PAUL KRUGMAN INVADES BANGKOK
I woke this morning (Aug. 20) and found Paul Krugman in my Bangkok Post. The editors of that newspaper love him. Those editors despise America and all that America stands for but they love Paul Krugman and, to a lesser extent, Frank Rich. They print Krugman’s columns on a regular basis.
There is one other New York Times columnist they print. It’s a black guy. I know that because they put his picture in there. I have never read his column and I can’t remember his name. (Couldn’t you look it up?) (I don’t feel like it.) I’m sure he’s a wonderful writer but, in case he’s not, I don’t want to take chances with my blood pressure.
Isn’t it strange that the editors of The Bangkok Post, who are so anti-American, regularly, almost daily, print opinion columns from The New York Times? Those are practically the only opinion columns from America they will publish. I have never read a column favorable to The United States.
They (the editors) never allow rebuttal to any of those columns. In fact I have never seen a letter to the editor favorable to The United States. I know they get some. I have written some myself. Not many. Perhaps one every two months. Then they refused to accept any more of my emails, perhaps thinking my words might corrupt whoever read them.
In today’s column, Mr. Krugman makes some strange statements. Here is one:
He doesn’t name the “consortiums.”
His own paper, The New York Times, has reported that every news organization that probed the election, has concluded that Bush would have won no matter how the votes were counted.
Krugman goes on to question the outcome of the 2004 election and has this dire prediction of the future:
He is already doing the groundwork to challenge future election defeats.
Krugman is known for getting many, many things wrong. When Dan Okrent was the Public Editor (ombudsman) for The Times, Krugman was his biggest headache by far. You can read about it here. Okrent’s last words on the subject were these:
Of course Krugman’s facts in today’s column are screwed up and The Times will have to print a retraction. But here is the problem: There is no way in hell that The Bangkok Post will print a retraction. They got the story they wanted and they will stick with it even if it’s wrong. Their readers will never know.
It’s up to The Times to rein in Krugman. He is often wrong. His column should not be allowed to run in papers that do not agree to run retractions when necessary.
This is not a matter of freedom of the press. He can write whatever he wants. This is a matter of a responsible press. And The Times is responsible for Krugman.
There is one other New York Times columnist they print. It’s a black guy. I know that because they put his picture in there. I have never read his column and I can’t remember his name. (Couldn’t you look it up?) (I don’t feel like it.) I’m sure he’s a wonderful writer but, in case he’s not, I don’t want to take chances with my blood pressure.
Isn’t it strange that the editors of The Bangkok Post, who are so anti-American, regularly, almost daily, print opinion columns from The New York Times? Those are practically the only opinion columns from America they will publish. I have never read a column favorable to The United States.
They (the editors) never allow rebuttal to any of those columns. In fact I have never seen a letter to the editor favorable to The United States. I know they get some. I have written some myself. Not many. Perhaps one every two months. Then they refused to accept any more of my emails, perhaps thinking my words might corrupt whoever read them.
In today’s column, Mr. Krugman makes some strange statements. Here is one:
"Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election."
Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore.
He doesn’t name the “consortiums.”
His own paper, The New York Times, has reported that every news organization that probed the election, has concluded that Bush would have won no matter how the votes were counted.
Krugman goes on to question the outcome of the 2004 election and has this dire prediction of the future:
Our current political leaders would suffer greatly if either house of Congress changed hands in 2006, or if the presidency changed hands in 2008. The lids would come off all the simmering scandals, from the selling of the Iraq war to profiteering by politically connected companies. The Republicans will be strongly tempted to make sure that they win those elections by any means necessary. And everything we've seen suggests that they will give in to that temptation.
He is already doing the groundwork to challenge future election defeats.
Krugman is known for getting many, many things wrong. When Dan Okrent was the Public Editor (ombudsman) for The Times, Krugman was his biggest headache by far. You can read about it here. Okrent’s last words on the subject were these:
I hate to do this to a decent man like my successor, Barney Calame, but I’m hereby turning the Krugman beat over to him.
Of course Krugman’s facts in today’s column are screwed up and The Times will have to print a retraction. But here is the problem: There is no way in hell that The Bangkok Post will print a retraction. They got the story they wanted and they will stick with it even if it’s wrong. Their readers will never know.
It’s up to The Times to rein in Krugman. He is often wrong. His column should not be allowed to run in papers that do not agree to run retractions when necessary.
This is not a matter of freedom of the press. He can write whatever he wants. This is a matter of a responsible press. And The Times is responsible for Krugman.
posted by Walter Guest at 4:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home