Read this and learn how it's done, guys: Media Matters rips Newsweek, praises Krugman's work

[ArchieStone1]

Here's how Eric Boehlert, top media critic for Media Matters for America, a leading progressive fact-checking website that we all admire, approached the Krugman-in-Newsweek-cover situation today:

Looking back on the Bush years, Krugman's track record was rather impeccable. But you'll note he didn't appear on the cover of Newsweek back then. (No "Bush is Wrong" cover lines.) And for years Krugman only occasionally appeared on the pundit talk shows. He wasn't referenced much inside The Village, either. Meaning, the Beltway press pros didn't seem to care what Krugman wrote about Bush and didn't think his writing--his opposition--needed to be examined closer. He was just a liberal critic, so who cared what he wrote about Bush. (That's my take on how much of the press viewed Krugman.)

As you can see, in contrast with some who have portrayed this as partly being Krugman's fault, Media Matters focuses on the hypocrisy on Newsweek's part and the media in general, who ignored Krugman during the Bush years when the Times columnists told us of his terrible policies.

Let's go on:

But now a Democrat is in the Oval Office, Krugman is still hitting the president from the left, and suddenly the Beltway press thinks Krugman's work is fascinating and newsworthy. Trust us, it is. (For years he's been our pick as the country's premier columnist.) We just think everyone would have been better off if the press had paid this much attention to Krugman's work between, say, 2002 and 2006.

In short, MM calls Krugman's current work "fascinating and newsworthy," and argues that he deserves praise now, but also deserves it in previous years. We should learn from Media Matters, which not once in this story said or implied that Krugman's work hurts our side.

http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200903290004?f=h_top

[Raineyb]

1. And they are right.

Media Matters hit the nail on the head.

Regards

[Supersedeas]

53. the Corporate Media blows whichever wind the Ad $$$ tell them to blow

And who controls the Ad dollars?

[ProSense]

2. Media Matter is right, but this statement

speaks to MSM's motive:

But now a Democrat is in the Oval Office, Krugman is still hitting the president from the left, and suddenly the Beltway press thinks Krugman's work is fascinating...

[LooseWilly]

51. This sells papers...

Why i is being touted as some sort of ... well, the implication is that there's a conspiracy to undermine Obama. I don't think it's true. This is news the way Limbaugh criticizing Bush would've been news to the MSM... there're fans of both actors in the story, they'll read... and conflict within the ranks will attract attention from supporters and opponents alike...

It's about ratings. Accept that that's the way the media works.... Or become superhuman, stop ever looking at any news story that tugs at an emotional string... and then go on the lecture circuit and collect millions from your fellow Americans who also would like to no longer support the "Purple Prose" of the MSM... write a book, and sell it on Amazon, HSN, and in a supermarket near me... help convert all Americans into intellectuals who can't be swayed by a story of infighting in a political party unless it's worded in an extremely respectful way... no more stories allowed about what an incompetent pit bull Palin was... lipstick not withstanding...
Let's make this a high brow country again. Intellectual.

Oh wait, that would be UnAmerican... wouldn't it?

[tavalon]

3. Well done, media matters!

Krugman is saying just as important things as before but suddenly the media wants him as their favorite bludgeon when before they couldn't give a damn about what he said about Bush. Damn, Conservative Media Whores.

[FrenchieCat]

4. It is actually exactly as many of us have said.....

Krugman was used.

He knows it, Newsweek knows it, Obama knows it, we all know it.

How the Media is Using those to be Used to help defeat the Obama Budget that you like
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8299173&mesg_id=8299173

[Laelth]

10. Does Krugman know he's being used?

If so, I may not forgive him for being right (even though I may still think he is right).

:dem:

-Laelth

[FrenchieCat]

21. The article in Newsweek is not so much about what he is right or not about....

more of a celebrity profile.

and as Krugman said...."honest men can disagree, and they can also make mistakes. But it's still a good idea to tune out supposed experts whose minds are made up in advance."

Wish he would have waited till the plan was actually announced before pouncing.

But other than that, I guess that all is fair in economics free of politics.

[Laelth]

25. Perhaps he's just an egomaniac and doen't care whether he's getting used.

I tend to agree with you. I think he probably knows he's being used and doesn't care. I was just wondering whether he had admitted as much. If so, I hadn't seen it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Luminous Animal]

35. Perhaps he understands

that his criticism is as relevant under an Obama administration as it was under a Bush administration and doesn't give a flying fuck how that message gets out there.

Holy hell. The man has a column with The New York Times. He has a blog at The New York Times. He won a Nobel Prize and he has, for the past 8 years been celebrated on DU as well as the rest of the liberal blogosphere. He's not changed. DU has changed.

[Laelth]

38. His criticisms are relevant.

And, as I said above, I usually agree with him. I respect what he has to say.

But that doesn't mean he isn't being used. I was just asking the poster above whether Krugman had admitted to knowing that he was being used, because the poster implied that he did know he was being used. I was questioning that assertion.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Luminous Animal]

40. Why does it matter?

Krugman is smarter than the average bear. No doubt he understands his recent broader attraction. Why would this matter? The establishment used the anti Vietnam war movement against Democrats in 1968. Whether or not he's being used is irrelevant. What is important is whether or not we choose to be used to turn against him.

[Laelth]

44. If you don't think it matters, why are you posting here? n/t

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

[Luminous Animal]

46. Que?

I asked why does it matter if Krugman is aware that he is being used? Should he stop criticizing? Should he give up his blog? His column?

Taking into the breadth of Krugman's career of criticizing the economic strategy of the Bush administration and given the fact that he views Obama's bail out strategy as Bushlite, why oh why would he care if the corporate media is using him? Krugman is being entirely consistent. It is not his responsibility that the establishment is not so honest.

I am posting here because, even though Media Matters points out the incongruity of Krugman's recent celebration in the corporate media they also acknowledge that Krugman's work has been rather impeccable. A thing that DU used to acknowledge, as well.

[LooseWilly]

47. Being used can be a two way street..

I think Krugman genuinely believes that there needs to be more Keynes in the "Keynesian" policies Obama's working with. I think he's willing to be used to sell papers/on-line revenue stream... if it means he can "en-louden' his message.

Forgiveness is irrelevant.
He thinks (I think) that he is right. Obama, I would guess, thinks that he has certain political demons (the spectre of "socialism", etc.) that he has to be wary of when constructing a plan... and I would further guess that Obama would rather spend light at first, in order to partially deflect the apparent Repub. line of argument, than go full "Keynesian", and leave himself exposed on a fiscal flank to a potential Repub. riposte.

I see it as solely a matter of juggling policy with politics... someone like Krugman who seems solely interested in voicing a view, and a valid view at that... I can't blame him for using whatever media might be at his disposal to try to convince a re-assessment of his ideas.
And, as a perk... with all the air time he's getting... if the stimulus proves not to be enough... and all this criticism from the left has been saying that all along... while the Repub's have been saying the opposite... then public opinion of non-dolts will likely come to see the renewed spending (advocated so ubiquitously by Krugman) as not only a viable and sensible solution... but the sensible solution will also be connected, ideationally, with the left...

It's a long term game, and this comes out to win win.

Let Krugman be.

[Kdillard]

5. Mediamatters doesn't say anything people here have not said

regarding the situation. The only difference I see is that I personally have not heard a good excuse for Krugman to participate in an obvious attempt at undermining a Dem President other than ego as demonstrated by the article. Not to mention Krugman not being as vocal as he could be in speaking out and writing about the President's budget which he has expressed approval on.

[Luminous Animal]

7. I guess he was undermining Bush, too? Eh? n/t

[Kdillard]

16. Of course he wasn't but I didn't see him getting on the cover of

Newsweek for it. The only interest in Krugman is for the media to undermine the Democratic President. That has been their agenda from day 1. Now explain to me why he would want to participate in that when he was ignored during the Bush administration?

[Luminous Animal]

19. Because he sees us on the precipice

of economic disaster which could devastate the lives of hundreds of millions of people and kill tens of millions worldwide and he feels that he has solutions to mitigate some of the effects.

[FrenchieCat]

23. But he may not be the only one with answers....

That's the part of what you are implying
that goes counter to his description of an non hack economist.

[Luminous Animal]

26. Given that, for the past 9-10 years that I've been reading his work

he's been largely right in his criticism of the policies that have led us into this mess, I trust him (and Galbraith, Dean Baker, Stiglitz, and a few others) than I do the self-same people WHO GOT US INTO THIS MESS and who are currently entrusted to getting us out of it.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Most aren't guaranteeing anything.......

And Krugman and his nationalization scheme aren't off the table......
the Obama administration, considering the $700 Billion already put out,
are trying something else.

It is President Obama's responsibility, and he knows it.

Again, Krugman has expressed himself on this numerous times.

Now, if he were kind enough,
I'd like to hear him push the budget more than just a couple of times,
just to even things out....especially now that this is where the public debate is.
(heard he talked about today, but I have seen a transcript widely circulated,
so it doesn't appear to be getting much notice, unfortunately for us).

In addition, a word or two about the proposed regulatory framework would be nice....
especially since a case has to be made to the public to pressure their congressfolks
to vote for it. I haven't heard anything on that.

When one has such a high profile, it would be a shame to become a One Note Paul...
especially when so much is at stake on many different levels.

[Luminous Animal]

28. And so it goes...

"Where his critics used to call him a lefty extremist, now the rap on him is he’s not omniscient."

http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/repeating-it/#comment-37641

[LooseWilly]

45. Krugman isn't part of the administration.

He's having to use the media to try to push a theory that I think he believes in. He's having to use the media, in fact, to try to push that opinion into the sort of consideration that I get the impression he doesn't feel that Obama & his people are giving it.
That said, I don't think he feels a need to use the media time he's being given to push for Obama's budget proposals.
I get the feeling that everyone sees that as a fight that's essentially won, as long as nobody blows their part in the dance... and as an outsider of the administration, why would Krugman spend his time on something that, to all appearances anyway, is looking like a winner?
And besides, I think all cynics find it painfully obvious that the media is giving Krugman so much air time because he's criticizing Obama from the "left" (no I don't think it's a choreographed plan to discredit Obama... I think it's just viewed as some good old fashioned "political domestic violence", the sort of infighting that sells newspapers/ on-line ad stream revenue). It would be like Limbaugh criticizing Bush, it would've been "News Drama". That said... I think Krugman is really trying to speak to the Obama administration... and I'm sure that, if they suddenly decided to go with his plan, he'd be happy to shill for their budget... but in the meantime, why sacrifice his media "golden egg laying goose" when it still hasn't yet produced the golden egg he's looking for?

[LooseWilly]

49. It's not implied that he's the *only* one with answers...

Merely that his answers are often right, and the entire country may wish to consider cheating off his homework...

[ArchieStone1]

11. an "obvious attempt at undermining a Dem President"

Boehlert would not have considered an attempt to undermine our President to be newsworthy or fascinating, don't you think?

I don't condemn your statement though. You have the right to disagree with the website.

[Kdillard]

22. Yes given the evidence that Krugman was a vocal critic of the Bush administration and did

not receive a newsweek cover and was basically ignored and then when there is a Dem President in the office all of a sudden Krugman's virtues are found. Not only does he get the cover of Newsweek it has Obama is wrong next to his face. I don't know what else to call it but an obvious attempt to undermine a popular Dem President in the midst of fighting for a Progressive budget. Also I never said I disagreed with mediamatters because they hit the nail on the head I just happen to see something deeper in this obvious hypocrisy.

[ArchieStone1]

48. The problem with your theory is that Krugman didn't tell Newsweek to put his face in the cover

So the "obvious attempt" that you cite to "undermine Obama" was nothing but an attempt to be right based on his extensive award-winning expertise shared by other top economists.

And you also seem to have a problem with people criticizing a President who's trying to pass a progressive budget.

Krugman praised Obama's budget, describing it as "very, very good."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html

[LooseWilly]

52. There's nothing deep about selling copy...

That's really all this is about. Selling copies of Newsweek.
Leftist Economist criticizes "Socialist" president.

Leftist economist thinks "Socialist" president isn't being "leftist" enough...

It's a story that sells. There's nothing deep about it.

And, ironically, if you work out the moves far enough in advance, this actually works to "leftist" advantage.

If the economy works out fine... then all is well, and the debt isn't extra staggering...

If Krugman is right, and the stimulus isn't enough to actually re-start the economy... then the media selling the story from every corner of story-selling-land means that everyone who heard it (including all the people who thought it was an Obama criticism), is already prepped for the possibility... and the idea of spending more rather than saying "oops, we shouldn't've spent after all" is already out in large circle circulation...
That being the case... the public (and MSM, who've spent so much time covering the story) are likely to demand that Krugman's theories be given more serious consideration... which then gives cover to Obama taking up Keynesian notions that he might've believed in all along, but had to nooge the public along to see the light.
Nobel Prize Winning Leftist saves the day...

But, until it gets to that pass... Obama holds back where he's not so politically easy a target...

Is that the "deeper" you saw in the "obvious hypocrisy"?...

[firedupdem]

6. I wonder if he realizes why he's so special to the MSM now?

Thank you media matters for calling their asses out!

[Luminous Animal]

12. Of course he knows why

the media is paying more attention to him. But he's not going to change his core beliefs merely because there is a Dem in office. If he thinks Obama's plan is lacking, as an honest man, he's going to have to say it.

[firedupdem]

15. He shouldn't at all. He should state what he believes, if that is

truly what he believes. However, I would feel a bit slimy finally making the cover of a magazine and getting all this exposure when they wouldn't talk to me before, knowing the motives weren't because they truly valued my opinion.

[Luminous Animal]

31. When Krugman won the Nobel Prize

the liberal blogosphere was ecstatic and expressed an overwhelming desire that Krugman would finally get the recognition that he deserved for consistent criticism of Bush's economic policies. He, and the New York Times (with the largest circulation of any newspaper in the U.S. barring USA Today) recognized his popularity within the "reality based community" He hasn't abandoned his consistency or reality but, now, liberals are abandoning him.

Are we really willing to give him over to the the top 1% of the economic elite who seek to use him to destroy any reform? Or can we take his concerns and use them to exercise our political power. The political power that actually belongs to us and not our elected officials.

Think of this scenario: What if Krugman, Stiglitz, Baker, et.al., succeed in persuading Obama to take bolder action? I'd imagine that the traditional media would drop him like a hot potato. I've little doubt that Krugman knows this. He is seizing the opportunity to advance an agenda that is, with out a doubt, more populist than Obama's agenda, both in the short and long term.

As an aside, I fought tooth and nail against NAFTA... it was a righteous fight and its passage still depresses me to this day. We had no champion like Krugman that the opposition could elevate to the national stage in a stab of reverse psychology, but if we did... we would have grabbed that opportunity like a golden ring.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Krugman quote from a few years back......

...."Real experts, you see, tend to have views that are not entirely one-sided. For example, Columbia's Jagdish Bhagwati, a staunch free-trader, is also very critical of unrestricted flows of short-term capital. Right or not, this mixed stance reflects an honest mind at work. You might think that hacks would at least try to simulate an open mind -- .... But it almost never happens.

Of course, honest men can disagree, and they can also make mistakes. But it's still a good idea to tune out supposed experts whose minds are made up in advance." http://www.pkarchive.org/column/42300.html

[depakid]

9. Krugman hadn't won the Nobel Prize and we weren't in the middle of a meltdown

Not that I'm sticking up for the likes of Newsweek (much less its owner the laughable Washington Post) but it bears mentioning.

[FrenchieCat]

13. The meltdown happened in September.....

although Krugman wasn't quite as "gun ho" then.....but still,

From Paul Krugman's September 28, 2008 column:

Bailout questions answered

being asked two big questions about this thing:

(1) Was it really necessary?

(2) Shouldn’t Dems have tossed the whole Paulson approach out the window and done something completely different?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/bailout-questions-answered/


he answered the first question like this:

"On (1), the answer is yes."

Qualified yes for sure, but a yes just the same.



he answered the second question suprisingly very aware of political limitations:

(2), the call is tougher. But putting myself in Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi’s shoes, I’d look at it this way: the Democrats could start over, with a bailout plan that is, say, centered on purchases of preferred stock and takeovers of failing firms — basically, a plan clearly focused on recapitalizing the financial sector, with nationalization where necessary. That’s what the plan should have looked like.

Maybe such a plan would have passed Congress; and maybe, just maybe Bush would have signed on; Paulson is certainly desperate for a deal.

But such a plan would have had next to no Republican votes — and the Republicans would have demagogued against it full tilt. And the Democratic leadership cannot, cannot, be seen to have sole ownership of this stuff.

So that, I think, is why it had to be done this way. I don’t like it, and I don’t like the plan, but I see the constraints under which Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, and Reid were operating.

[depakid]

17. The economy is still melting down both here and abroad

and it's far and away the number one issue on people's minds. Why else would you see Roubini on the Sunday shows?

[FrenchieCat]

20. He just didn't have his foot up Bush's ass as much at that time.....

but perhaps he felt that it was all for naught.

[ArchieStone1]

14. Being in the middle of a meltdown is a good reason why he should criticize bad policies

because let's not forget that he criticizes what he sees as bad policies for our economy.

Stiglitz should also continue to speak regardless of how deep into a recession we are in as well, in my view.

[Canuckistanian]

18. That's a good point

Krugman was pretty much sidelined by the CM during the Bush regime, even AFTER his Nobel prize.

NOW, he's controversial?

Pretty telling.

[ProSense]

24. The interesting thing about the Newsweek issue is that

it also includes a piece on Geithner

When you click on the link to the article, a photo of Krugman is at the left (scroll down a bit) with the blurb:

Paul Krugman has emerged as Obama's toughest liberal critic. He's deeply skeptical of the bank bailout and pessimistic about the economy. Why the establishment worries he may be right.

(emphasis added)

That's pretty telling.

[ArchieStone1]

29. You said nothing that Media Matters didn't say

Boehlert thinks that the establishment is right in saying Krugman's work is "fascinating and newsworthy."

His only complaint is that Krugman was also right during the Bush years and no one cared.

[ProSense]

30. That completely misses the point n/t

[Luminous Animal]

32. Perhaps you could use more words to clarify. n/t

[ProSense]

36. OK, there is a huge difference between

the MSM heralding Krugman as newsworthy with the motive to push spotlight opposition to Obama coming from the left and declaring that they're spotlighting Krugman because "the establishment worries he may be right."

[Luminous Animal]

37. Because your quote doesn't say so...

Why do you think Newsweek supposes the establishment might be worried. Could it be that they are nervous that the Obama admin might take Krugman's criticism seriously and change course?

[ProSense]

39. "Could it be..." No, because that's just making up an implication that isn't there

The statement is that "the establishment worries he may be right]" about his skepticism of the bank bailout and pessimistic about the economy.

It implies nothing about being "nervous that the Obama admin might take Krugman's criticism seriously."

The statement is clear.

[Luminous Animal]

41. Why do you think the establishment might be worried

and who do you define as the establishment?

[ProSense]

42. You're talking in circles. The statement is clear. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

43. No I am not...

There is a statement regarding the establishment and no clear definition of who that might be and why they would be worried that Krugman is right.

Who do you think the establishment is? And if Krugman is right, why would the be worried?

[high density]

33. Good point; where were the "BUSH IS WRONG" Newsweek covers?

The media is ridiculous.

[Luminous Animal]

34. And so is DU

during the Bush administration, Krugman was a breath of fresh air; his Nobel Prize wildly celebrated. Now, despite his constancy, he is the victim of a campaign to sully him.

[Political Heretic]

50. Media Matters is right.

And I'm glad they are around.