3 ms·
> My interpretation of Krugman's departure is that higher-ups edited and re-edited his columns to reduce the possibility of calling up a kerfuffle. They wanted
by JeremyNT 2y ago
> My interpretation of Krugman's departure is that higher-ups edited and re-edited his columns to reduce the possibility of calling up a kerfuffle. They wanted him to soften his words and blunt his message because they were sensitive to calls of media bias. I think that's exactly the wrong response.
This seems to be how Krugman is framing it, but is editorial oversight actually bad?
In the past this kind of pundit class could basically make things up and papers like the Times would just regurgitate whatever they claim.
We know what Krugman is claiming about the editors, but I could imagine a counterfactual where they were striking misleading or unsupported statements from his posts.
- hackyhacky 2y agoSure, why not. Krugman could be lying about the reason for his departure. In fact, maybe he left to avoid embarrassment from the public revelation of his illicit economist-on-editor sex affair. However, that's what might be politely called "unsupported speculation" aka "just making things up." Without evidence to the contrary, I see no reason not to take Krugman at his word.
- JeremyNT 2y ago> I see no reason not to take Krugman at his word. Why do you find him trustworthy? He's clearly got an axe to grind and lots of incentive to make himself look good on his own blog. Numerous times I've read blog posts on HN which present one person's side of a dispute, only to see it refuted later. I'm glad to withhold judgment here until more information is available.