Ezra Klein on Giuliani, the Press, and the Laffer Curve

Ezra Klein is fed up with Rudy Giuliani's Laffer-baiting and with the "uncritical stenography" of his journalistic enablers: Chris Cilizza, Michael Shear, Steven Braun, and Mike Glover.

Ezra Klein: Giuliani and the Laffer Curve: Giuliani's pro-Laffer musings are, of course, reprehensible, if not surprising. I'd bet large sums of money that Giuliani himself doesn't believe that it's merely a "liberal Democratic assumption that if you raise taxes, you raise more money," but like with his health care plan, is just adopting positions for their utility in attacking Democrats, rather than their integrity as policy plans.

This is only a viable approach for him because he's smartly manipulating two dynamics. The first is that the press won't call him on it. Read Matt's round-up of the uncritical stenography accorded to Giuliani's comments. If every time Giuliani uttered this bit of economic absurdity, the reporter appended a comment explaining that most economists consider this a laughable bit of hackish quackery, he'd stop saying it. They don't, so he doesn't. Which enables his whole campaign strategy: In the current media environment, all policy proposals are created equal. If you have something that sounds like a plan, you're allowed into the conversation as if you have a plan. Therefore, there's really no incentive to craft your policy proposals for maximum coherence and wisdom rather than maximum political advantage.

Giuliani's second enabler is the cowardice of his fellow candidates. These comments on the Laffer curve came at a GOP presidential debate. Anyone on the stage could've smacked him down. And one of the most visible of the participants, Mitt Romney, has hired Gregory Mankiw as one of his two primary economic advisors. That would be the same Gregory Mankiw who responded to pro-Laffer curve comments by McCain with a weary "unfortunately, fealty to the most extreme supply-side views is de rigeur in some segments of the Republican party." But his candidate, who surely knows better or Mankiw isn't doing his job, said nothing to contradict Giuliani. Not a word. One wonders why Professor Mankiw is lending his credibility to an individual so willing to abet the propagation of "extreme" views.

So you tell me: Why should Giuliani be honest? What's in it for him?

See also: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/laffer_press_roundup.php. Adam Nagourney gets a C- on this one, but the curve is high.

Comments

[save_the_rustbelt]

As intensely as I dislike Rudy, is it the role of reporters to provide editorial commentary?

Journalism has been blurred due to the report-i-torial style (which is why I quit reading Time and Newsweek). Editorials and commentary are best left to the editorial page and columnists.

At some point on the spectrum reporters may need to point readers to other sources or contra-information, but I'm nervous about reporters as critics.

[save_the_rustbelt]

As intensely as I dislike Rudy, is it the role of reporters to provide editorial commentary?

Journalism has been blurred due to the report-i-torial style (which is why I quit reading Time and Newsweek). Editorials and commentary are best left to the editorial page and columnists.

At some point on the spectrum reporters may need to point readers to other sources or contra-information, but I'm nervous about reporters as critics.

[save_the_rustbelt]

As intensely as I dislike Rudy, is it the role of reporters to provide editorial commentary?

Journalism has been blurred due to the report-i-torial style (which is why I quit reading Time and Newsweek). Editorials and commentary are best left to the editorial page and columnists.

At some point on the spectrum reporters may need to point readers to other sources or contra-information, but I'm nervous about reporters as critics.

[Michael Cain]

"Giuliani's second enabler is the cowardice of his fellow candidates. These comments on the Laffer curve came at a GOP presidential debate. Anyone on the stage could've smacked him down."

But for Republican candidates, the Laffer curve has become a required icon to which proper obeisance must be paid. Along with a bit of "trickle down" and "deficits don't matter" for seasoning, this is the diet that the Party demands. To expect the other candidates to smack Rudy down is just childishly unrealistic.

[MaryLou]

I disagree with save_the_rustbelt. The role of the reporter is to present factual information with context and emphasis as free of bias as possible. In this case, Rudy's statements are recorded stenographer-style. They happen to be wrong, either lies or misunderstandings. The fact that Rudy's statements are not, in fact, correct needs to be made clear, by noting, as Ezra suggests, "that most economists consider this a laughable bit of hackish quackery."

[Dave]

A poor journalist will simply repeat the slant, while a good journalist will check his facts first.

A great journalist will report the facts instead of the slant.

If a reporter wants to be absolutely neutral, then they should talk to an econist FIRST, and then discuss the opinions of the candidates.

The reporter then would actually be attempting to educate the public. Naturally, this is never done.

So if Bush says "we are winning in Iraq," CNN will repeat his statement, and perhaps find someone equally unqualified to offer the exact opposite view. This creates the impression of balance, while still leaving viewers ignorant.

Many web sites would offer the stupid quote, and then give a few dozen examples of why the quote is stupid. This appeals only to those who already agree with the web site.

An actual news source would describe the situation in Iraq first, and then offer Bush's quote merely to demonstrate that Bush sees the situation differently.

(FOX "news", of course, will repeat the President's entire press conference, and then add their own editorial about why anyone who disagrees is a traitor.)