NYT Public Editor Brings Down Wrath in Krugman vs. Sorkin Schooling, Basically Like "Foster Was Right."
Very rarely will we pull out the YEAH WE TOLD ALL Y'ALL MOTHERFUCKAS card unless truly, truly necessary. But it's worth highlighting in this case, when the New York Times ombudsman, Public Editor Clark Hoyt, weighed in on the epic battle between NYT writers Andrew Ross Sorkin and Paul Krugman.
Quick recap: Young-gun finance reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote an article about the government's bank bailout as maybe having worked. In it, he quoted Times columnist Paul Krugman, talking about Krugman's writing last year, when Krugman kept pushing the idea that the American government should nationalize our banks. And Krugman told Sorkin that he needed to apologize to him.
Except we did our research, and found out that Krugman actually suggested temporarily nationalizing our banks, instead of going whole-hog communist with them and instituting a permanent government takeover of a massive private sector. We cited articles and clippings from last February in which Krugman made these assertions, as well as a newspaper syndication and a Bloomberg report on these clippings that inaccurately overstated Krugman's position. We concluded that:
Unless Sorkin comes up with something better on Krugman... he was wrong. Not only was he wrong, but his attempt to shell-shock readers by calling someone out in his own building backfired miserably, and in doing so, he likely just threw his "haters" both in and outside of the Times some fuel for their fire.
Now, on the one hand, yes: Clark Hoyt did quote us as saying "Shots Fired," which means the phrase "Shots Fired" got in the New York Times because of us, which means we can die happy. On the other hand, all Hoyt quoted was "Shots Fired," and instead concluded on his own:
A full and fair reading of the column where they appeared does not support the notion that he favored nationalizing the entire banking system.
WHICH IS THE EXACT SAME NOISE WE MADE TWO DAYS BEFORE. Even Mediaite knows this! Anyway, the point is,
Welcome to The Village Voice, where we get shit right two days before you.
So, anyway, the latest is that Sorkin and Krugman had a conversation Sorkin called "very cordial" and Krugman called "not much fun," probably because "fun" would've involved Krugman stuffing Sorkin into a locker sometime after giving him a "swirly." The op-ed editor agreed with Krugman, New York Times executive editor Bill Keller doesn't want to take sides because he's a pansy and pays Sorkin too much, and Sorkin went back to his editors to talk about whether or not they should just get Old Man Krugman to take his Musilex and shut the fuck up by apologizing, which they probably won't, because they don't need to, and the majority of the people at the Times likely think Sorkin's an overpaid shit anyway, so why stop here? Anyway, like we said before, Paul "Krug Lyfe" Krugman wins.