Warsh writes:
Economic Principals: The American newspaper industry has fallen on hard times, and its authority has dimmed, at least for the moment. But the conservators of its traditions quietly took an admirable stand last week. The Pulitzer Prize Board passed over The New York Times columnist (and Princeton professor) Paul Krugman and gave its 2009 commentary award to Eugene Robinson... for columns on the election of the first African-American president that exhibited “graceful writing and grasp of the larger historic picture.” Krugman and Regina Brett, of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, were runners-up....
[T]here is something about Krugman’s newspaper journalism that chafes. True, he gets half-a-dozen scoops a year. He has become a columnist of enormous influence. He is an energetic blogger, too. Yet he often cloaks his claims in professional authority, overstates them, omits arguments that undermine his case, and is a bit of a bully.
Being one of two runners-up for commentary--being number two or three--is a mark of high distinction for Paul Krugman. David Warsh's interpretation of it as a slam against Paul is... extremely weird at best.
I think something else is going on here in David's mind--best summarized by a sentence from one of David Warsh's fellow journalists: "that Paul Krugman was totally right about almost everything doesn't make me like or forgive him."
Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?
