More on Sullivan and Krugman
Sullivan has now gone
mad. Just after 7:00 this evening, he posted no fewer than four new
pieces on l’affair Krugman an affair, I hasten to add,
which he single-handedly created.
He seems to be an expert at following up a valid point with something
completely barmy. Here’s an example: "Your average New York Times
reader [would] be shocked, I think, to find a New York Times columnist
who, before he joined the Times, was a $50,000 paid crony for a major
corporation that was in the process of fleecing its shareholders
especially since he is now one of that companys fiercest
critics." (my italics). Never mind the "paid crony"
hyperbole, why does the fact that Krugman is criticising Enron make
his former membership of its advisory panel more shocking?
Sullivan is certainly a stickler for journalistic ethics: here he
is a little bit further down.
Josh Marshall writes the following amazing sentences:
If there’s an embarrassment here, it’s that Krugman participated
in the common business of taking a pretty large sum of money from
corporate bigwigs for a pretty small level of exertion. (Note to corporate
bigwigs: this is a common business in which Talking Points Memo is
eager to become involved — though he’ll keep criticizing until the
offers start coming in.) Am I hallucinating or is Marshall semi-jokingly
saying that he is a columnist for hire? And people wonder why the
general public are suspicious of the ethics of journalists?
No, you’re not hallucinating, Andrew. But I would say that your monomania
on the subject of Krugman contributes much more to the general public’s
suspicion of journalists than does a joky aside by Josh Marshall.
Besides, in a very real sense all columnists/pundits are columnists
for hire. There really isn’t a lot of difference between being paid
to opine on an advisory board and being paid to opine in the pages
of the New Republic or the New York Times. Krugman isn’t
a journalist, he’s an economist. People read him because he’s
an economist. I’m reminded of how James Cramer used to respond to
people who attacked him on similar grounds: if I didn’t do this for
a living, my column would be significantly worse.
Sullivan also seems to have a huge chip on his shoulder that Romenesko
doesn’t link to him, seeing the mediagossip supremo as a prime mover
in the Liberal Media Conspiracy. Bollocks, Andrew: Romenesko doesn’t
link to you because you don’t provide fixed links! You’re such a profligate
poster (thank you) that a link to http:///www.andrewsulllivan.com
is often out of date within an hour. You want Romenesko to link to
you? Follow Josh Marshall’s lead and provide unique links for each
A lot of the rest of Sullivan’s post simply reheats old criticisms.
Come on, Andrew, if you’re going to wheel out that thing about how
"many public figures who were once, like Krugman, beneficiaries
of Enrons largess, have now given the money to charity"
then do you think you could name them? Or can you not do that
because the only money which has been donated thusly to charity was
donations to political campaigns?
One word about Krugman, though, because I don’t want this simply
to be an exercise in Sullivan-bashing. On his
website he writes
this: "The Argentine situation demands comment. My New York Times
readers are, I hate to admit, not as interested in Argentina as they
should be, so I am placing it here."
This is all wrong. The weakness of Krugman’s column has been the
way in which it has been used overwhelmingly to give high-rent economic
credence to Democratic party-political GOP-bashing. Most people I
meet these days are both interested in and ignorant of what’s going
on in Argentina: they would love Krugman to help explain it to them
(although his previous columns on the subject have not been particularly
good). Krugman is an excellent international economist: he should
allow himself (and Gail Collins should allow him) to write about international
economics. If you only give the people what they think they want,
they’ll never learn anything.