state site, which reports a reasonable 72.2 percent. Also, the public editor says, rightly, that I should acknowledge initially misstating the results of the 2000 Florida election study by a media consortium led by The Miami Herald. Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: correction; floridarecount; krugman; nyt
These comments from www.anklebitingpundits.com are particularly appropriate:

You have to follow the "inside baseball" of The New York Times Op-ed page to understand what a big deal it is that Paul Krugman's latest column contains not one but two "corrections", which I believe is a first in any columnist's piece. And it wouldn't have been possible without the bloggers who immediately called Krugman on his bogus rehashing of the 2000 election.

Keep in mind this isn't a case where Krugman deserves credit for catching his own mistakes. Rather, his last column was an angry retort to getting caught red-handed as we noted here. And we'd have loved to have seen Krugman typing "Correction" in the column. This is after all, a man whom former "Public Editor" (Ombudsman) Daniel Okrent said “I can’t come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism.”

And keep in mind that this "correction" policy only came about due to bloggers nailing lies and distortions by Times columnists. And just how great is it that we find out he's relying on moonbats like John Conyers and his "Report" for his facts rather than official state records. Pardon our Schadenfreude.

1 posted on 08/25/2005 9:03:25 PM PDT by crushkerry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: crushkerry

This puke trusts information "given by the Conyers report." LOL


2 posted on 08/25/2005 9:05:42 PM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ncountylee
This puke trusts information "given by the Conyers report." LOL

If you can't trust Weasel Krugman, or Crooked Madman Conyers, well golly... who can you truat!

3 posted on 08/25/2005 9:08:19 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry

One thing that bothers me though...I hardly ever look at the local paper anymore, the STL Post Dispatch, but I happend to the other day and that BS editorial of his on the 2000 election was in it. That means his lies are being syndicated in other papers and the corrections will probably not see the light of day all across the country.


4 posted on 08/25/2005 9:10:44 PM PDT by Tom_Busch (I'm a victim of Rovian mind control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry
Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three.

Uhhhhhhh...I could be wrong here, but there were no statewide manual recounts were there?

5 posted on 08/25/2005 9:13:26 PM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry
For the last few months there has been a running debate about the U.S. economy, more or less like this: American families: "We're not doing very well." The administration and some political commentators seem genuinely puzzled by polls showing that Americans are unhappy about the economy. After all, they point out, numbers like the growth rate of G.D.P. look pretty good. So why aren't people cheering?

Because they are slaves to the perceptions you wish them to have. It doesn't benefit Democrats for there to be a healthy economy right now. By instilling the negative perception, the neo-communists can hold back the gains. Perception goes a long way toward determining reality but other factors will still move the economy forward in spite of backwards pressure being applied by the perceptionists.

6 posted on 08/25/2005 9:24:48 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry

Nice.


7 posted on 08/25/2005 9:25:18 PM PDT by Kluster (FIRE DREIER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Tom_Busch

I saw that column in the Palo Alto Daily and thought the exact same thing as you did, that his corrections will probably not be published, and his faulty facts will stick with people. I'll try to remember if the PAD publishes the corrections, but then again, I'll probably win the California Lottery on Saturday, as well.


9 posted on 08/25/2005 9:28:02 PM PDT by Theresawithanh (As long as Dean's the head of the D-N-C, it just looks better for the G-O-P!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry

"This is after all, a man whom former "Public Editor" (Ombudsman) Daniel Okrent said “I can’t come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism.”

Like all liberals...once you confront them with FACTS, which is to them what garlic is to vampires, you threaten their shaky, self-delusional worldview. That makes them very cranky.

And if your criticism has anything in it that might, in some obscure, arcane or miniscule way be even remotely positive towards a conservative (or, God forbid, George W. Bush), you are WRONG. How dare you try to interfere with their agenda?

The phrase 'barking moonbat' is priceless. I wonder what the bark sounds like? Probably something like "karlrove! karlrooooove!"


10 posted on 08/25/2005 9:31:32 PM PDT by LostInBayport (Massachusetts liberals refuse to admit we exist...we are the 37% who voted for GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
Uhhhhhhh...I could be wrong here, but there were no statewide manual recounts were there?

Yes, there were -- even though Gore didn't request them.

But when the manual recount that matched the Gore request was completed by the media, and Gore's deficit actually grew, they decided to recount the entire state.

The statewide recount was conducted under several different rules (again, looking desperately for a Gore win) and Bush again won two of the three -- using the rules that more closely represented the accepted standard. Gore "won" the third, employing rules that have never been employed in any manual recount anywhere...by a statewide total of three (!!!) votes.

Had it been for real, such a result would trigger yet another recount. But, in this case, the media counters closed up shop and left the state...

11 posted on 08/25/2005 9:33:31 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Theresawithanh

Send in a letter with the corrections to save them the trouble.


12 posted on 08/25/2005 9:34:47 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Send in a letter with the corrections to save them the trouble.

I suppose I could, and should do that, and maybe some other conservative (yes, there are conservatives in Palo Alto) will, but I think it'll be pretty futile. I'd rather see if the PAD has the desire to print the corrections on their own.

13 posted on 08/25/2005 9:40:17 PM PDT by Theresawithanh (As long as Dean's the head of the D-N-C, it just looks better for the G-O-P!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tom_Busch

Yep it was in the Memphis Commercial Appeal also.


14 posted on 08/25/2005 9:51:42 PM PDT by packrat35 (reality is for people who can't face science fiction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry
Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three.

Is this guy a moron ? The ballots they looked at were not legal.
They looked at the over & under votes...... they specifically stated that they had no intention of determining the winner....only to look at the over/under votes.
15 posted on 08/25/2005 9:59:55 PM PDT by stylin19a (In golf, some are long, I'm "Lama Long")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LostInBayport

in short, krugman is a sub-human piece of bilge bile... thank you... oh noes!!! was this part of the right wing schmear machine krugman...?


16 posted on 08/25/2005 10:11:22 PM PDT by Methadras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry

I suppose you already know you got mentioned on Rush's show today.


17 posted on 08/25/2005 10:23:29 PM PDT by martin_fierro (Casey Sheehan died so mommy could freely act the jackass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry

I would find it amazing, if I could really bring myself to believe that Krugman was naively relying on a source he thought credible. But as the NY Times is effectively a part of the Democrat party, I think collusion is a more likely explanation.


18 posted on 08/26/2005 12:05:21 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Hey Senator! Leave those kids alone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

Yeah, I heard that in the car. I almost swerved off the road. It was very cool.


19 posted on 08/26/2005 5:01:41 AM PDT by crushkerry (Visit www.anklebitingpundits.com for great original conservative commentary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry

".. showed him winning two out of three."
Yes it is true that albore did win one recount. He won the "Kreskin" recount. In that one, the ratmedia decided that they could assign a presidential vote to ballots that were completely filled in except for the top line.
These dim wits could not accept that out of 6 million votes cast statewide a few thounsand people would skip the top line because they didn't like anybody on it. My father NEVER missed a vote in his 92 years, but did not vote for anybody in 1972. "McGoven is a communist and I'd never vote for a Republican!"


20 posted on 08/26/2005 5:10:11 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 (The ratmedia: always eager to remind us of why we hate them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
He also ignores the findings of John Lott, using the data collected during the media recount, that showed that in urban voting districts controlled by democrat voting officials, that the odds that a Republican voter's ballot would be "overvoted" (showing 2 punches registering a vote BOTH for Bush AND for Gore) was FIFTY TIMES HIGHER than a democrat voter's ballot -- even though the average registered republican has a higher income, better education, etc.

Go figure??!!

21 posted on 08/26/2005 6:15:52 AM PDT by WL-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WL-law

That's why the lefties are so angry and frantic about 2000 (and 2004) -- if they can't win when they cheat like crazy, they feel they're DOOMED!


22 posted on 08/26/2005 7:02:22 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: WL-law

That's why the lefties are so angry and frantic about 2000 (and 2004) -- if they can't win when they cheat like crazy, they feel they're DOOMED!


23 posted on 08/26/2005 7:03:06 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry
Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three.

So is Krugman STILL trying to say that the recounts showed Algore winning? He's STILL wrong!

24 posted on 08/26/2005 7:26:54 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WL-law
He also ignores the findings of John Lott...

I question whether Krugman has the mental firepower to understand Lott's statistics.

25 posted on 08/26/2005 10:30:31 AM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson