So I finally got around to reading the article. What. A. Waste. Of. Time. Evan Thomas, along with the three other credited “writers” should be ashamed. It’s the ultimate in MSM surface story. It doesn’t contain a damn thing about the Obama plan on banks and the reasons behind Paul Krugman’s opposition to it. It’s all about who thinks Krugman is brilliant, why, and their views on his influence on the Obama administration. But it doesn’t talk about the thing that matters.
Sweet lord, why can’t the media do their flipping jobs? This isn’t rocket science.
selling the sizzle instead of the steak
Oliver, did you actually think there would be any substance to a Newsweek cover story on Krugman? The only use the Newsweek has for Krugman is to say “Even noted liberal Paul Krugman thinks Obama is wrong.”, copy, paste, repeat. No one in the corporate media is going to discuss the details of what Krugman says, because it’s all they’ve been against for the last 20-30 years.
Krugman’s noted flaw is in stating that anything that isn’t perfect is terrible. While that’s his right, as a critic, he doesn’t take into account the political impossibilities of his policy suggestions. The end result is that Krugman is going to be critical of anything from the Obama administration which has any chance of getting through congress..
“Krugman’s noted flaw is in stating that anything that isn’t perfect is terrible.”
I haven’t found that to be the case at all, Crusty. Krugman’s case against the Geithner/Obama plan is that it is DEEPLY flawed, not just slightly, that it is fundamentally wrong in extending what he thinks is a no-risk deal to buy up toxic assets (at least this is as I understand it), or in other words, for the gov’mt to guarantee that buyers won’t lose. He writes with the conscientiousness of a worrier who hopes to hell he’s wrong, that what matters is recovery, not his own powers of prediction.
On TV, I’ve heard and witnessed already Krugman’s “schooling” of lame-brained opponents like George Will. What I miss is a dialogue between Krugman and, say Geithner himself, or another, comparable administration spokesman. THAT’S a discussion I’d like to hear.
The purpose of Newsweek and other mass-market publications that need to keep their costs down is to sell their readers the experience of feeling well-informed without having to invest the resources involved in actually informing their audience.
Look at the article again. It looks like news. The words seem like they’re news (quotes from important people, etc.). So you walk away being able to tell yourself “I am an informed person who keeps up with the issues of the day.”
Another MSM fail. Just die and get it over with.
“Krugman’s noted flaw is in stating that anything that isn’t perfect is terrible.”
I haven’t found that to be the case at all, Crusty.
Well, your example is one that is actually terrible, I was mainly thinking of Krugman’s rampage against Obama’s health plan during the primaries. Clinton’s plan was superior, but would never ever get through congress, while Obama’s plan was solid, incremental progress.. My point is that while Krugman may be right (and I generally think he is), he’s free to criticize without concern for the political situation, but the downside of his criticism is the use of his opinions to push democrats against proposals which may be the best achievable at this time.
Nice job, Newsweek. I’ve been wondering about this Krugman fellow who seems to have won the attention of all those young blaggers…bogsters…or whatever all the hip types are calling themselves these days. I’m sure we’ll be hearing more from this fellow in the future.
The article sucks, but Krugman is filling a valuable role. It’s a little unnerving for those of us on the left because the people with the biggest megaphones in the media for the last 8 years have been idiots. Krugman’s right more often than not and even if he’s wrong about the President’s plan, Krugman’s on the side of angels.
An article about an economist without numbers? Sounds like a Republican budget.
So you walk away being able to tell yourself “I am an informed person who keeps up with the issues of the day.”
Tyro nails it. Newsweek is People magazine for news wonks. Notice how almost all of the articles are just long enough to accommodate a short wait at the dentist’s or doctor’s office.
That’s what it is for.
This article serves a useful purpose for Obama — it shows that he’s being hit from the left, too. Obama is all about appealing to the middle-of-the-road low info voter who decides elections, and he continues to do that well.
Now, as to the substance of Krugman’s arguments, who the **** knows? I sure don’t. I see that Roubini, whose recent track record of predictions is even better than Krugman’s, supports the Obama plan. As does Brad deLong, who has frequently approvingly linked to Krugman over the years, and vice versa. The difference may be that Roubini and deLong are much more astute politically than Krugman — or it may be that one, two or all three are wildly wrong. As I say, I’m not smart enough to know.
One thing to remember is that as much was we love Krugman for hitting the lies and deceit of the Bush administration dating back to the 2000 campaign, Krugman’s predictions haven’t been perfect. He wrote a column a few years ago predicting big interest rate rises and that didn’t happen. He also predicted deflation, incorrectly.
Yes, he foresaw the deficits and the jobless recovery, he was the first to point out that California energy prices were being fixed, and of course he pointed out the housing prices were a bubble (but so did most people outside the media sphere). But he’s missed quite a few predictions as well — which is why I tend to favor Roubini and deLong on this one.
I am happy that Krugman’s getting the kind of coverage that is usually only reserved for babbling right wing dunderheads.
If they pull this off, intelligent discourse between knowledgeable professionals might finally start to displace the brainless selling of catch phrases and slogans that has dominated our political discourse for so many decades.
It was Newsweek’s fail to not include the numbers behind Krugman’s position. Let the criticism fall to them for not providing it, not to Krugman for disagreeing with the President.