Paul Krugman - Back To The Future

Do not let it be said that he lacks imagination - Paul Krugman opens a new front in the "biased media" war by criticizing CNN for coverage they haven't aired yet.

No, I'm serious - here we go:

CNN used to be different, but Campaign Desk, which is run by The Columbia Journalism Review, concluded after reviewing convention coverage that CNN "has stooped to slavish imitation of Fox's most dubious ploys and policies." Seconds after John Kerry's speech, CNN gave Ed Gillespie, the Republican Party's chairman, the opportunity to bash the candidate. Will Terry McAuliffe be given the same opportunity right after President Bush speaks?

Time will tell! CNN made only a brief mention of a DNC press release back in 2000, but who knows what they have in store for the Republicans this time?

The Earnest Prof was also deeply troubled that the media tried to peek behind the facade erected by the Democrats:

Another technique, pervasive on both Fox and CNN, was to echo Republican claims of an "extreme makeover" - the assertion that what viewers were seeing wasn't the true face of the party. (Apparently all those admirals, generals and decorated veterans were ringers.)

It will probably be easier to make a comparable case in New York, where the Republicans are expected to feature an array of moderate, pro-choice speakers and keep Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay under wraps.

Time will tell! But is he, or anyone, pretending that the media did not cry "Where are the real Republicans?" throughout the 2000 Republican Convention? Here is a CNN clip for flavor; here, Judy Woodruff opens the coverage of the final night by describing a "warm and fuzzy photo-op".

So, was this convention a Democratic makeover, or at least, a combover? Reality denied!

...in Boston, it took creativity to portray the delegates as being out of the mainstream.

Creativity, plus this CBS poll.

And, perhaps haunted by the strains of "Will you still love me tommorow?", the economist turned media critic closes by deploring the media's quest for perspective, re-evaluation, and second thoughts:

...the real power of a script is the way it can retroactively change the story about what happened.

On Thursday night, Mr. Kerry's speech was a palpable hit. A focus group organized by Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, found it impressive and persuasive. Even pro-Bush commentators conceded, at first, that it had gone over well.

But a terrorism alert is already blotting out memories of last week. Although there is now a long history of alerts with remarkably convenient political timing, and Tom Ridge politicized the announcement by using the occasion to praise "the president's leadership in the war against terror," this one may be based on real information. Regardless, it gives the usual suspects a breathing space; once calm returns, don't be surprised if some of those same commentators begin describing the ineffective speech they expected (and hoped) to see, not the one they actually saw.

Ahh, it's that Evil Tom Ridge making us think that maybe Kerry's speech wasn't so hot. One wonders whether a NY Times editorial that included the word "pandering", or a Washington Post editorial titled "Missed Opportunity" also contributed to second thoughts. My guess - when the WaPo closes with "[Sen. Kerry] fell short of demonstrating the kind of leadership the nation needs", that is not good.

Beyond that, as new polls come out reflecting the impact of Kerry's performance, isn't a bit of re-assessment inevitable?

The Professor does give well deserved props to Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler; we only wonder whether the Earnest Prof has taken a moment to put his old column and this Somerby column side by side.

He also lauds Media Matters (belatedly, since he channelled their "shove it" coverage in an earlier column). My view of the Media Matters operation is subtly hinted at in this post, which (inexplicably) does not contain the phrase "clown show".

Comments

[Brad DeLong]

I hereby serve you legal notice that the phrase "clown showTM" is copywrite DeLongWorldEnterprises.

[TM]

Boy, one of my old colleagues is going to be unhappy to hear that - I don't know if he had any *other* description for our situation.

And that reminds me of an old New Yorker cartoon - or something...

Anyway, a man asks his kid if he would like to come in the city to see Dad's office. The kid is all excited, can't wait to get there,and is very eager to meet everyone.

But eventually, his enthusiasm flags, and Dad (presumably surrounded by co-workers) asks him what's wrong.

And the little lad says, gee, Dad, I am just sad that I can't see the clown show that you are always saying goes on here all the time.

Ba du bum...

[Fan]

Funniest line in the Krugman article:

"A now-famous poll showed that Fox viewers were more likely than those who get their news elsewhere to believe that evidence of Saddam-Qaeda links has been found, that W.M.D. had been located and that most of the world supported the Iraq war."

-At least he gives credit to Fox when its due.

[Hmmmm]

"Funniest line in the Krugman article"

It's funny cuz it's true!

[Crank]

What's funny is Krugman - who bristles with resentment at bloggers and other internet commentators exposing his own work - casting himself as the champion of media watchdogs and skeptic of mainstream journalism.

[RW]

Gee, you don't think he's pimping Brock's outfit because his fellow economic prof (Duncan) & buddy has been working there (and keeping it a secret while sending links in that direction), do you?

Eh, whenever Krugman gets on my nerves, I just recall when he went on "This week" and had Newt Gingrich hand him his lunch & I immediately go about my business & remember that he's just another drum-banger upset because the voters don't agree with him.

Not that I don't feel his pain....

[Brian]

Wow, you can twist things in a number of different ways, it seems.

Krugman is not criticizing CNN for something it hasn't done. He's merely expressing his huge and understandable skepticism that CNN won't treat both parties the same way. Rip him apart if you want, but don't try to describe something he didn't do.

As for the Democratic delegates being out of the mainstream, that CBS poll doesn't prove a great deal. I wonder, Tom, why you didn't mention the many other points where the Democrats nationwide and the delegates agree.

I also wonder why you don't mention things like Tucker Carlson stupidly asking, repeatedly, why the transgendered population wasn't front and center at the convention. That's the sort of nonsense to which Krugman refers.

As for the media not liking the speech, most media personalities and outlets seem to think it was good - and some even thought it was excellent. Krugman's point wasn't firm, as he was merely speculating, but you didn't prove your point at all by trotting out two editorials that were published before the terror warnings. Why you think you did is beyond me.

I also don't agree with you on mediamatters.org, but then again, my opinion might change with time.

[TM]

Krugman is not criticizing CNN for something it hasn't done.

From his column:

CNN used to be different, but Campaign Desk, which is run by The Columbia Journalism Review, concluded after reviewing convention coverage that CNN "has stooped to slavish imitation of Fox's most dubious ploys and policies."

That is not criticism? OK.

I wonder, Tom, why you didn't mention the many other points where the Democrats nationwide and the delegates agree.

I don't suppose you really do wonder. But as a matter of fact, I suspect that I, and the most loathsome racist redneck fool you could find, would agree on many things - strong defense, preference forlower taxes, Red Sox suck, oxygen is good - but I woulds still consider him to be out of the mainstream. Not to suggest, of course, that the Dem delegates were loathsome fools.

Krugman's point wasn't firm, as he was merely speculating, but you didn't prove your point at all by trotting out two editorials that were published before the terror warnings. Why you think you did is beyond me.

We are betond each other, than - Krugman's point would seem to be that the terror warnings shatered the magic of Kerry's speech.

My point would be that two of the most highly regarded newspapers in the country gave the speech a rasberry *before* their judgement was clouded by the terror warnings. Which suggests (to me, anyway) that there were serious critics who disliked the speech even before other events distracted them. Is that really confusing?