Newsweek on Krugman

The article is here. I have nothing to say about it because it says next to nothing; the Media is incapable of actually addressing issues. But there it is.

It is noteworthy I suppose that Krugman is on the cover of Newsweek. But what is more important is what Krugman is saying, right or wrong, and Newsweek chose not to write about that with any understanding. Stupid article.

Speaking for me only

< Define The Geithner Plan"Working" | Raves for New Book on Columbine >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This reminds me (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 09:13:44 AM EST
    of an article in the NYTimes describing Obama's last press conference. It discussed his manner, his appearance, his style... and that's about it.

    That must be progress (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 09:40:54 AM EST
    since it's the treatment that women politicians too often get.

    (Snark -- since reverse sexism is not the way to fix sexism, or our media, or our politics.)


    I suspect (none / 0) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 10:33:50 AM EST
    that whoever wrote the article had to discuss those things because they didn't understand the actual content of the presser well enough to analyze it.

    The Media Can't Address Issues (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by kaleidescope on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 09:51:58 AM EST
    And neither can the government. George Soros was right.  We're looking more like the former Soviet Union every day.

    That's too bad (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 09:54:28 AM EST
    I hope maybe it will get more people to pay attention to what he's saying, but I guess that's doubtful.

    You judge too harshly :) (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 10:08:13 AM EST
    For the little people the author explains why he can't go into what Krugman says and he even lets us all know that his tummy gets upset when he thinks about reality :)  And this is about what others WILL NOT SEE, or truthfully REFUSE TO SEE!

    If you are of the establishment persuasion (and I am), reading Krugman makes you uneasy. You hope he's wrong, and you sense he's being a little harsh (especially about Geithner), but you have a creeping feeling that he knows something that others cannot, or will not, see. By definition, establishments believe in propping up the existing order. Members of the ruling class have a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are. Safeguarding the status quo, protecting traditional institutions, can be healthy and useful, stabilizing and reassuring.

    If it's about DC rumors, it's Newsweek (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Pacific John on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 01:59:28 PM EST
    If it's about something substantive, it's not.

    Thomas was on Paulie Abeles' blogtalk radio show a few weeks ago, indicting himself without seeming to notice.

    The most timely thing he said was that "money stories," are too tedious to cover. He prefers flashy fact-free stories about how only racist hillbillies could support Obama's opponent.

    Full transcript here.

    wrong link, BTD? (none / 0) (#1)
    by DFLer on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 09:10:37 AM EST
    looks like you posted the nocera article from nyt here too.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 09:14:22 AM EST

    Newsweak. (none / 0) (#7)
    by snstara on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 10:07:48 AM EST
    Tell me how this article differs from a gossip item on Page Six of the New York Post?

    Any substantive discussion of Paul Krugman's economic ideas? No.  Any comparison of his views with those of other economists? No.  Any background on why Krugman, who has written about the Japanese 'zombie bank' crisis, might have some credibility in presenting views of our current mess that run contrary to Summers'/Geithner's?  No.  Somehow, that's not news.

    Apparently, what is news is that Krugman,  a bullied nerd who read Asimov, is a man who can't take a joke and is miffed that Obama can't pronounce his name. Sure, he won an award from some Europeans for some ethereal, out-there work we at Newsweak can't be bothered to explain; but the real point is, he's a PIA to President Obama. Therefore, he's just a hater that ought to be dismissed before he gives anyone the idea that he might be on to something that impacts Evan Thomas' corporate bosses' income.  

    Most people (none / 0) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 10:45:10 AM EST
    only read the headline.  They'll go to their grocery store, see the article, and think, hmmm.

    Later when the Obama administration tries the "nobody could have predicted this would fail" etc, maybe people will have absorbed the headline well enough to understand that they aren't telling the truth.  Krugman's "hair is on fire" in that Richard Clarke sort of way.  The Republicans will certainly use this article against Obama, whether they're complicit in Obama policy or not.

    Maybe someone in the Obama administration will figure this out soon and change course, rather than wait until the flaming haired people are proven right.

    But Krugman thinks Newsweek is trying to destroy him.  I hope that isn't true...although Newsweek is MSNBC in print form, so who knows.