Krugman Criticizes Editors Of His Own Paper For Being Soft On Rudy

[antiimperialist]

November 2, 2007 -- 12:45 PM EST

...

Krugman doesn't say which "editors" he's referring to here with his "memo to editors." But I submit that he's clearly criticizing the editors of his own paper.

His demand that editors not describe something that's completely false as being "in dispute," and his demand that they not use the "Democrats say" dodge to call out something that's completely false, seems to be a reference to this New York Times piece from a few days ago on Rudy's prostate dissembling. It contained this:

Mr. Giuliani’s Democratic rivals would argue that they are not advocating government-run health care in their plans to extend coverage to the uninsured. But, beyond that, the 44 percent figure that Mr. Giuliani has been citing is in dispute.

Anyway, it seems noteworthy that things have gotten to the point where Krugman apparently feels the need to admonish his own paper's editors for not taking on Rudy's falsefoods forcefully enough. Shorter Krugman to Times editors: Tell your readers the truth. This is important.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/11/krugman_critici.php

[Jim Lane]

1. I sympathize with Krugman, but it's not all that easy for editors

Editors have a justifiable concern that, once they start interpolating comments like "Giuliani's statement was false," they're on a slippery slope. What would become of a politician's comment about Iraqi WMD's? Plenty of Americans (including, I'm guessing, some editors) believe that Saddam had WMD's. I don't want to see those editors flatly asserting that a liberal candidate's statement is false.

The usual dodge is to find someone prominent, or at least someone with enough expertise to be considered quotable, and quote that person as calling out the falsehood.

Admittedly, that's an imperfect solution. "Candidate A says the sun rises in the west, but Source X, a professor of astronomy, disagrees." When it's a matter outside a layperson's direct knowledge, some reports of "disputes" look about as silly as that one. Still, at least the truth is being made available to the discerning reader.

[Jade Fox]

2. At some point you have to decide that .......

there is enough evidence to declare something is not true. I think today's newspaper editors are trying to protect themselves from the "Liberal Bias" accusation, which has been interpreted as "if you say too much bad stuff about Conservatives (even if it's true), then you have a liberal bias." There is a lot of hedging going on in the Press today. Fact checking has gone by the wayside, and now it seems reporters just repeat what is said to them by professional spinners. And as Arianna Huffington pointed out, there is also the belief on the part of many in the media that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

Many readers are not discerning. They assume if it is printed in a newspaper, it must be true. So if a newspaper doesn't say clearly, "The sun does not now nor has it ever risen in the west", the reader will walk away confused. Add the accusation that those who deny the sun may rise in the west are Democrats with a partisan agenda, and you have the state of politics in American today.

[Jim Lane]

4. I agree with much of what you say

Editors are afraid of being accused of bias in either direction. The right-wingers (who have much more influence on the media than we do) have been much louder in raising this charge, so editors are much more attuned to alleged "liberal bias". (Someone accurately described this as "working the refs" by the conservatives.)

That tendency to think that truth is in the middle also hurts us, because Republican politicians have been much more willing to distort and lie than have Democrats. If both major parties were behaving with equal irresponsibility, the truth might often lie somewhere in or near the middle, but with so many Republicans so utterly shameless, the middle gets moved well to the right.

[DCKit]

3. They don't have to call Rudy a liar....

Just point out that his assertions are incorrect. Use of the word "false" implies an intentional lie, "incorrect" implies an error, which can be intentional or not.