Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Neither an Acolyte nor a Fool
Paul Krugman defended his integrity with room to spare in this exchange with departing NY Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent. Okrent blemished his otherwise impressive record at the Times with a nasty parting shot impugning Krugman's honesty, and did nothing to improve matters with the defense of that attack published in the Public Editor's forum today.
While we admit to deep appreciation for Krugman's work, we bristled -- as anyone would -- at Okrent's preemptive strike on Krugman's potential defenders, whom he labeled "acolytes". We are not acolytes.
Neither is Krugman a polemicist for defending his columns with data and his integrity with tenacity. Okrent would have better served himself with a humorous retraction and apology than with the logically sketchy and far too personal substantiations he offered. His claim -- that the reason he'd never raised his issues with Krugman before his parting cheap shot was that it was "futile to deal with" Krugman's "best-defense-is-a-good-offense approach" -- stretches credulity, and moreover simply doesn't cut it coming from the person whose job it was to do exactly that.
In fact, personal is exactly the right word for it. Okrent's original attack and subsequent insufficient back-up make clear that that's what it was between the two men: personal. As such it had no place in Okrent's last column, and clouds our memory of his tenure at the Times.
While we admit to deep appreciation for Krugman's work, we bristled -- as anyone would -- at Okrent's preemptive strike on Krugman's potential defenders, whom he labeled "acolytes". We are not acolytes.
Neither is Krugman a polemicist for defending his columns with data and his integrity with tenacity. Okrent would have better served himself with a humorous retraction and apology than with the logically sketchy and far too personal substantiations he offered. His claim -- that the reason he'd never raised his issues with Krugman before his parting cheap shot was that it was "futile to deal with" Krugman's "best-defense-is-a-good-offense approach" -- stretches credulity, and moreover simply doesn't cut it coming from the person whose job it was to do exactly that.
In fact, personal is exactly the right word for it. Okrent's original attack and subsequent insufficient back-up make clear that that's what it was between the two men: personal. As such it had no place in Okrent's last column, and clouds our memory of his tenure at the Times.
