Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? (Danny Okrent Jumps the Shark Once Again Edition)

Paul Krugman writes:

My thingie and Okrent's reply are up:

http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/thepubliceditor/publiceditorswebjournal/index.html

Something you can quote me on:

"Okrent is lying to cover his mistake when he accused me of blending data from the household and establishment surveys. He now claims that he was only referring to my estimate of how many payroll jobs the economy needs to add per month [to keep labor market conditions from deteriorating], which for some reason he thinks is based on the household survey.

"But that's not what he said to me: he claimed that the basic numbers I gave on job growth were mix-and-match. In fact, in our correspondence, when I said that it was all payroll data, he declared that "your insistence that you relied only on one set of numbers is very puzzling. I don't see how the math works any other way; maybe you could further enlighten me."

"In other words, he screwed up completely..."

And here, in the extended entry, are Krugman and Okrent, with a few of my annotations:

The New York Times: Public Editor's Web Journal (Forum/Message Board): Daniel Okrent, in his May 22 farewell column as the first public editor of The New York Times, criticized Paul Krugman, an Op-Ed columnist for the newspaper. Prof. Krugman, who disputed the validity of Mr. Okrent's comments in the public editor's regular reader-letters column in The Times on Sunday, elaborated in a longer e-mail message for this Web Journal -- with the understanding that Mr. Okrent's response would be posted simultaneously.

* * *

Krugman Lays Out Why He Believes Okrent Was Wrong

When I asked Daniel Okrent for the specifics behind his final attack, he offered two examples of what he claimed was improper use of numbers. This was the first time I heard from him, or anyone else, about either alleged problem.

Let me start with the example that, I think, sheds most light on what is going on: Mr. Okrent's claim that I engaged in "blending, without explanation, numbers from the household survey and the establishment survey -- apples and oranges -- apparently in order to make a more vivid political point about Bush (5/25/04)."

He's referring to two different surveys conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which provide alternative estimates of employment. Some people play games by mixing and matching numbers from the two surveys, and Mr. Okrent has apparently spent the past year firmly believing (without having checked with me) that I did the same thing, to score political points. But I didn't. All the numbers in my 5/25/04 column came from the establishment survey.

Moreover, I not only played fair with my readers, I urged them to check the data for themselves. Here's what I wrote in the column:

"Go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site at stats.bls.gov. Click on 'U.S. economy at a glance,' then on the green dinosaur next to 'Change in payroll employment' for a 10-year chart of monthly job gains and losses."

If Mr. Okrent had done that, he would have seen for himself that what I said about job growth was true.

For his other example, Mr. Okrent criticized me for "asserting that the 40 percent unemployed out of work for more than 15 weeks was a 20-year record" (2/10/04, 3/12/04) without acknowledging that the comparison only applies back to the redesign of the CPS questionnaire. See Polivka and Miller, "The CPS After Redesign," on the BLS Web site.

This sounds like another accusation that I blended two sources of data, without telling readers. In fact, all I did was use the Bureau of Labor Statistics data series on long-term unemployment, which is available on the BLS Web site, where there is no indication given to the public of any problem with comparisons between different time periods. Lou Uchitelle did the same thing in an article published in the New York Times business section, "The New Profile of the Long-Term Unemployed", two days after Mr. Okrent's blast. That article made the same point that I did in the columns Mr. Okrent criticized: long-term unemployment is unusually high.

After Mr. Okrent directed me to Polivka and Miller, I checked it out; it's a 1995 research paper which suggested that the 1994 redesign of the Current Population Survey questionnaire might have raised estimates of long-term unemployment. It wasn't an official statement that pre-1994 comparisons are improper, and the BLS didn't consider the questions raised in that paper serious enough to warrant a warning for consumers of its data. Like most such consumers, I don't go hunting for research papers suggesting possible problems with the numbers unless the BLS says there's reason to be concerned otherwise, it would be impossible to get any work done. Let me also say that the issue is pretty trivial: adjusting the data might put long-term unemployment at a 10-year rather than 20-year high, but it's unarguably very high by historical standards.

To summarize: when I asked Mr. Okrent for evidence of my malfeasance, he provided one example in which his description of what I did was simply wrong, and another in which he accused me of pulling a fast one on readers, when all I did was use official data in a standard way.

In correspondence with Mr. Okrent, I pointed out that his specific attacks -- especially the blatantly wrong characterization of my 5/25/04 column -- were unfair. I asked him to do what he would have expected me to do, and admit that he had been in error. He refused.

Let me repeat that Mr. Okrent never raised these issues as public editor. He now says that he didn't because he "experienced your best-defense-is-a-good-offense approach, and found it futile to deal with it."

Maybe a description of some of my experiences with him will give some sample of what he found difficult to deal with.

On 6/8/04, I made a numerical mistake, reading from the wrong line in a table of tax rates during the Reagan years. Although the mistake didn't change the column's conclusions, I reluctantly issued a correction. But I forgot to use the word "correction," which I hear got Mr. Okrent upset.

Mr. Okrent questioned my assertion (10/12/04) that Congressional Budget Office estimates show tax cuts were responsible for two-thirds of the fiscal 2004 deficit. I explained that in each of its budget projections the CBO estimates how much of the change from its previous projection is due to changes in tax law, and that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities adds these numbers up to calculate the CBO's implied estimate of the overall cost of tax cuts since 2000. I provided Mr. Okrent with the data used for that calculation.

Mr. Okrent challenged my assertion (5/9/05) that the Bush Social Security "progressive indexing" plan would impose its largest percentage reductions in retirement income on middle-income workers.

I explained that the term "retirement income" normally refers to income from all sources, not just Social Security benefits (the Social Security Administration says on its Web site that "you should not count only on Social Security for your retirement income.") I supplied him with a study (pdf) that used Social Security Administration data to show that because high-income workers depend much less than middle-income workers on Social Security, they would have smaller percentage cuts in overall retirement income than middle-income workers. This was similar to a point I made, using different data, a week earlier (5/1/05), so I was surprised that Mr. Okrent even raised the issue.

If Mr. Okrent was unsatisfied with my explanations in these and other cases, it was his right to demand a fuller explanation, and, if he was still unsatisfied, to say something specific in his column.

I hope we aren't going to get into an extended period in which Mr. Okrent, who failed to air his concerns when that was his job, then failed even in private to provide examples that bear any resemblance to what he accused me of doing, keeps throwing out new accusations.

* * *

Okrent Responds

For a man who makes his living offering strong opinions, Paul Krugman seems peculiarly reluctant to grant the same privilege to others. And for a man who leads with his chin twice a week, he acts awfully surprised when someone takes a pop at it.

Because only a fool or a supply-sider would eagerly engage in a debate on economics with Prof. Krugman, I'll try to eschew argument and stick to facts -- or, at least, the sort of statements that he himself represents as purely factual:

1. I offered him only three examples of "shaping, slicing and selectively citing" (for some reason, he's left one out of his rebuttal) Note: the example Krugman left out is an Okrent complaint that is not about numbers at all--Okrent's complaint Krugman called a study by Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters a "Treasury Study" rather than a "study by Treasury Department economists." But the study was much more than a mere academic study by Treasury underling economists. It was a study commissioned by ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and reviewed by then-OMB Director Mitch Daniels and ex-NEC head Larry Lindsey--but that's too long to get into a 700 word column

CNN: The Financial Times reported Thursday that the Gokhale-Smetters study was commissioned by Paul O'Neill when he was treasury secretary, and Smetters told the paper that White House advisers Lawrence Lindsey and Mitch Daniels read and were 'very engaged' with it. The Treasury Department Thursday denied having anything to do with the study, which is likely to be published by the AEI in July, and Gokhale said it was meant only to be a 'talk piece.'

because I was at home when he began bombarding me with outraged demands for retraction and apology; I'd completed my tenure as public editor the preceding week, and did not have any files with me. When I had the chance to consult some of my reader mail later in the week, some of his greatest mis-hits immediately came to the fore. I'll get to a few of those in point No. 5, below.

2. This was the first he heard from me on these specific issues partly because I learned early on in this job that Prof. Krugman would likely be more willing to contribute to the Frist for President campaign than to acknowledge the possibility of error. When he says he agreed "reluctantly" to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word "reluctantly"; I can't come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism. But I laid off for so long because I also believe that columnists are entitled by their mandate to engage in the unfair use of statistics, the misleading representation of opposing positions, and the conscious withholding of contrary data. But because they're entitled doesn't mean I or you have to like it, or think it's good for the newspaper.

3. The mixing of household and establishment numbers in his 5/25/04 column: Missing from the BLS chart he cites is any number that even resembles the 140,000 new jobs each month needed to keep up with the growing population a statistic he cites in the column, and upon which he seems to have based some of his computations. To my knowledge, that number only appeared in the household survey.

Note: to my--certain--knowledge, that number appears in neither the household nor the establishment survey: it's an estimate of the current trend growth rate of payroll employment driven by rising population. I have no idea who could have told Okrent it came from the household survey, or why.

4. The Polivka-Miller paper: On the substance, readers can come to their own conclusions by examining the report themselves, particularly the chart and related narrative addressing Duration of Unemployment on page 23 (pdf).

Note: Polivka and Miller's numbers imply that the 1994 CPS survey redesign raised the reported average duration of unemployment by a week. Unemployment duration is reported at 19.6 weeks today. It averaged 15.4 weeks in the 1984-1993 decade before the survey redesign, and 14.2 weeks in the decade before that. It's not quantitatively important.

On Prof. Krugman's defense of his unfamiliarity with it, he's effectively saying, "If I didn't know about it, it must not be important." This is a polemicist's dodge; no self-respecting journalist would ever make such an argument.

5. Some other examples of Krugmania that popped out of my copious files:

His 1/27/04 assertion that the cost of unemployment insurance "automatically" adds to the federal deficit. This two-fer misrepresents a pair of facts: that unemployment insurance is largely borne by the states, and that major federal contributions to the states come about only because of an act of Congress, which is hardly automatic.

His 2/3/04 assertion that tax proposals offered by Democrats would help the 77 pecent of taxpayers in the 15 percent bracket or less. The most recent generally accepted figures available at the time indicated that the number was actually 64 percent. Note: I believe that 77% of *all* taxpayers are in the 15% bracket or less; 64% of those who pay *income* taxes to the Treasury are in the 15% bracket or less; there are a bunch of people who pay taxes but not income taxes.

A very recent example that nonetheless escaped my memory until Prof. Krugman generously reminded me of it in his letter: His 5/9/05 column on progressive indexing. The column itself (without the ex post facto explanation) suggestively conflates "retirement income" and "social security benefits" without sufficient explanation, but with plenty of apparent point-making.

Believe me -- I could go on, as could a number of readers more sophisticated about economic matters than I am. (Among these are several who, like me, generally align themselves politically with Prof. Krugman, but feel he does himself and his cause no good when he heeds the roaring approval of his acolytes and dismisses his critics as ideologically motivated.) But I don't want to engage in an extended debate any more than Prof. Krugman says he does. If he replies to this statement, as I imagine he will, I'll let him have what he always insists on keeping for himself: the last word.

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.

Comments

[Rob]

It's been said before, many times, many ways, but Dan Okrent is an idiot.

[SP]

All roads lead to the stupidest man on Earth- note Jesse Taylor's comment that Luskin claims to have had a 40000 word correspondence with Okrent.
Pandagon: http://www.pandagon.net/archives/2005/05/mash_notes.html
Luskin's claim: http://nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200505310911.asp
(Damn lack of hyperlinks)
Okrent got a lot of his smears from a stupid man, and if you quote a stupid man you're pretty stupid yourself. Okrent, of course, can't admit the source of his misinformation, lest everyone know for certain that he's stupid.

[PaulC]

Okrent and Krugman aren't even speaking the same language. Okrent says that Krugman shouldn't be surprised if someone "takes a pop" at him for having a strong opinion, because Okrent sees the whole thing as political jousting. Krugman, whether or not readers agree, believes everything he says and takes pains to get others to concede the validity of his argument. Maybe he shouldn't be surprised if they don't get it, but he can't help himself from responding.

I've seen the criticism made before that it is one of Krugman's "failings" that gets into these extracurricular pissing matches. On the contrary, I think it is one of his most humanizing traits, and one the reasons he stands head and shoulders above his feckless colleagues in liberal punditry. I've read few columnists that convince me that they care so much about what they have to say.

[Ivor the Engine Driver]

Exactly when was it that NYT stopped being a good newspaper and started being a toilet bowl with various types of Millers and Okrents floating around in it?

[pgl]

Good grief! Emotions are running out of control here. If Okrent had a full time "Truth Squad" smear campaign ran at him (Luskin the Liar attacking Dr. Krugman), he'd be a lot more careful. Now if Okrent decided to use his poison pen to go after David Brooks and Mr. Tierney, maybe it would be a lot more productive.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Ouch. Odd that Okrent would criticize Krugman for being stubborn. It's one thing to be stubborn and right, but it's another thing altogether to be stubborn and keep getting things wrong.

[grytpype]

>Okrent decided to use his poison pen to go after David Brooks

Right, why do Bobo and Flathead get a pass? Talk about "leading with your chin twice a week," Jeebus...

[gmoke]

I've met Okrent. My personal impression is that he is a slimey individual who tried to feed me BS. Reading his reply to Krugman, I see a lot of weasel wording and shiv tactics:

"For a man who makes his living offering strong opinions, Paul Krugman seems peculiarly reluctant to grant the same privilege to others."

This from a man who criticized Krugman without any specifics whatsoever.

"Ill try to eschew argument and stick to facts or, at least, the sort of statements that he himself represents as purely factual..."

I leave it to any reader to figure ou the fact to argument ratios in Okrent's reply.

"... he began bombarding me with outraged demands for retraction and apology..."

"This was the first he heard from me on these specific issues partly because I learned early on in this job that Prof. Krugman would likely be more willing to contribute to the Frist for President campaign than to acknowledge the possibility of error. When he says he agreed reluctantly to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word reluctantly; I cant come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism."

"On Prof. Krugmans defense of his unfamiliarity with it, hes effectively saying, If I didnt know about it, it must not be important. This is a polemicists dodge; no self-respecting journalist would ever make such an argument."

Sounds like standard CYA language from Okrent to me.

"But I dont want to engage in an extended debate any more than Prof. Krugman says he does. If he replies to this statement, as I imagine he will, Ill let him have what he always insists on keeping for himself: the last word."

"Krugman says he does" is a cheap dig from a cheap man.

Okrent is an example of one of my favorite movie quotes. Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy are at a society party. Edgar says, "Charlie, here we are among the cream of society. Do you know why they call it the cream of society. It's because cream rises to the top."

Charlie answers, "Yeah, so does the scum."

[Anon]

The larger point is that Okrent is just a symptom of the malaise affecting so many media outlets recently. He is effectively a Politburo minder for the New York Times. Media outlets across the U.S. are kowtowing to the permanent Republican majority in Washington; CBS, Newsweek, NYT, etc. The exact methods differ for each outlet, but the basics are the same: demonstrate to the powers-that-be that they are making an effort to come into political correctness with the Republican worldview. It does not have to be a huge effort; only a modest one is required. Usually, self-flagellation is the preferred method for abasement. Thus, the hiring of Okrent by a newspaper which is accurate more often than most. Okrent did a piss-poor job, meandering around and talking vaguely of criticisms here and criticisms there, but the real point of hiring him was just a symbolic act directed toward Washington.

[abf]

Okrent's points, moreover, never have anything to do with the thrust of Krugman's arguments and in no way affect K's conclusions:
1) The 1/27/04 column: Okrent objects to the word "automatically," and apparently wishes K had written, "recently and for the past 60 years," because, lord knows, things could change in the future.
2) The 2/3/04 column: Krugman was talking about "all taxpayers" and Okrent wishes he were talking about "all taxpayers who pay income taxes," a distinction that doesn't affect K's arg at all.
3) The 5/25/04 column: Okrent is upset that a statistic ("140,000 new jobs each month," which is mentioned in one sentence, near the end of the article) isn't on a chart where K said readers could find other, different information.
4) The 5/9/05 column: Okrent admits he didn't understand a term ("retirement income"), the clarified definition of which doesn't affect K's argument.

Quibbles, mere quibbles, without merit and of no significance.

[Paul G. Brown]

On the "retirement income" verses "Social Security" bit:

Okrent:

"A very recent example that nonetheless escaped my memory until Prof. Krugman generously reminded me of it in his letter: His 5/9/05 column on progressive indexing. The column itself (without the ex post facto explanation) suggestively conflates “retirement income” and “social security benefits” without sufficient explanation, but with plenty of apparent point-making."

Krugman wrote:

"But defenders of Mr. Bush's Social Security plan now portray benefit cuts for anyone making more than $20,000 a year, cuts that will have their biggest percentage impact on the retirement income of people making about $60,000 a year, as cuts for the wealthy."

Krugman is not conflating "retirement income" with Social Security. It takes a lazy or willful misreading of what PK wrote to arrive at that conclusion. Placing a contrasting term in a subjunctive clause is one way to emphasize a difference!

[Clif]

That Okrent thinks that the 140,000 monthly job growth number comes from the household survey makes an open and shut case that he is a complete idiot and hasn't a single clue concerning anything he's written about in his response. I stopped reading his "reply" after I came to that schoolboy howler.

[pinson]

Thanks for the clarifying notes, Brad. I read the whole exchange earlier today and didn't really catch what point Okrent was trying to make about the household survey numbers. That 140,000/month number is the same one Atrios uses constantly to gauge monthly job reports. It would be interesting to know who's reponsible for it - whether it's just generally understood based on current population, or whether it's a published number put out by the government.

Poor Okrent. Dead wrong in public. You'd think the guy who invented rotisserie baseball would be a little more careful in making assumptions about numbers. Or at least read the source material to make sure it's saying what he says it's saying. I'm sure the next round will be wildly enterntaining.

[Volvo Liberal]

Okrent a two-bit liar? I'm shocked. Just shocked.

Anyone hear from the estimable Prof. Jay Rosen, Danny Okrent's biggest fan?

-

[chad]

A Fox News gig can't be far off for Okrent.

[ketemphor]

Just as a quick note on the Polivka-Miller paper, Okrent invites us to make up our minds based on the pdf itself. I was able to make up my mind on its relevance without going past the first page, where it explicitly notes:
"The views in this paper are those of the authors,
and do not represent official BLS policy"

[jerry]

With all due respect to Paul Krugman, in part because of my own ignorance, what I couldn't believe was this statement of Okrent's, "But I laid off for so long because I also believe that columnists are entitled by their mandate to engage in the unfair use of statistics, the misleading representation of opposing positions, and the conscious withholding of contrary data. But because they’re entitled doesn’t mean I or you have to like it, or think it’s good for the newspaper."

WTF? He believes columnists have a mandate that allows them the unfair use of stats, misrepresentation, and witholding of contrary data?

My one question, does Byron Calame believe that?

[Kuas]

As Krugman himself pointed out in an earlier column, hell hath no fury like a scammer exposed! I doubt it would be possible to improve upon Okrent's immitation of a cornered weasel.

[zen_less]

Geez, wasn't the thrust of Okrent's criticism that Krugman selectively used facts in a way that made it easier for his critics? Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall Michelle Malkin ever screaming that Krugman "claims cost of unemployment insurance "automatically" adds to the federal deficit, when it really takes an act of Congress." That is WAY above her head. All his criticism are niggling and don't in any way change the nature of his arguments. Okrent is just like the right wing, forever in an extended game of "gotcha"

[Billmon]

"Some other examples of Krugmania that popped out of my copious files . . . "

1. Throw mud.

2. See if mud sticks.

3. If mud does not stick, repeat step 1.

[P O'Neill]

Note Okrent's telltale usage of the term "Krugmania," an old trick of the Right to portray PK as delusional because he is telling the truth.

For instance, Luskin did it here:

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2003_10_26_chronArchive.asp

KRUGMANIA EVERYWHERE! A veritable efflorescence of Krugman crit!

[AlBaz]

Even though it really doesn't matter. Krugman is/was quite capable of defending himself against Judy Miller protecting Okrent:

"Numerous bloggers and critics of the paper--including myself--can testify to what Donald Luskin called a "productive relationship" with Okrent, who seems genuinely interested in what we have to say. (Ask Robert Cox.) This in itself is new. We'll have to establish that all over again with Byron E. Calame, but I am hopeful it will happen." -- Jay Rosen

Where could Okrent have gotten his talking points from? Hmmm... I wonder.

[kth]

Maybe Mr Okrent would be so kind as to tell us who his research assistant is (since there's no way he found the CPS paper by himself), so Krugman can debate that guy (probably Luskin) and hence eliminate the middleman.

[Ottnott]

All you have to know about Okrent is this: the public editor for the NY Times, felt the need to publish excerpts of a private email from a reader (i.e. a member of the public), along with the reader's name and town.

Yep, Okrent is such an insecure weasel that hid behind his column inches in the NY Times to strike back at a private individula who had committed the great sin of annoying Okrent with an email.

Knowing that, it is not the least surprising that Okrent waited until he was running out the door before he dared call Krugman names.

[kth]

But let's remember: Okrent's appointment was always about appeasing conservatives. Problems that didn't fall under the rubric of "liberal media bias" or "Howell Raines' fault" clearly weren't part of the job description.

[jon st]

I think its as simple as this: Okrent (OK-I'm for Rent))now is gearing up to get the big fees on the lecture tour. And if he disses 'Liberals' enough, the real gold of Fox news awaits him. Think how valuable he would be over there?

[pgl]

Just read Luskin over at NRO. So many lies, so little time.

[YinYang]

Pinson,

As Brad notes, the 140,000 number is

"an estimate of the current trend growth rate of payroll employment driven by rising population."

Sir Al doesn't even look at the household number because even he knows it's bunk (for example, when the jobs number was REALLY low, but the household number was really high, the Republican talking points emphasized the household number as an indication that the economy was kicking into high gear. But, Al was forced to dispell that BS during one of his meetings) . Of course, most of the job numbers are a mirage, but some have more depth than others.

But, to my knowledge, all the economists use the 140,000 number to determine how strong/weak the new jobs number is. That is, if the number is close to or below 140K, we're actually losing jobs. In other words, I look at 140K new jobs as zero because there is likely no new job opportunity for me. For Okrent to even mention the household survey speaks more about himself than the argument he is attempting to make.

[Anderson]

It's like Krugman's a biologist and Okrent can't understand why he won't concede ID is an arguable alternative.

The thing that pisses PK off about the Bushies is that they're not confining themselves to the debatable issues in economics, of which there are (doubtless?) many. Instead, they're denying that 2 + 2 = 4. Okrent can't understand why PK has such strong views on this "addition" thing & won't allow for opposed strong views.

[Bruce]

This is a shameful expose of Okrent's petulance and stupidity, but perhaps the worst of it is he says he was reluctant to call Krugman on any previous "errors" because he was....what? afraid he would get mad and defend himself? Yikes, is this the spineless wimp the NY Times decided should represent the public's viewpoint?
Krugman has FAR more credibility to me than any other columnist I read. Of course he has a point of view! But he tells the truth, using accurate information. If the best Okrent could come up with are those irrelevancies, that proves the point. When is the same level of scrutiny going to be applied to Tierney, who thinks wisdom is the ability to extrapolate one anecdote to the entire universe?

[Robert Waldmann]

The UI effect on the federal deficit is not automatic seems to me to be one valid point. It is very standard to call Unemployment Insurance an automatic stabilizer. I think Krugman made a mistake there confusing the automatic effect on state deficits with the not automatic effect on the federal deficit. This is not dishonesty, so it is not an example that supports Okrent's original claim. I don't know about Krugman but I thought the federal contribution to Unemployment Insurance was an entitlement. Okrent is a dishonest ignorant idiot, but I'm ignorant too.

On the other points, Okrent is clearly totally wrong and Krugman totally right. I am amazed at Okrent's display of ignorance, stupidity nastiness and dishonesty. OK I said I was ignorant, but I can't remember a more pathetic effort at debate. He could have saved his honor by saying he made an honest mistake. I guess he prefers a job as a dishonest atack pundit (I too guess at Fox).

Also Okrent's weird mix of amazing ignorance (140,000 number from the CPS ?!?) and obscure knowledge (the P.M. paper) makes it very hard to doubt that he began looking for his examples recently and is lying when he claims that he had them on file. I gues he counts unread e-mails from Luskin as files.

Ah one more Okrent howler. Krugman doesn't "make his
living" writing op eds. For one thing he has a day job
teaching economics. For another he makes $ 20,000 a pop for speaches to firms full of people who don't want to end up poor and stupid. Krugman is sacrificing income (lots of it) in order to write for the Times. The fact that he is so much better at his side activity than people who do it as their job must get on peoples nerves, but it isn't his fault that he is 10 times smarter than they are (they not including Okrent who is no where near one tenth as smart as Krugman).

[della Rovere]

the whole episode leaves me in shock. nothing Krugman did (EVEN from the peculiar vantage point of Okrent in his reply above) justifies the sort of nasty unsubstantiated attack Okrent made initially and then repeats at the end of his reply above. this whole gratuitous attack from the "public editor" is to my mind astonishing and leaves me in no doubt as to the nature of the NYT "problem". i may read it for a few of the columnists but it is not a newspaper.

[piotr]

I will offer a charitable interpretation (I do not know if true or false). It is highly possible that Okrent is not an economist, professional or amateur. If so, then the gems like Polivka and Miller paper come from the correspondence with the readers. Okrent is not an idiot, so he sticked only to the complaints that are not outright false.

However, there is a gap between not being an idiot and actually following an argument. If you do not follow an argument, you have no idea to what extend it relies on a particular fact or a number.

Suppose that Krugman is saying good things about a proposal that benefits 77% of lower income taxpayers, in contrast to GOP proposals that benefits merely 70%. Were it so, the revelation that 77% is actually 64% totally undermines his points. Or not, if Krugman compares oranges and oranges and the competing 70% is "in truth" only 58%. It takes some numeracy to make a judgement. My experience is that journalists make mistakes by a factor of 1000 on regular basis (suppose that they report on a discovery of a new gas field, then it is totally random if they report millions of cubic feet, or billions, or trillions).

Modest proposal: let us score it Krugman 7, Okrent 3. Even if Polivka-Miller paper was not very relevant, it was an erudite point. What is important is that we get a "silver standard" to measure economic comments and spins from GOP side.

[Keith M Ellis]

I didn't follow Okrent closely. Most of what I know about his tenure at NYT is from Jack Shafer's critique of Okrent and the NYT. And from that perspective, I don't see this "Okrent as a shill for the right wing" argument that appears in these comments. It's my impression that Okrent wasn't aggressive enough, but was more aggressive in criticizing the Times than most people expected. I can't imagine doing that job, it seems to me that you would make nothing but enemies, everywhere.

If Okrent was misled by Luskin, then he should figure that out and apologize. But, especially given the mindset displayed above, I can't imagine Krugman *not* being anything but the biggest pain in the ass amongst all the people at NYT that Okrent would have to deal with in his role as public editor. I'd bet a hundred dollars that the email correspondence between the two would show that a) Krugman was factually in the right; and b) Krugman was an asshole about it.

[Peter]

I've read just about everything Okrent and Krugman have published in the NYTimes, and I've met both of them. I think Okrent is a kind, funny, non-ideoological writer who tried very, very hard to do a difficult job. I also agree he's off base in his criticism of Krugman, but that doesn't make him evil, stupid, or a weasel. It just makes him wrong in this instance.

As for Krugman... well, I believe that he is exactly the extremely defensive, extremely stubborn, exceptionally proud man Okrent says he is. And I have gotten frustrated with some of his columns, in which he made sweeping condemnations of those people he opposes, with not even a mention, let alone a serious refutation, of their arguments. However, as said, in this instance, he is in the right.

If anything, I think Okrent conflated a sin against manners with a sin against substance. An error, I think, but a forgiveable error.

[ken melvin]

Tomlinson, Okrent, now Calame; what difference? Karl has the phone number of each.

[pthom]

I don't understand why Okrent had so much trrouble understanding the PK column on progressive indexing. I remember when reading it that it was absolutely clear PK was referrring to TOTAL RETIREMENT INCOME and not the narrower subset SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME. The whole point of the article was to compare those who subsist mainly on SS income with those who don't rely on it. To miss this point, was to miss the proverbial sore thumb. Okrent interpreted (incorrectly) where simple observation was all that was required. Is it his agenda that apparently obscures his comprehension? The vitriol with which he replies to PK's legitimate complaint indicates an affirmative answer to that question.

[Hank Essay]

The comments of Peter and Keith Ellis above are quite instructive. Both thoughfully written, the comments point out that KRUGMAN was right, but that he was mean or nasty about it, etc., etc.

But the point of this whole charade is this:

1) KRUGMAN was RIGHT

2) OKRENT was WRONG

The rest is psychobabble and further shows that Okrent is merely interested in petty score settling than providing useful analysis to the readers of the NYTimes.

[Padraig]

Piotr, you are far too forgiving of Okrent in my opinion. I think the main issue is that Okrent has demonstratably no idea what he is talking about, but references a relatively obscure paper for one of his points. If I saw something like this in an undergrad paper, I'd immediately suspect plagiarism. In this case, I think it's more likely that he simply got his talking points from Luskin, and is repeating them without understanding them. I mean, to take one paper that suggests a methodological problem (and not even a very severe one at that) and claim that it trumps a mountain of evidence simply because they're both written by academics means that Okrent simply has no idea what he's talking about. That's why I think he's a tool for the Right: he's not making honest criticisms.

[Bernard Yomtov]

"columnists are entitled by their mandate to engage in the unfair use of statistics, the misleading representation of opposing positions, and the conscious withholding of contrary data. But because they’re entitled doesn’t mean I or you have to like it, or think it’s good for the newspaper."

I share jerry's astonishment at this statement. Do Calame and the NYT management agree that it's OK to present false information to make a point? Do they follow this practice in writing their editorials?

[JRoth]

Actually, Peter, for the Public Editor, it is one of the least forgiveable errors. I don't need the Times to acknowledge that Safire was a creep; I need them to acknowledge that, when Safire said that it is a fact that Atta was in Prague, he was lying. Substance is the only thing of value in newspapers.

Okrent may be non-ideological, but wishy-washy is also non-ideological. If the right is wrong on substance and the left is wrong on manners, it is not "non-ideological" to criticise the two equally. Okrent typifies Big Media in that he has no conception of this whatsoever.

I might add that his regular columns led me to believe that he could write idiotic things; this PK brouhaha has led me to believe that he is a petty man. It is obvious that he was so offended by Krugman's tone that he felt the need to knock him down a peg on the merits. In this he failed.

[liberal]

Keith M. Ellis wrote, "And from that perspective, I don't see this 'Okrent as a shill for the right wing' argument that appears in these comments."

Go to www.dailyhowler.com and type
Okrent
into the search box.

[Cranky Observer]

> I think Okrent is a kind, funny, non-ideoological
> writer who tried very, very hard to do a
> difficult job.

A job so difficult he had to take about 12 weeks vacation total out of 52. Including 4 weeks spent on the beach, where he chose to analyze the NYT by ....... getting _all_ his news from the NYT and no other source. If the problem with that approach isn't self-evident, there is no hope.

Cranky

[pjs]

This really is a case of differing norms. In opinion journalism, saying that someone selectively uses statistics without any corroborating evidence counts as making a substantive criticism as long as other people have also made the same charge. In that case, it’s a reference to emerging conventional wisdom, not a controversial claim that needs to be backed up. Similarly, in such circles, it is considered appropriate to defend the original charge by accusing that person of being defensive. Again, what’s at issue are different norms. In Krugman’s world, you can’t call into question someone’s intellectual integrity and expect it to end there. But in Okrent’s, where everything is just combat, it’s expected that everyone is a little bit intellectually corrupt and such accusations are par the course.

[knut wicksell]

Krugman is a proud man and has every right to be, as a potential Nobel Laureat in economics. He has a low tolerance for bullshit. Okrent may be a nice man, but if so, he is a mediocrity. You can be nice and still resent being reminded of your mediocrity. He should get over it and get on with his life, instead of laying out his insecurities in public like an adolescent.

[The Fool]

Okrent said, "But I dont want to engage in an extended debate any more than Prof. Krugman says he does. If he replies to this statement, as I imagine he will, Ill let him have what he always insists on keeping for himself: the last word."

Okrent: you're a pathetic little pussy.

You'll give Krugman the last word because you had nothing to begin with -- and now you got less than nothing left. You should be ashamed of your utterly lame public performance.

[stc]

And remember Okrent grouped these quibbles against PK with Safire's continued belief in the relationship between alQaida and Saddam.

[Mark Schmitt]

So much of this is disgraceful, but apart from the substantive errors, what to make of Okrent's claim that he never mentioned the issues to Krugman because Krugman gave him a hard time about an earlier correction, and "it wasn't worth it." The whole point of the Public Editor/ombudsman is to be independent and beyond harassment by anyone at the paper. Basically, he's saying he didn't feel like doing his job. And then to say that he didn't raise it because columnists have a "mandate" to shade the facts, but on the other hand it's not a good thing. How bizarre!

On another point, he "corrects" Krugman on the statement that Unemployment Insurance automatically increases the deficit in a recession. Of course it does. It's true that it often takes legislative action to provide extended benefits, but that's only because the formula is messed up. It's supposed to occur automatically and often does, although not adequately. The federal loans to the state funds are also automatic.

[David]

Keith Ellis and Peter -- Okrent's snipes were about Krugman's use and presentation of facts (and not about Krugman's "views") and the upshot of these snipes of Okrent's is that Krugman was lying or misrepresenting facts in convenient ways, and using a prominent national platform for these purposes. I would hope Krugman, or anyone else similarly accused, would be an asshole about it, especially when Okrent's snipes are consistently examples of Okrent's lack of understanding of the data and the field. (and then to see that Okrent's snipes are a channeling of a fart like Luskin!)

I can be an asshole if someone in a bar accuses me of lying; one can hardly blame Krugman for getting a bit riled up. The pity is that Okrent's stupid claims appeared in print, and Krugman's dismantling of them appear on-line only. If only because of that, in practical terms Okrent retains the last word.

[R.Porrofatto]

It helps to bear in mind what Okrent originally stated about Krugman while reading his pitiful defense of it.

In addition to calling him "ideological" and "unfair" he said:

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.

Is there even one substantive assault here from Okrent/Luskin?

[marky]

I believe the NYtimes is seriously at fault for even allowing Okrent to level any charges whatsoever against Krugman's use of numbers. Okrent has ZERO expertise in economcs. If critics of Krugman brought errors in PK's columns to his attention, he needs to let us know who they are (as if it's a mystery).
Letting Okrent debate Krugman is like setting up Rush Limbaugh to argue physics with Ed Witten---a huge slap to the face.

That said, I see now a commonality between the right wing and journalists: both lack respect for expertise. I see this time and again in political chat rooms and on blogs. The right wingers think they can click on a few links and argue about the science of global warming, or economics, or ANYTHING, and have no conception that without years of study, their opinions are WORTHLESS.
Journalists have the same tendency, but for a more benign reason. Because they make a living writing about a broad array of subjects, they can be tricked into thinking they can become experts in a subject with some reading.
The most benign explanation of Okrent's egregious misbehavior is that he fell into this trap; however, I believe the actual cause was politically motivated malice.

[Doctor Biobrain]

Okrent's an idiot and a fool, but that's not why he did so poorly as the Ombudsman. He honestly didn't understand what his job was supposed to be. He thinks he's there to defend the NY Times against its attackers. And he even said in that exchange with Krugman that the reasone he didn't denounce Krugman's figures before was because he figured it was part of a columnist's job to mislead and give fake information.

This joker doesn't even know the difference between being opinionated and lying! For him, one necessarily leads to another. I wouldn't doubt if his entire elite circle feels the same way. No wonder they let Bush get away with so much. They think that lying is just part of having an opinion.

[Nancy]

The main problem is that Okrent is not an especially bright man, and is totally out of his league in confrontations with Krugman. But Okrent either doesn't want to admit he isn't as smart, or he's in denial - or maybe he's too dumb to realize it. So when Krugman uses nuance and logic that Okrent just doesn't get, he has to whine about how tricksey and stubborn that Krugman is.

Okrent is just your typical mediocrity who got his job by being a buddy to the people in power. Nothing unusual there. Except that the mediocrities are usually too careful to get into a public confrontation with genuiuses. Their preferred method is to stab in the back then cover their ass. And Okrent thought he would get away with doing that by attacking Krugman on the last day on the job.

How unusual and immensely satisfying when a back-stabbing weasly mediocrity gets his ass kicked for all to see.

[cindy]

Peter seems to be mixing up how Orkent and Krugman act in person with their writings. He may mave found Orkent to be a "kind, funny, non-ideoological writer" and Krugman "the extremely defensive, extremely stubborn, exceptionally proud man Okrent says he is," but reading their exchange and their other writings I see just the opposite.

I don't really care whether Orkent is kind and Krugman proud and I don't think readers of the Times should. The question is whether what they write is accurate, well sourced and free of petty shots.

[Mike M.]

It seems to me like Okrent is playing either amateur libel lawyer or amateur fact checker. Key word is "amateur." In both cases, the person doing the job is terrified of nuance and rejects it out of hand as "false." The NYT is not, or didn't used to be, a paper that should be written for 4th graders. There's supposed to be nuance, there are supposed to be complicated arguments and descriptions, it is supposed to be a paper that an "intellectual" can read, as opposed to, say, the New York Post (which I like, but for different reasons). Seriously, if Okrent were editor in chief of the Times, it would start running Marmaduke and Marvin instead of two big pages of provacative Op-Ed. And that's too bad, because, I have to say, at this point, the Op-Ed's of the Wall Street Journal, which tend to make me irate, are more likely to have fun writing and complexity than the Times )ie, I don't think Bobo and Flathead could hack it there).

[abf]

Okrent's "critiques" have nothing to do with nuance. They have everything to do with being unable to read. He's neither read Krugman's articles correctly nor read the economic data behind them accurately.

In each of the column he cites, had Okrent been correct, it would not have affected Krugman's big claims in the least. But Okrent was not correct, making him twice the fool he initially appeared to be.

[Wrye]

Absolutely, Cindy. We normally see the principle applied to fiction, but of course it's true (and I wish I could remember who I recently read that put it so well) that one's writerly persona has little to do with whether you'd like to hang out with them. Okrent may be very kind to widows and orphans, and for all I know Krugman kicks puppies in the street; but that's not the point. Unless Okrent was in constant physical terror of being hot with a desk or thrown out a window by an outraged, ogrish Krugman, I suppose...Which I find unlikely.

No, what matters here are actions and competence, not personability. Okrent's actions and conduct are indefensible. He could be correct in every one of his points, and he still would have acted shamefully and failed in his responsibilities.

[Civil-Rights Lawyer]

I’m astonished at the implied criticisms at the tone of Krugman’s writing. Krugman replied to Okrant’s cheap-shot without any name-calling or impoliteness, but Okrent’s response calls to mind the saying that sarcasm is the last resort of a defeated wit. In just a few paragraphs, Okrent pens the following sarcasm, name-calling, and snark:

Unnumbered 1st paragraph: “For a man who makes his living offering strong opinions, Paul Krugman seems peculiarly reluctant to grant the same privilege to others. And for a man who leads with his chin twice a week, he acts awfully surprised when someone takes a pop at it”

Unnumbered 2nd paragraph: “I’ll try to eschew argument and stick to facts – or, at least, the sort of statements that [Krugman] himself represents as purely factual.”

Numbered paragraph 1: “When I had the chance to consult some of my reader mail later in the week, some of his greatest mis-hits immediately came to the fore.”

Numbered paragraph 2: “I learned early on in this job that Prof. Krugman would likely be more willing to contribute to the Frist for President campaign than to acknowledge the possibility of error. When he says he agreed ‘reluctantly’ to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word ‘reluctantly’.”

Numbered paragraph 5: “Some other examples of Krugmania....”

As Cindy said, reading this exchange shows Krugman as patiently explaining facts and Okrent as petty and defensive.

[Robert Waldmann]

I thank Mark Schmitt for treating my shameful ignorance about U.I. This gets Okrent down to the score of zero (with several own goals). One might argue that an automatic federal loan to a state does not add to the
budget deficit, because it will be repayed. One would
be wrong. Deficit spending is always like a loan as it is
tax shifting (see the point beaten into the ground here on at Brad DeLong's semi daily journal). A loan to states which run temporary deficits has the same effect, which is is none if people were rational and not liquidity constrained (and pigs flew) a lots in the real world.

I still don't know how UI affects the official federal budget deficit numbers (god and I'm supposed to be an economist) but I don't care either. At most Krugman is refusing (for once) to use official numbers, because they don't correspond to the theoretically interesting quantity. This would be a reasonable selective use of numbers (corresponding to Okrent's claim) except that Krugman did not present numbers. He made a valid claim about the role of UI as an automatic stabilizer.

this reminds me of a much earlier post on Krugman and his critics (here). The critic was Daniel Drezner, so the level was not comprarable to Okrent. However, Drezner objected to Krugman saying it was a reasonable hypothesis that unemployed people had stopped looking for work by arguing that only the official number of discouraged workers had any relevance to this question. Brad noted that Krugman did not use the phrase "discouraged workers" and that the series is just one attempt to measure the phenomenon and gives a clearly conservative estimate (title something like Dan Drezner leaps at Paul Krugmans throat fangs bared, trips on a root and falls over a cliff). This is the high point of Okrent's effort. If Drezner fell down a cliff where is Okrent ?

sorry for god aweful long pointless comment.

[This is what Andrew Samwick and I are now desultorily arguing about]

[calame]

was a deputy managing editor at wsj. not suprised.

[Robert Waldmann]

I really don't know why Peter and Keith Ellis (and others down thread) seem to think that Okrent is nice and Krugman rude. Totally aside from being totally wrong, Okrent seems to me to be very very nasty. Krugman's integrity was questioned. He has been polite throughout.

I don't know Krugman. I've just seen him around the NBER.
He always struck me as a very nice person. Maybe I'm
just a bad judge of character.

Having said that, I will tried to figure Okrent out. After his arguments are proven wrong, he is reduced to claiming that Krugman is stubborn and will never admit a mistake. The projection is amusing as usual. Okrent's desperate absurd attempt to cling to his claim about the household survey and the establishment survey was really pathalogical.

However, I think Okrent really thinks this. You will notice that his claim that he laid off Krugman is contradicted by Krugman's record of their disagreements.
You will also note that Krugman admitted he was wrong only once. Finally, Krugman was obviously right and Okrent wrong on all the other points. Now given Okrent's clearly limited numeracy, he probably doesn't understand that Krugman kept on telling him that Okrent was totally wrong and that Krugman was totally right, because it was true. It is very clear from the debate so far that Krugman is not only brilliant but also very thorough. It is almost incredible that no valid criticisms of his use of numbers have emerged.

People who are (almost) always right are irritating in the same way that arrogant people are irritating. Clueless people can't tell the difference and honestly mistake their relative intellectual incompetence for the other guy's being arrogant.

[piotr]

How a numerate person reads a column with some numbers in it?

Usually, he/she checks if the numbers are plausible. For example, USA has population ca. 300 M, population growth rate 1%, workforce participation 50% so the number of "needed new jobs per year" is roughly 1.5 M., or 125k/month. With that in mind, one expects an actual number in 100-150 range. One also knows that this number is the opposite of a precise quantity -- it is a product of somewhat arbitrary definition (perhaps we want to keep labor participation constant, perhaps we want to introduce some clever corrections, say, for length of education or whatever), and it is pointless to quarrel about the precise value -- is it 130 k or 140k.

This is not the way an ordinary person reads.

One question that I am not sure that we will be able to resolve is whether Okrent is innumerate, or is he a smart bastard who knows that most of the readers are innumerate.

I propose to introduce "Okrent standard" and apply it to conservative arguments. Usually they usually do not withstand a laugh test if you have any idea about the subject matter. But for the public at large, the joke may be less than obvious (unless you are a Daily Show fan), so perhaps "Okrent treatment" would help.

[CapitalistImperialistPig]

" I also agree he's off base in his criticism of Krugman, but that doesn't make him evil, stupid, or a weasel. It just makes him wrong in this instance.
"

Can we just stipulate that in this instance he was wrong in a stupid, weaselly, and, yes evil way?

[gmoke]

The one time I met Okrent was at Harvard's Shorenstein Center. The event was videotaped by CSPAN. I got to ask Okrent about publishing the identity of a reader who had emailed "vile" things to Adam Nagourney on the order of "I hope your kids have to go fight and die in an unlawful war."

I had talked to the email writer previously, asking him if he was given an opportunity to apologize before Okrent criticized him. He said no.

In my question, I purposefully didn't mention the emailer's name. Okrent responded by repeating that name over and over again while admitting that maybe, perhaps he shouldn't have done it.

Afterwards, I pointed out to Okrent that he kept on mentioning the emailer's name. Okrent looked up at me and said, "Did I?" like a little boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar. My BS detector redlined.

Thus I call him a slimey individual.

He will be a Fellow at the Shorenstein Center next Spring. I expect to see him there and will do my best not to get near him. I don't want to be contaminated and I don't want to lose my temper and tell him exactly what I think he is.

[RonK, Seattle]

On the 140,000 and its sources: I have criticized this number and its history as the sort of thing that gets passed around and published without close checking. IIRC, PK once used a figure of 80,000 (decidedly low), shortly after Brad used the same number.

Far as I can tell, the right answer is a tad south of 120,000. (The underlying series may have been perturbed by decennial census adjustments.)

[Could be...]

The difference adds up to a million jobs over W's 52 months in office ... but a million jobs is just spare change next to W's record of 6 million jobs off baseline trend, plus the several million undelivered jobs we "bought" by taking on debt to finance W's supply-side tax cuts.

[SombreroFallout]

Peter wrote:
I've read just about everything Okrent and Krugman have published in the NYTimes, and I've met both of them.

I think Okrent is a kind, funny, non-ideoological writer who tried very, very hard to do a difficult job. An error, I think, but a forgiveable error.

Why is my reaction to this... you know, so what?

I've read all their stuff, too. And you have no idea how this comes off. Okrent's exit was a real low point in every respect. His attack was unwarranted and baseless.

There are plenty of "kind, funny, non-ideoological writer who tried very, very hard." Not a few, like Okrent, are particularly adept at such stooping to such a dishonorable jab. Even after some years of so nicely, so kindly, denying the legitimate questions of NYTs' own readers.

Then this.

I have yet to see Paul Krugman disproven on the facts.

He may assert the factual evidence he presents. His demeanor is anything but bullying or intemperate.

He has also been subject to ad hominem attacks and unreasonable hectoring.

You know, you can be kind and funny and non-ideological, and also behave with even minimal integrity. It's easy. It's free. And all you have to do, pretty much, is read the newspapers and apply minimal standards of fairness, evidence, forthrightness, etc.

Oh. And you get to keep your reputation and the respect of your countrymen. This act was nothing short of contemptible.

[piotr]

Thanks, RonK: my back of the envelope estimate is within 10k from your well-research number!

My impression about the underlying topic: the economy seems to be doing better than Krugman's and Brad's complaints were suggesting, partially because the budget deficit is coupled with very low interest rates, courtesy of Asian central banks. So what is economic net result of the tax cuts? Is it fair to say that it is hard to prove that the economy grew any less or any more than it would do without them? If so, the bottom line is that we have a lot of extra debt with nothing really to show as a benefit.

The economic benefits of not saving energy seem similarly mediocre, if any.

[putnam]

There is nothing nice - or ethical - in Okrent's recent behavior. Okrent is positioning himself as the former public editor for The Times who concluded that the Times had a liberal bias, and as the editor who dared to attack the great economist Krugman with many snarky turns of phrase. It doesn't matter whether Okrent is correct in his substantive discussions. He has spun charges and vituperation and won't back down; he's creating reality. This abuse of Krugman was not some side issue or casual mis-step; this was Okrent's career move. Infuriating.

[ahem]

"It is highly possible that Okrent is not an economist, professional or amateur. "

It is equally highly possible that Okrent is not a journalist, professional or amateur. His record certainly suggests this.

[RonK, Seattle]

Sadly, it appears that Okrent does not even qualify as a sophisticated reader.

Piotr -- If I wanted to be a really hard grader, I'd suggest that W owes us a few million jobs above baseline trend that should have materialized due to normal business cycle recovery.

Of course a true believer's defense is be that no matter how many million jobs are missing, it would be so many millions worse without the stimulative effect of the tax cuts.

[Anarch]

"Because only a fool or a supply-sider would eagerly engage in a debate on economics with Prof. Krugman, I'll try to eschew argument and stick to facts..."

Only a man like Okrent could claim that "economics" and "facts" are opposed.

[Ginger Yellow]

I don't know if Okrent has/had an ideological bias, and frankly I don't care. What was really galling about his time at the NYT, and is perfectly demonstrated by his exchange with Krugman, was that he simply couldn't be bothered to do his job. Not only that, he actually resented it when people suggested he should do his job. If you want to see how this sort of thing should be done, read the columns of Guardian Readers' Editor (note the explicit mandate to represent the readers) Ian Mayes. He acts as a conduit between readers and writers, avoiding the horrific disconnect that exists at the NYT. If the NYT wants to know why it's hated by left and right, it needs only look at Okrent's columns. They epitomise everything that is wrong with the paper.

[Ginger Yellow]

I don't know if Okrent has/had an ideological bias, and frankly I don't care. What was really galling about his time at the NYT, and is perfectly demonstrated by his exchange with Krugman, was that he simply couldn't be bothered to do his job. Not only that, he actually resented it when people suggested he should do his job. If you want to see how this sort of thing should be done, read the columns of Guardian Readers' Editor (note the explicit mandate to represent the readers) Ian Mayes. He acts as a conduit between readers and writers, avoiding the horrific disconnect that exists at the NYT. If the NYT wants to know why it's hated by left and right, it needs only look at Okrent's columns. They epitomise everything that is wrong with the paper.

[Peter]

I've enjoyed reading (believe it or not) the reactions to my original post.

As I said, I think Okrent is wrong in this instance; specifically, I don't think his parting shot at Krugman was justified on either ethical or factual grounds. And, I think, his further reaction doesn't reflect well on him.

But I was reacting to something I've seen elsewhere on "the internets:" good people pilloried, assassinated, attacked, insulted, etc. because of a single error or statement, usually a statement associated (as, let us admit, this one is) with something to do with the Bush Administration.

I've seen decent, thoughful people condemned as thought criminals because they supported the war in Iraq, or opposed it, or supported tax cuts, or attacked someone who opposed them. Both sides blame the other for starting this kind of ad hominem warfare. Both sides should prove their superiority over the other by unilaterally stopping it.

I am merely trying to inject a plea for civility into a conversation about something, however important it is to the principals (and the principles) involved, will be forgotten in a week as we pursue another contretemps.

One more thing: I happen to believe that Okrent was right in publishing the name of that emailer. If you send an unpleasant email to someone who owns a large printing press, you shouldn't be surprised to see it in print.

Okay, now am I weasel?

[piotr]

"Bricks and stones can break my bones, but the words will never hurt me". I would not exagerate with the word "assasination".

Some vents must exist for strong feelings. My advise always is: "do not be rude, be snide". Yet some people go balistic when they are on the receiving end of a snide remark. I am all for civility, but 5 years ago we had a country at peace, prosperous, with safe future for Social Security, when seemingly serious people discussed how to solve problems that may arise when the entire federal debt is paid back. Clearly, some mighty strong wrecking ball is operating, and the question of civility may seem of secondary importance.

Which may be short sighted. But we live in the time when the most Orvellian administration in history is extolled as epitome of morality, and people how should now better are politely oscilating between friendly-neutral and sceptical-neutral.

[CL]

Bush and Cheney are crooks, just like Nixon...
Impeach Bush and Cheney today...

[Ginger Yellow]

But Peter, it wasn't a single error or statement. Okrent's entire reign at the Times was marked by arrogance, defensiveness, indifference to the concerns of the readers and either laziness or incompetence. Numerous times he's said that he didn't take specific complaints to the writers, either because he didn't think it was his job, or because, as in this instance, he didn't think he'd like the reaction. Exactly what did he achieve during his reign in terms of making the NYT more accountable, its writers more conscientious/accurate, and its readers more satisfied?

[brett]

This whole thread should be archived for posterity and posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Cocooning. Virtually none of you engage Okrent's substantive points about Krugman's mistakes and deceptions, and to a person you attribute Okrent's attitude to political bias, rather than his factual analysis of what Krugman writes. If you really think that (a) Okrent criticizes Krugman because the former has a right-wing bias, and (b) Krugman writes the truth and nothing but the truth, I would encourage you to get involved in the local or national Democratic Party, because they really need people like you.

[Ginger Yellow]

Brett you are talking out of your arse. Here's what I wrote: "I don't know if Okrent has/had an ideological bias, and frankly I don't care." Most people didn't even mention political bias. To a person, eh?

And beside the fact that several commenters did address Okrent's substantive points (to the extent he had any to begin with), the whole point of this thread is that Krugman himself had alreadt demolished Okrent's points with his rebuttal. And Brad himself rounded out the details with his comments on taxpayers and the studies. There's little point in us just repeating what they've already said.

[Billmon]

"Virtually none of you engage Okrent's substantive points about Krugman's mistakes and deceptions."

It seems to me that Okrent's "substantive points" -- such as they were -- have been more than adequately shredded, by Krugman and his defenders, on this thread and elsewhere.

Krugman is hardly perfect, and certainly isn't unbiased -- and I say that even though I share many of his biases. Okrent could have gone after him on much more justifiable grounds, such as PK's eagerness to swallow every dark rumor about Bush's business career. But instead he tried to take a cheap parting shot, got called on it, then made the incredibly boneheaded decision to challenge PK on a factual point that Krugman knows backwards and forwards.

Okrent, in other words, appears not so much a right-wing stooge as the kind of clueless moderate (I'd say liberal, but I'm sure he'd deny it) who thinks being evenhanded means critizing both sides equally, regardless of the facts, which he isn't smart enough to understand.

Okrent may be a nice guy or a complete asshole, I don't know and don't care. But he unquestionably was a disaster as an omsbudsman - and this pathetic fight with Krugman is only the latest (and thankfully last) piece of evidence.

And I guess we can archive this thread under Democratic Cocooning when the complete works of the entire staff at the National Review and the WSJ editorial page are filed away under the Republican equivalent.

[DavidNYC]

And I guess we can archive this thread under Democratic Cocooning when the complete works of the entire staff at the National Review and the WSJ editorial page are filed away under the Republican equivalent.

Heh. But only an Okrent would think the two actually are equivelant. Shame, Billmon, I expect better from you! :)

And to think: Dan Okrent was one of the inventors of fantasy baseball. At least I'm paying my money to Yahoo and not to him for the privilege of playing.

[David Nieporent]

Someone writes: "I have yet to see Krugman disproven on the facts."

Krugman once wrote: It's important, when you read the inevitable attempts to impugn the character of the latest whistle-blower, to realize just how risky it is to reveal awkward truths about the Bush administration. When Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife's career by revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative."

The first is an outright lie; Shinseki's career ended exactly on schedule. He did not leave one day earlier than planned LONG BEFORE HIS TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS. (I know this isn't conventional wisdom -- but you can look it up.)

The second is a mishmash of lies, misstatements, and false pretensions to knowledge.
1) Plame was not working, so she had no career to be "destroyed."
2) We don't know who revealed the name. For Krugman to say it was "someone in the White House" is to say something he doesn't know.
3) The idea that it was "revenge" is ludicrous, but in any case, we certainly don't know that to be true.
4) Wilson didn't actually reveal anything to be false.

Again, this is conventional wisdom -- at least in some circles -- but the job of someone who works for the paper isn't to blindly repeat conventional wisdom.

You think it's all right-wing stuff? Nope. Robert Kuttner, who's significantly farther left than Krugman, wrote in the American Prospect about a Krugman piece, "Krugman's little story is not just wrong, but wrong in a way that is characteristically Krugman," pointing out how, in a specific case, Krugman made up some facts because they fit his worldview, instead of actually asking any of the people involved what had happened.

The problem is, when Krugman writes about anything other than technical aspects of economics, he writes like a blogger instead of a reporter. We expect bloggers to speculate, surmise, and rumormonger; we don't expect independent research. That's fine, because blogging comes with an inherent caveat emptor. But MSM pieces, even on the editorial page, do not.

[Paul G. Brown]

Hi David!

As accuracy is at issue, then let's be completely accurate.

1.

Krugman wrote: "When Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career."

You wrote: "The first is an outright lie; Shinseki's career ended exactly on schedule. He did not leave one day earlier than planned LONG BEFORE HIS TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS."

Krugman did not say that Shinseki's was forced out of his job. The history of Shinseki's term was that, after repeated clashes with Rumsfeld over policy matters Rumsfeld announced who Shinseki's replacement was to be 15 months early. As this made Shinseki a 'lame duck' at the job, it effectively ended the General's ability to get anything done. Krugman's presentation of the chronology was sloppy, but the Shinseki example attests to his broader point.

From Washington Post - 10/2002

"The relationship, never close, hit the rocks when Rumsfeld let it be known in April that he had decided to name Gen. John Keane, the Army's vice chief of staff, as its next chief, 15 months before its current chief, Gen. Eric Shinseki, was scheduled to retire.

This immediately made Shinseki a lame duck and undercut his ambitious "transformation" agenda, which he had set forth in late 1999."

2.

All of the sordid detail of the Plame Affair can be read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame.

2.1 Plame was a current employee of the CIA. She may not have been an active 'field operative', but she had been in the past--meaning the exposure endangered her contacts--and might have gone into the field again--meaning her career options were truncated by the exposure.

2.2 We don't know who revealed the name. But Bob Novak does, and he wrote "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate". It wasn't Krugman saying it was a White House official. It was Novak. And he was in the best position to know.

2.3 Bush's 01/29/2003 State of the Union speech includes the famous 16 words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Krugman said that the speech 'contained a lie.' The lie here is that 'Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa'. Saddam Hussein had not sought yellowcake in Africa, as the Sunday Herald reported http://www.sundayherald.com/print35264.

Wilson revealed that Saddam had not tried to get Yellowcake from Niger. He was one of several who pointed out that the document upon which this intelligence was based were a clumsy forgery, and his visit to Niger confirmed discrepencies between certain details and what was in the documents. At worst then, all Bush was doing was repeating something which was incorrect.

Note that Krugman did not accuse Bush of lying. Had he written 'When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed Bush's lie in the 2003 State of the Union speech, someone in the White House', then Krugman would have been knowingly uttering a falsehood. But that is not what Krugman wrote, as you quote above.

And before leaving your point, let me make three of my own.

First, we don't have enough troops in Iraq (and it is unlikely we will ever have enough troops for Iraq). Shinseki was correct. Rumsfeld et al were wrong. Second, Saddam had neither WMDs, nor any recent yellowcake. He had neither the capacity, nor any active plans, for using Yellowcake. Wilson was correct: the reports of Saddam's interests in African yellowcake were wrong. And third, both of these examples--and many others, Powell, Todd-Witman, Snow--all line up in support of PK's main point. Traffic in reality in the Bush White House, and you're out.

[Joan Hurley]

It is very unfair of Okrent to be so judgmental about such an honest commentator, Paul Krugman, in his parting shot. It appears that the NYT is emulating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to prove itself to be "balanced." Okrent was not fair at all as an ombudsman and that is the whole point of having an ombudsman - to listen to complaints objectively. That is sad for the NY Times.

[Jennifer]

Paul G. Brown and Joan Hurley, I do agree. And, Paul you could not have handled the argument better.

[howard]

me, at this point, we can only say if you would care to point out where you think this is happening, many here would be happy to help you understand better why you are wrong.

[Janus Daniels]

Okrent, Luskin, Rosen, our "me" ... stupid, insane, evil, misinformed? Not worth trying to figure it out.

[tom]

I haven't seen it discussed yet, but Okrent also dismissed a study by If Americans Knew that showed a large gap in the NYT's coverage of Palestinian and Israeli deaths, especially that of children. Furthermore, the dismissal of the evidence-based line of argument was accompanied by insults to the group that did the study.

Okrent's handling of the If Americans Knew study is similar, in these respects, to his approach to Krugman. While doing so without resort to ad hominems, Okrent also failed to engage in evidence and reason in making conclusions about the Times' coverage of gay marriage and Bill Moyers.

Unfortunately, the culture of rhetorical illiteracy among the general punditocracy is deeply entrenched. Okrent is by no means an exception.