Dare to compare...

06.22.2004 | The Editors | Media Affairs, Partisan Briefs | 7 Comments

Paul Krugman’s column in today’s Times bears an uncanny resemblance to our David L. Steinhardt’s April 8 dispatch. Remember — you hear it here first, folks.

Looks like the word is getting out on this one:


How big will this get?
06.23.2004 | Ron Shaw
Krugman's column makes a number of dubious statements or implications:

1. John Ashcroft's press conferences control the media's decision on how much attention to give to a story.

2. The Padilla story didn't deserve a lot of attention, because Padilla didn't have the bomb-making materials with him.

3. The Krar arrest should have been a bigger story than the Padilla arrest.

4. The Justice Dept. should have ignored the law prohibiting the use of gun registration documents for other purposes.

#1 and #2 are preposterous, in my opinion. Regarding #3, the media gave more attention to Padilla than Krar because they, like Ashcroft, judged that Padilla was the bigger story.

One can agree or disagree with #4, but it doesn't seem like major issues. It can't be bad for the AG to obey the law, even if someone on his staff thought there was a loophole.

Even if you disagree with me about all four of these points, they're all minor. You can hardly claim that any of them is evidence of being the worst AG in history.
06.23.2004 | David
I'd agree that both column are rather hysterical. But it seems to me the larger issue in this instance is that Krugman's does seem to be entireoly in line with Steinhardt's, which, if we believe these partisans, Krugman had seen. Given that there's nothing in either that's not fairly easily Googled, let alone Nexised, that seems pretty damning to Krugman, to be stealing from a -- no offense, or at least not much, intended ? a hole-in-the-wall website such as this.

06.23.2004 | David Kirtzman
No offense taken. We wish to be judged by how well our hole is furnished, not how big it is. There are many more widely visited holes which are stupid and offensive.
06.23.2004 | Tim Marchman
I don't think there is enough here to convict Krugman of plagirism in a court of law. But,it does bear an "uncanny resemblance" to the original piece on this site.

As EconomicBriefing.com put it: "Very interesting."
06.23.2004 | Norm Kole
I certainly don't have any evidence Prof. Krugman read my column. It would be easy for two of us, with similar perspectives, to draw identical conclusions. Like any journalist, I like to get things first, which is why I enjoyed seeing his piece ten weeks after mine!
06.23.2004 | David L Steinhardt
"3. The Krar arrest should have been a bigger story than the Padilla arrest."

If Krugman really thinks so perhaps he should be taking Bill Keller and Pinch Sulzburger to task over this rather than Ashcroft.

The Times hasn't run even one news story with the name "Krar" in it yet. Just one other op-ed back in December of last year.
06.23.2004 | Jim Glass

PostPost a Comment

Enter your information below.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>