29 Mar 2012

Krugman Gets Hit Hard by “Please” and “Thank You”

Conspiracy, Krugman 17 Comments

So here’s Paul Krugman describing his journalistic intrepidity and victimization by an evil corporation:

Predictably, the letter from Corrections Corporation of America has arrived, demanding a correction on yesterday’s column. Strangely, though, it demands that I correct statements I didn’t make, just things CCA claims I implied. I don’t think that passes the test; maybe they’ll find an actual error on second pass, but I was pretty careful precisely because I knew they’d be looking for something, anything.

According to the letter, by the way,

CCA does not and has not ever lobbied for or attempted to promote any legislation anywhere that affects sentencing and detention — under longstanding corporate policy.

Pure as the driven snow, they are.

A word about this sort of thing: anyone who steps on the toes of either corporate interests or major conservative institutions (which are often more or less the same thing) has to expect to run into a buzzsaw. The purpose of that buzzsaw is not so much to get specific corrections as to intimidate — to deter the journalist and his or her colleagues from going there again.

And it works. I’ve seen it over and over: some commentator says the obvious, gets hit hard, and thereafter steers away from such issues and is very, very careful not to offend the hard right.(And when the other side points this out, they get very upset — they thought they were safe).

I won’t pretend that I don’t get rattled myself. But I decided a long time ago that it’s precisely the areas that make you nervous that most need addressing.

Wow, I’m dying to see what those jackals threatened him with. Libel suits? A visit from Luca Brasi perhaps?

Here’s the letter:

Dear Mr. Krugman,

We are requesting that you publish a print-edition correction to several errors in your column, “Lobbyists, Guns And Money,” published in The New York Times on March 26.

The Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is not a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as you assert. It ended its membership in 2010.

You also severely mislead your readers by suggesting that CCA is involved in seeking to influence, promote or lobby for immigration detention policy through former membership in ALEC. That association was as a non-voting member only to monitor policy and not participate in discussions or votes.

In fact, CCA does not and has not ever lobbied for or attempted to promote any legislation anywhere that affects sentencing and detention — under longstanding corporate policy. Any statement to the contrary is false. The original basis for the falsehood in your column was a story by National Public Radio (NPR) in late 2010 that has been subsequently corrected by NPR, as you note in your corrective blog this morning. Indeed, if you choose to research the topic further, you will see that NPR broadcast a report in the months prior to its own correction of the 2010 report that identified the author of the Arizona detention legislation.

We will be following up with your office to see if you have any issues or concerns with our request to keep the public record straight and want to thank you in advance for your time and effort to correct the error.

Holy cow, how does Krugman do it? Is he in the NYT writer protection program at this point? (Go look at Krugman’s column and how serious the charges–which may be true, for all I know–are that he leveled against these people, to then gauge the tone of their letter to him.)

The funniest thing about all this is that Krugman’s post opens with: “Update: OK, by popular request, the text of the letter after the jump.”

So I’m assuming that means he initially did his whining without even posting this completely innocuous letter.

17 Responses to “Krugman Gets Hit Hard by “Please” and “Thank You””

  1. David R. Henderson says:

    So I’m assuming that means he initially did his whining without even posting this completely innocuous letter.

    Yes, Bob, that’s correct. I read the post when it first appeared and he did not include the letter. I do not think the word “demand” means what Paul Krugman thinks it means.

  2. Christopher says:

    If he feels intimidated by that, imagine how he feels about you!

  3. Dan says:

    No wonder he won’t debate you. The poor guy must be terrified after watching that video you made for the debate.

  4. Keshav Srinivasan says:

    The statement at the end, “We will be following up with your office to see if you have any issues or concerns with our request”, does sound somewhat ominous. I can see how Krugman can read that as saying that they’re going to contact the New York times office and discuss the fact that they requested a correction from Krugman, and it could potentially be the first step for them calling for his firing from the New York Times, similar to what happened to him when he wrote that post on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 about “fake heroes” like Rudy Giuliani and Bernie Kerick who he said took advantage of the attack for political benefit.

    • Richard Moss says:

      That’s probably how CCA got NPR to correct the same error.

      CCA sent NPR a letter with a similar ‘ominous’ closing and backed it up with a phone call to the U.S. government telling them to either make NPR correct their story, or eliminate NPR’s funding.

      Apparently the U.S. government folded like an old dollar bill.

      But, Krugman is a big boy…I think he could handle being a martyr.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      I can see how Krugman can read that as saying that they’re going to contact the New York times office and discuss the fact that they requested a correction from Krugman, and it could potentially be the first step for them calling for his firing from the New York Times…

      Well yeah, since Krugman routinely talks about the “paid trolls” who harass him in the comments of his posts, I guess “I can see how Krugman can read that” too.

      Anyway, the true irony in all this is that Krugman almost did exactly what they wanted; he let the world know what their official position is, regarding legislation. But he won’t do it in the print version! They may take our lives, but they will never take, our print columns!!

  5. Major_Freedom says:

    One demonizing demonizer, demonizing what he sees as his demons.

  6. Yancey Ward says:

    What is even worse is that Krugman basically is lying in the 2nd piece. He did make a mistake in the first column with the “deeply involved” assertion. This was what CCA was calling him on.

  7. Richie says:

    anyone who steps on the toes of either corporate interests or major conservative institutions (which are often more or less the same thing) has to expect to run into a buzzsaw. The purpose of that buzzsaw is not so much to get specific corrections as to intimidate — to deter the journalist and his or her colleagues from going there again.

    This is a perfect example of why Krugman is more of a political hack columnist than an economist.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Yeah the whole thing is incredibly slimy. (That might even be the adjective Krugman used when linking to his op ed when it first ran; I can’t remember but he used some term like that.) Krugman throws out a bunch of highly suggestive innuendo, and he knows full well the people he is impugning (perhaps accurately) will get mad. They write back and protest that he is misleading his readers, and he says (paraphrasing) “What? I didn’t say anything technically false. Yeah, I’m sure these guys didn’t do what I technically didn’t accuse them of doing.”

      I mean seriously, does everybody see how Krugman is trying to play this? My gosh. At least Jeremiah Wright comes out and stakes a bold position.

      • Rick Hull says:

        He is the master of suggestive language which can be quoted back to him and explained away. Slimy or masterful I guess, depending on your perspective.

  8. joshua says:

    Too bad the letter didn’t add, “Besides, why the hell would we be lobbying for laws that send *less* people to prison, anyway?”

  9. Tel says:

    When I saw, “Corrections Corporation of America” I thought, “Amazing! in the USA they have entire corporations just for the purpose of publishing corrections to errant columnists.”

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Tel that might be the funniest comment you’ve left on this blog to date.

  10. Teqzilla says:

    When Krugman talked about running into a buzzsaw my mind immediately went to the character Buzzsaw in the Arnold Schwarzenegger film ‘The Running man’. I’m not sure why. Probably because Krugman’s courage is so reminiscent of the courage demonstrated by Arnold’s character in that movie. That or I just like thinking about the running man which is undoubtedly the most underrated film in the Schwarzenegger canon. Hard to say.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Teqzilla, I think we’ll all ponder that for the weekend and come back with our thoughts on Monday.

    • Rick Hull says:

      Have you read the Bachman (Stephen King) book? That, and The Long Walk, were indeed quite thought provoking. Rich folks blow Dokes.

Leave a Reply to Richard Moss

Cancel Reply