Krugman vs. Okrent

May 30, 2005

Daniel Okrent, the departing “public editor” of the New York Times, had to know he was picking a fight. He may not have realized, however, he was starting a clash he was bound to lose.

In his departing column, Okrent took a parting shot at columnist Paul Krugman, attacking his integrity and accusing him of dishonesty.

Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults…. No one deserves the personal vituperation that regularly comes Dowd’s way, and some of Krugman’s enemies are every bit as ideological (and consequently unfair) as he is. But that doesn’t mean that their boss, publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., shouldn’t hold his columnists to higher standards.

In an unusual twist, Krugman did what any outraged Times reader would do given the circumstances — he wrote a letter to the editor.

In Daniel Okrent’s parting shot as public editor of The New York Times, he levied a harsh charge against me: he said that I have “a disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.”

He offered no examples of my “disturbing habit,” and maybe I should stop there: surely it’s inappropriate for the public editor to attack the ethics of one of the paper’s writers without providing any supporting evidence. He responded to my request for examples with criticisms of specific columns. Those criticisms were simply wrong: in each of those columns I played entirely fair with my readers, using the standard data in the standard way.

That should be the end of the story. I want to go back to doing what I have been doing all along: using economic data to inform my readers.

Even better, even though Okrent has now left the NYT, this “discussion” will continue. The Times noted yesterday that Krugman and Okrent “will be addressing this matter further on the Public Editor’s Web Journal early in the week.”

Something to look forward to. My money’s on Krugman getting the KO in the second round.

my money is on all of okrent’s supposed critiques of krugman coming straight from the pen of the ignoramus donald luskin. let’s see if there’s a single okrent criticism that can’t be tracked back to such a pathetic source.

  • Hard to write about Okrent’s stint at the Times without quickly degenerating into ad hominem, which he himself did so consistently. I had plenty to say on the man’s stint at the times, having observed him and written to him sometimes, but it’s a holiday and I just can’t bring myself to stoop to disparaging the man to the degree that he deserves. I don’t know what’s on the horizon from his replacement, what with bringing someone in from the WSJ, but let’s hope it involves at the very least less narcissistic self-absorption and victimhood and more honest response to readers’ concerns. As for his lashing of Krugman in his parting shot, I’d like to know how those baseless and unsupported criticisms tally with the job description of public editor. Krugman is one of the few jewels at the Times, better than they deserve considering the vast amount of bird cage liner work they do. Okrent—well, I’ll just say good riddance. Let’s cross our fingers about his replacement if, indeed, the Times actually matters anymore. After their Hearstian jingoism to push the Iraq war and lukewarm and incomplete apologies later (and why is Judith Miller still given a voice there?), they’re just another paper to me.

    • Comments are closed.