Krugman/Sorkin Feud: Clark Hoyt Weighs In

So, remember back on Monday, when it looked like Andrew Ross Sorkin and Paul Krugman were set to go all Aaron Burr/Alex Hamilton on each other, only with blogs? That was a fascinating time in our lives. We weighed in here, and you can read Andrew Leonard and Foster Kamer's takes on the tilt, as well. But now, here's the judgment of the New York Times' Public Editor Clark Hoyt, who says, "One of these marquee columnists is right, and the other isn't - and The Times owes its readers an explanation." I suppose they do!

[Sorkin] quoted Krugman as saying in a column last year: "Why not just go ahead and nationalize? Remember, the longer we live with zombie banks, the harder it will be to end the economic crisis."

Krugman did write those words, but a full and fair reading of the column where they appeared does not support the notion that he favored nationalizing the entire banking system. Nor did he say that without nationalization the banks would fail again, with a worldwide ripple effect. In fact, Krugman wrote that he agreed with Alan Greenspan, who had said, "It may be necessary to temporarily nationalize some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring." Krugman's argument for doing so was that, if the government was going to have to put up all the money to get the banks going again, it should get the ownership.

Hoyt goes on to relate that he sent Sorkin "a message telling him that I did not think his citations supported his argument that Krugman had called for nationalizing the entire banking system." Sorkin subsequently described the matter as "an issue of semantics." Krugman's response was that he just simply never, ever advocated for a government takeover of "all banks."

Andrew Rosenthal, who oversees the Times's op-ed page, backed Krugman, and Bill Keller, the Times's executive editor, said that if Sorkin erred, "he - and we - should correct it, of course." (It seems to me that Keller's subtext there was basically, "Gah, why are you coming to me with this junk, whatever, run a correction I guess, pffffff.")

Hoyt's final analysis:

I think the right thing to do is to simply acknowledge that, in trying to quickly summarize Krugman's nuanced position, Sorkin over-simplified and got it wrong.

One hundred years from now, the Civil War reenactors of the future will recreate this whole chapter of our lives on the internet, so your great-grandchildren will have that to look forward to!

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[gabby09]

05:07 AM on 04/20/2010

Sorkin would do well to acknowledge his selectivity and over-simplification in the interest of professionalism. Otherwise, he's no better than Palin and her inaccurate cherry-picking to further her own idea of herself.

As I watch/read Sorkin, I sort through whatever he says with a judicious eye and chalk his cocky demeanor up to naïveté and carelessness. Krugman, on the other hand, though I may not always agree, has proven himself to be trustworthy.

http://adatingconfessional.blogspot.com

[GQTaste]

12:24 AM on 04/20/2010

Nothing like nepotism in this world. Sorkin's daddy sure helped him in this world.

[tonnyb]

06:57 AM on 04/20/2010

Whose his daddy?

[tonnyb]

06:58 AM on 04/20/2010

I meant who's his daddy.

[imajoebob]

02:07 PM on 04/19/2010

Sorkin likes to "over simplify?"

Here you go Andy: Liar!

Too simple? Okay: Conniving liar!

[squawkbox]

11:48 AM on 04/19/2010

Sorkin lied, Bill Keller sighed.

[larry278]

04:04 PM on 04/18/2010

Off thread: HP's blogs don't age well-even when Jason does it

[Untitled]

03:52 PM on 04/18/2010

... I'm confused.

[JamesRiddle]

03:22 PM on 04/18/2010

Sorkin is full of crap and he knows it. He's staked out this mild mannered , bright, conservative persona and it's full of holes. When he is on Maher his positions are ripped to shreds and he knows they are untenable. You can see it in his face. But he's on to a good money making image for himself and is milking it for all it's worth. I guess he is supposed to be the conservative we can all agree isn't nuts. But he says a whole lot of nothing and he is very aware it's blather just dressed up in some William Buckley coat of respectability.

[axoaxo]

12:03 AM on 04/20/2010

good synopsis

[JamesRiddle]

01:53 AM on 04/20/2010

Gracias

[gman87]

09:31 AM on 04/18/2010

One should always preface a reference to Paul Krugman with "former Enron advisor". That puts his advice and opinions into perspective.

[James B]

02:28 PM on 04/18/2010

ah, guilt by association, how quaint . . .

[collettethehedgehog]

03:43 AM on 04/19/2010

HA! I think Former deserves some credit.

[Bradley Bailey]

09:10 AM on 04/19/2010

As does the Nobel Prize and Princeton professorship. Yes, a total meathead.

[larry278]

03:08 PM on 04/17/2010

The comments on this blog & Jason's blog are promising. I may learn something if more knowledgable commentators weigh in & comment. Full Disclosure: I often defer to Prof Krugman's opinions. I'm open to all arguments for I know little of these subjects. Let the games begin. May the most convincing commentator win.

[bascombe]

11:35 PM on 04/17/2010

krugman uses facts. what more do you need?

[Lauteur Calme]

02:05 PM on 04/17/2010

As a distant observer, it is undeniable that U.S. politicians, the Federal Reserve, and crafty financiers on Wall Street are responsible for the underlying global financial crisis. As a recent Chinese economist stated, where ever there is wealth in the world, and in particular the U.S. (i.e., 401K, Real Estate, etc), opportunistic and deceptive practices by investment bankers on Wall Street eventually steal it while politicians turn a blind eye.

The global reaction from Wall Street's egregious behavior allowed by U.S. politicians is almost universally negative. With full equilibrium analysis, it is glaringly obvious that Wall Street is one huge Ponzi scheme. In addition, for years financial policies coming out of Washington, D.C. have been in the interests of bankers in New York and elsewhere.

The fact that U.S. politicians have been bought and sold for years is nothing new. However, there are ironies to this global financial debacle that are interesting. For instance, seeing Clinton and Bush beg for money from U.S. citizens and the global community for Haitian relief after the earthquake. It's also ironic that one of the Federal Reserve's mandate is to manage the flow of money and credit in the U.S. economy, much less the world.

One must ask what does Greenspan(incredibly adroit at trying to exculpate through technical jargon), Rubin(always convivial as long as it benefits him), Summers(the apotheosis of arrogance), Madoff(one big lie), Bernake(a pawn), and Geitner(sounds like a robot) have in common?

[walk0nwalls]

01:51 PM on 04/17/2010

So you're telling me that 100 years from now history nerds in period-accurate garb will re-enact this?

Well, to each their own i guess.

[JePense]

08:13 AM on 04/17/2010

Krugman isn't all that.

His narcissm DOES interfere with this so-called "nuance" from time to time.

[Blixa]

09:40 PM on 04/17/2010

Whatevs. Krugman has awesome cats.
http://www.catpets.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/bfb6078242n_crop.jpg.jpg
http://dealbreaker.com/_old/images/thumbs/Paul-Krugman-with-Cat.jpg

That makes him the winner ;)

[bascombe]

11:29 PM on 04/17/2010

did you telediagnose the narcissism yourself or did frist help you with the spelling, too?

[johnsonb2005]

04:47 PM on 04/16/2010

This is the difference between a Noble Scholar first editorialist second and a TV political host wannabe first editorialist second.

[Blixa]

09:44 PM on 04/17/2010

And what a noble Nobel scholar he is.

[Kevin Atlanta]

03:38 PM on 04/16/2010

There is great merit in establishing a true National Bank as direct competition to the Wall Street and Commercial Banking Corporate Communists.
The Government has Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac on the permanent dole. Here's a vehicle for a direct to the public mortgage funding source through a National Bank funded with Taxpayer Dollars and removing the FED from the equation.
Audit and end the FED.
The US Government is doing direct Student Loans thankfully now that Obama brought some sanity to the White House.
The single payor to compete with the Insurance company Corporate Communists is the only solution that works over the long haul.
Single Payor, Medicare for all is the solution.
Those are "free market" with the Government establishing the pattern and being the competition because the Corporate Communist Greed has already demonstrated socialize the loss and privatize the profit too often.

[madashellvoter]

03:02 PM on 04/16/2010

This is NOT the FIRST time that Sorkin got it wrong. Remember what he said about Union auto workers compinsation? I NEVER trust anything SORKIN writes or words that come from his mouth.