While, of course, Douthat is taking some license to make a point…still, when rhetorical flourishes verge into easily avoidable misrepresentation (see also: #5), they’ve gone too far. Which brings us, finally, to:
8. The brazen hyperbole. Near the end of the column, Douthat refers to Obama’s win of the Nobel Prize as “this travesty.” Yes. This is a direct quote. (This is also, if you’re wondering, the point in the column at which I finally concluded that Douthat’s effort in this case may deserve the same epithet.) “By accepting the prize, he’s made failure, if and when it comes, that much more embarrassing and difficult to bear,” Douthat writes.
This reasoning is fairly absurd when applied to Obama (sure, the prize provides more irony-laden fodder for the president’s critics, but that fact does not a travesty make). Applied to Douthat, though—a young talent who has himself been given a pressure-cooker prize by way of a high-profile platform in The New York Times—the observation might be more true than the columnist would care to admit.
Nice analysis, Ms. Garber.
One hopes that the New York Times is slightly embarrassed by this wholly pedestrian choice of who gets the national conservative platform on their OpEd page. He's not so different from the intellectually flaccid William Kristol, another failed selection who regularly produced equally eye-rolling drivel. Maybe someday they will get around to Daniel Larison, a conservative with genuine intelligence and intellectual heft.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 12 Oct 2009 at 11:25 AM
Ms. Garber,
Here is where I question CJR bias'. CJR went aftr Douthat, Kristol and Stein. When has CJR reviewed Dowd, Rich or Krugman?
James,
I would think, for a paper known (or at least it's image) by one party to be in the pocket
of the other uin a Two party system, they would actually ask Conservatives and Republicans who they read.
It requires going out and actually speaking to people whose ideas it seems they have no grasp of. And again, it doesn't bring me over to your ideas when you insult.
Disagree sure. "Intellectually flaccid?" Hell, no. I don't do it to the Left's people. I disagree sure, but unless they insult me, I don't insult them.
Read "Gang of Five," to understand.
#2 Posted by JSF, CJR on Mon 12 Oct 2009 at 11:42 AM
@JSF,
Surely you aren't suggesting that the output of conservative columnists should be beyond criticism? You are a smart person, yes, Douthat has been entirely pedestrian and his columns have been an embarrassment. And William Kristol's columns before Douthat's were an embarrassment as well.
I take issue with your contention that evaluation of a columnist's work "requires going out and actually speaking to people whose ideas it seems they have no grasp of." How so? Isn't a column supposed to stand on its own? Present an idea and an opinion to the audience for due consideration? And if a reader finds the argument to be weak or dishonest, they have every right to form and express that opinion. If you compare, among conservatives, the work of Daniel Larison, who presents cogent, well-thought-out ideas and arguments with strong and coherent writing, with the work of Douthat and Kristol, well, one sort of wonders how the NYT goes about the task of hiring.
The constant pseudo-argument "well, what about [insert name here}" is not a strong argument. There is plenty of well deserved criticism of the atrocious work of Maureen Dowd, who is not a liberal. No one accuses Dowd of either strong writing or intellectual heft. If you want to compare liberals to conservatives at the NYT, use Paul Krugman. Feel free to criticize his work or his liberal leanings. Go ahead, take his column and show me where his arguments are weak, or where his writing sucks. Frank Rich, not a liberal, had a good column yesterday. Feel free to go through it for the arguments he made. Show us where he is wrong.
#3 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 12 Oct 2009 at 12:40 PM
JSF,
Megan has occasionally criticized Maureen Dowd on style points.
James,
Maureen Dowd, not a liberal? The Maureen Dowd who recently signed on to that acid test of slogan-chanting Democrats - that criticism of The One amounts to racism? Her politics, it is true, are not much more than an aesthetic sensibility, but that is true of a lot of urban liberal poltics - they put on opinions like a new outfit.
Finally, you don't mention Bob Herbert, whose columns manage to hyperventilate and at the same time remain dull. Krugman has been caught out repeatedly being less than honest with his readers - most of whom don't care. Frank Rich, the very personification of the stereotypical sniveling prep-school type whose opinions are clearly driven by class bigotry, also gets a pass at close readings. It was said of the novelist Ronald Firbank that he idolized the aristocracy, hated the bourgeoisie, and regarded the lower classes as his own private brothel. Ronald Firbank, meet Frank Rich.
#4 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 12 Oct 2009 at 03:15 PM
@Mark
You are grievously wrong on all counts. No, both Dowd and Herbert are purveyors of calcified upper crust conventional wisdom. They are not liberals at all. I am not going to defend one word of the writings of the odious Maureen Dowd. You make ludicrous, sweeping statements without an ounce of evidence or truth, which you are entitled to do because it is your opinion, of course. But your opinion does not equal facts or evidence.
You don't get to decide that people whom you don't like are liberals or not liberals. Neither Dowd nor Herbert are liberals.
Please show me where Paul Krugman has been "has been caught out repeatedly being less than honest with his readers." That's a complete load of hooey. Back it up. Dates, columns, and explain what is "less than honest" exactly with some countervailing facts. Until then, I'll consider your sweeping accusations as less than honest.
#5 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 12 Oct 2009 at 04:41 PM
James, let your foot meet your mouth:
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.
- New York Times “public editor” Daniel Okrent
#6 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Mon 12 Oct 2009 at 04:55 PM
- New York Times “public editor” Daniel Okrent
Ah, I knew you couldn't produce any evidence. Daniel Okrent's parting shot to Krugman has been torn apart and debunked in great detail, making a fool of Okrent and now you.. You've got to do better than that. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke. Flinging a load like DANIEL OKRENT!!!!! doesn't prove anything except you are dishonest and don't know what you are talking about. What kind of answer is that?
Come on. Back it up. Krugman. Dates, columns, and explain what is "less than honest" exactly with some countervailing facts.
#7 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 12 Oct 2009 at 07:02 PM
@James:
How would shaping, slicing and selectively citing facts that run counter to the facts that Krugman is accused of shaping, slicing and selectively citing do this argument any good? Surely it's banal at this point to note that one could employ a flotilla of statistics in the service of dishonesty.
And are you in the habit of keeping a detailed notebook--including dates, columns, and countervailing facts--of the writers you suspect of being less than honest, should you need to break them out at a moment's notice? If you do, good for you. Most of us don't. Which makes demanding them a convenient way of stopping an discussion.
But off the top of my head: a few months ago, Krugman got a lot of mileage out of a poll that showed a sizable majority of Americans supported a public option. The idea that any conclusions about the wisdom of such a policy could be drawn from this poll was then--to borrow your phrase--"torn apart and debunked in great detail" by others, who pointed out that American poll respondents are in favor of just about any expansion of government service provided the questions don't come with anyy riders about what these increases will actually *cost*. Similar majorities of Americans are in favor of tax cuts, for instance, a position which seems, at least prima facie, to be inconsistent with support for a public option. (FYI--vast majorities of Americans are also in favor of puppies, rainbows, and free love.)
Oh, and another "less than honest" thing Krugman frequently does is the ad hominem attack. You should be familiar with these from your comments above. Specifically, Krugman often gets the positions of his opponents more or less correct, but then assigns to them the worst possible motivations for those positions. Again, I'm embarrassingly unprepared with MLA-style citations here. Suffice it to say, if you threw a rock at the Krugman archives, you'd probably hit an example of this. (To be charitable to Krugman, though, I honestly think he just can't imagine how a decent human being could be a conservative).
Oh, and I'd be interested to hear more about what makes Daniel Okrent such a "flung load". By the breathtakingly broad and sweeping terms of your characterization, it sounds as if this is the universal consensus. But perhaps you could provide some columns, dates, and countervailing facts?
@Megan
Aren't (1), (2), (5), and (8) hallmarks of the Times op-ed page?
#8 Posted by D.R. Foster, CJR on Mon 12 Oct 2009 at 08:17 PM
I dunno. I don't find him particularly bright nor talented. He does work awfully hard at being original for its own sake, to inject thoughts and motives into him.
#9 Posted by daphnechyprious, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 02:02 AM
How would shaping, slicing and selectively citing facts that run counter to the facts that Krugman is accused of shaping, slicing and selectively citing do this argument any good?
Because when one smears someone's character by saying he "has been caught out repeatedly being less than honest with his readers" one ought to be able to back it up with facts and examples.. Otherwise, you know, one is being less than honest. It makes the accuser out to be a liar.
Oh! Krugman was caught citing a poll you didn't like at some point! When was this? Has the poll been debunked? Did he cite it in a dishonest way? Who put out the poll? Who debunked the poll? You don't have much of a case unless you show me where Krugman cited a poll that was "debunked" BEFORE he cited it. It appears that you didn't like the poll, so you accuse Krugman of dishonesty. But people are allowed to cite polls which haven't been debunked, even if you don't like them, especially in an opinion column, okay? That's hardly a case for Krugman being "dishonest." It's a ludicrous and preposterous accusation, actually.
Really? Krugman makes ad hominem attacks? When did he do that? He assigns motives? I haven't seen this, ahem, Nobel Prize winner in Economics issue ad hominem attacks. I know that it is a favorite accusation without foundation of you rightwingers. No, it is you that is accusing Krugman of dishonesty, I'm calling you out on that hooey, YOU tell ME where he did that. I say the accusation that Krugman "assigns to them the worst possible motivations for those positions" is without foundation. I say he DOESN'T issue so-called ad hominem attacks. You are wrong. Show me.
Okrent, under pressure after his parting shot smearing Krugman, was hard-pressed to provide any evidence of Krugman's "dishonesty." He accused Krugman of "“blending, without explanation, numbers from the household survey and the establishment survey" from the US Census data on unemployment. Turns out Krugman didn't do that and Okrent was wrong!! hahahahaha. Mr Okrent also accused Krugman of using government Labor Statistics data in a way that some obscure paper back in 1995 which Krugman had never heard of thought it shouldn't be used, but in a way that is commonly used, even now. Again, Okrent was hooted off the stage. hahahahahaha
Subsequently, Okrent made the ludicrous accusation that Krugman "suggestively conflates “retirement income” and “social security benefits” without sufficient explanation." Another silly, ludicrous accusation by a dishonest but desperate man. You talk about flop sweat!!! hahahaha As I said, the pathetic Okrent was hooted off the stage with his tail between his legs, muttering that he couldn't argue that Krugman's economic opinions were wrong because he didn't know anything about economics. Then finally Okrent triumphantly found an instance where Krugman made a minor error reading numbers from a table. Victory!!!!!! Krugman corrected the error, of course, but not in a way that satisfied Okrent.
When you fling unfounded character smears around about people, you look like a liar unless you can provide evidence. So people like you who would do that, really ought to be prepared with MLA-style, or any other style, citations.
Krugman-Okrent is detailed here:
New Public Editor Hosts Paul Krugman-Daniel Okrent Debate - The Public Editor’s Journal Blog - NYTimes.com
#10 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 03:51 AM
Megan Garber's column is so juvenile and silly (i.e., nobody can comment on a Obama's mindset but Obama himself) that it makes me wonder if CJR has started an internship for high school sophomores.
#11 Posted by Mike Sundown, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 03:52 AM
Megan Garber's column is so juvenile and silly (i.e., nobody can comment on a Obama's mindset but Obama himself) that it makes me wonder if CJR has started an internship for high school sophomores.
#12 Posted by Mike Sundown, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 03:54 AM
@Mike Sundown: You are a very good guesser. Megan is a bright and determined young lady, and we're happy to have her with us here at CJR, even though she is only able to come in for two afternoons per week, what with all her other obligations like geometry homework, driver's ed lessons, and field hockey practice.
#13 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 12:18 PM
I tihnk that's the first time I've been laughed at ("hahahahahaha") in print. Or maybe he's just trying to illustrate that he's a madman?
And Megan I'm sure gets that a lot, but only because she has such a baby face.
#14 Posted by D.R. Foster, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 04:27 PM
Maybe when she grows up, Megan will learn the difference between critiquing journalism and promoting her own political views. But that might require counsel from an honest and wise editor or faculty advisor, so don't bet on it.
#15 Posted by mike sundown, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 08:53 PM
Maybe when she grows up, Megan will learn the difference between critiquing journalism and promoting her own political views. But that might require counsel from an honest and wise editor or faculty advisor, so don't bet on it.
#16 Posted by mike sundown, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 08:55 PM
James, I really don't have time to produce the research paper you require. That's CJR's job. All I can say to readers who do not think Bob Herbert is on the Left politically, and may therefore look askance at James' comment may be referred to Okrent's column and the reactions to it, to Mickey Kaus' occasional shots at Krugman's mathematical methods at the pro-Democratic 'Slate', and National Review's periodic 'Krugman Watch' columns, and then make up their own minds.
It is indisputable that Krugman consulted with Enron (fee: $50,000) while slamming some Bush people for accepting Enron money, and only owned up to it after it was revealed by others. It is not in dispute that Krugman called for a 'housing bubble' in 2002 as a solution to that recession (which was about over by that point). Krugman is a talented partisan, and has the partisan's flaws, notably the inability to admit a mistake. Given his record and his prominence, some of us are suggesting that he deserves the close reading given to Brooks and Douthat.
Finally, you seem not to notice that Garber's column invited criticism not because she questioned Douthat on 'facts', but because of her style critique. "Brazen hyperole" and other matters of argument presentation. The point that I and others on this thread began with is that the Times' left-leaning columnist are not held to this kind of standard (though as I noted, Garber has made fun of Dowd on occasion), which has the aroma of "I can't say that my real beef is ideological, because our critiques are ostensibly non-partisan, so I'll attack on the basis of style and logic."
#17 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 14 Oct 2009 at 12:42 PM
@Mark Richard
Yeah, that's what I thought. You can't produce a single word in support of your character assassination and lies about Paul Krugman. You throw out this pile of bull and you can't back up a single word. That means that you are STILL telling lies. Tsk tsk. Shame on you.
Uh, yeah, Mickey Kaus is some real mathematical genius. What is his background to criticize anyone's (a Nobel prizewinner!) mathematical methods in economics? Hmm? And we are supposed to take that seriously, why?
I already dispensed with your rehashing of Okrent's character assassination.
Oh! And Krugman "called for" a housing bubble, did he? Yeah, um, Paul Krugman says, Hey! Let's all have a housing bubble! And BOOM! Everyone went along and there Krugman singlehandedly caused the trillion dollar housing bubble, according to you. Yeah, um, that was all Krugman's fault! :::HUGE EYEROLL!!::
And then hmm. let's see. In 1999, Krugman was on the Enron Board of Directors, and they paid him. Yeah, no one in the history of American business has ever been a paid consultant on a board of directors of a large corporation! Wow! You really dig out the evidence don't you? Except, uh, what's that supposed to prove? You know, so what?
Please describe why it was in any way unethical for Krugman to consult with a major American corporation, years before it went bankrupt. Please describe in detail anything the Paul Krugman did that was unethical or illegal about someone sitting on an advisory board of a major corporation, and being paid for that?
Another of your lies. Krugman was paid $37,500, not $50,000 for his work on the Enron board, which also included former Bush administration officials and rightwing ideologues from AEI as well, I might add.
Here is Krugman talking about the details of your character assassination, it's been rehashed time and again. The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page
You haven't backed up a single thing that you have said about Paul Krugman or anything else. You are a character assassin that can not even offer a shred of evidence for your smears and character assassination. You are still lying. Stop lying.
#18 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 16 Oct 2009 at 06:59 AM
I'll leave it to readers who don't hyperventilate online to judge whether the simple point - that Krugman merits the same close reading that is accorded to Ross Douthat - has any validity. I referred those readers both to Okrent's column and others, as well as to James' defense of Krugman, so that they can make up their own minds if interested.
Hmm, $50K instead of $37.5 as Krugman's Enron fee . . . as I think you know, the fee was widely reported as $50K until Krugman fessed up and said it was 'only' $37.5K. So sue me. The point still stands, I believe - that Krugman criticizes others for doing things he himself has done, and does not mention his own activities in the context. I didn't even bother to note that Krugman, in his partisan-columnist persona, spent a lot of time charging that Reagan's 1980 campaign was based on 'racism' - though Krugman took a job in this 'racist' administration immediately after it came to power. He leaves himself wide open to charges of hypocrisy, having risen to wealth and fame for doing what he slams others for doing. As for what I suppose is expected to be my awe at the Nobel Prize (lol), Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize, too, as have other right-leaning economists. I expect that doesn't exempt Friedman's political viewpoints from criticism, or suggest that his NEWSWEEK columns could not be challenged on a factual basis.
Reading comprehension point #1 would note that I didn't say Krugman 'caused' the recession. I said he called for a housing bubble some years ago. In the past year, we have had one and seen the results. This is in the category of 'calling attention to his judgement'. Paul Krugman, as I said, is a talented partisan, but a partisan with a particular point of view and set of interests . . . Reading comprehension point #2 is that I noted Megan Garber's piece had a lot of 'style' criticisms in it, and not so much in the way of 'fact-checking' - so how about some discussion of the presentation styles of Krugman and Herbert? Any hyperbole in their works?
A post is not a research paper, and you coud also be called out on this score. Sorry if I have a life and no time to satisfy the unsatisfiable ideologues who show up on these sites, demanding a lot of additonal 'data'. My posts are usually framed as skeptical questions, if you actually read them, and James didn't really cite any big 'lies' or challenge in a substantive way my points about reasons to read Krugman as well as any other Times columnist skeptically. It's a complicated world. People disagree. It's not as simple-minded as 'truth' vs. 'lies' in most cases. In the case of some actual lying, CNN is apologizing to Rush Limbaugh for retailing some made-up quotes used by the truth-telling Left (lol) to derail his attempt to join a group trying to keep the Rams in St. Louis. I look forward to your denunciation of this nastiness - far more nasty than anything you accuse me of doing.
#19 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 16 Oct 2009 at 01:49 PM
You lied and smeared the character of Paul Krugman, asserting that he engaged is falsehood and distortions, and when asked for evidence you produced nothing, not a shred of substantiation for you character assassination. Both Daniel Okrent and Donald Luskin's unfounded character assassinations, repeatedly debunked and shown to be untrue with links provided by me, were repeated by you and you ought to apologize for them. You are a liar of the worst kind.
#20 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 16 Oct 2009 at 02:13 PM
Mark, just admit you were wrong. Paul Krugman has never and will never be credibly accused of misrepresenting issues and bating square facts to fit into round holes just so that he can justify his beliefs. He is, after all, a Nobel winning economist and we have all seen just how selective the Nobel committee can be when handing out awards.
You know what they say about arguing with fools: they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
#21 Posted by Mike h, CJR on Fri 16 Oct 2009 at 02:31 PM
James, I have sneaking suspicion you actually ARE Paul Krugman. Your logic and writing style are so similar it's uncanny.
#22 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sat 17 Oct 2009 at 07:30 AM