This was fun to read:
The Wall Street Journal is not stupid. They’re smart. They’ve put their news content behind a pay wall and have done quite well revenue-wise for their troubles. BUT, they also want to influence public opinion. And being a key component of the Right Wing Noise Machine, the WSJ editorial board has made sure their opinion material is accessible to everyone. Heck, they have a guy emailing their content to bloggers. They even have a separate site for it: OpinionJournal.com. You want your dose of Peggy Noonan (must … supress … gag reflex), or John Fund, or James Taranto? You’ve got them. No pesky paywall between their opinion content and the people they hope to influence.
The New York Times, on the other hand, is the textbook definition of stupid. They take the one part of the paper that is a commodity — the opinion — and try to charge for that. No Krugman? Who cares. Give me Brad DeLong. No Bob Herbert? Whatever. Give me James Wolcott or anyone at the American Prospect or Washington Monthly. Or any of the thousands of columnists at other newspapers, and the tens of thousands of political bloggers…
Suddenly, overnight, Brooks and Friendman and Krugman and Herbert have been ripped out of the national debate. Whatever void that might have created has already been filled by the multitudes of voices in the sphere.
So the Wall Street Journal works hard to be a top influencer in the national debate. And the New York Times works hard to become a provincial paper.
Kos, ripping into the NY Times and telling us what we already knew- Krugman and Dowd are irrelevant. Annoying and petty, but irrelevant.
And if there is anyone in the country who can explain to me how Bob Herbert has a job, I would love to hear your story.
jobiuspublius
That was very obtusely angled cheap shot. You could also argue that one gets what you pays for. Strange that the WSJ opinion is worth the same as yours?
ppGaz
Job, it’s called Peanuts Envy.
MrSnrub
Are Brooks and Friedman irrelevant as well?
John Cole
They all are, now.
Steven D
Putting Brooks behind the firewall should really help Jim Lehrer’s Friday ratings, since now when Brooks regurgitates his latest column, it will actually be fresh.
otto man
As soon as you can explain Tierney, I’ll explain Herbert. Good luck with that.
Rick
And if there is anyone in the country who can explain to me how Bob Herbert has a job, I would love to hear your story.
I suspect the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations. IOW, Affirmative Action. Like happened for former WaPo columnist Dorothy Gilliam.
Cordially…
ppGaz
This does not answer the rhetorical and nonsensical question “how (he) has a job” but it does provide at least some basic information. You know, in case somebody out there thought that Mr. Herbert had just wandered in as an ignorant hillbilly from West Virginia and been hired in as an Affirmative Action move.
Or, something.
Rick
Or just promoted via AA above his level of competence. I’ve read him, and never suspected him of West Virginiatude.
Cordially…
ppGaz
Really? So you can read entire paragraphs, but have just never decided to try writing them?
Rick
ppgaz,
I keep a lid on. Pearls before swine, you know.
Cordially…
ppGaz
Ah, today’s “Halle Berry is really a guy” line.
Okay.
kl
Apparently it’s a given!
ppGaz
Mr. Cole’s story of how he has a job will be in bookstores this fall.
jobiuspublius
Or earned it.
Will someone explain how Judith Miller has a a job?
jobiuspublius
Ah, yes, Miller, Bolton.
DougJ
Obviously, Dowd is irrelevant. Anyone who thinks Krugman is irrelevant is a jack ass. He and George Will are the only two Op-Ed writers who *are* relevant if you ask me.
DougJ
Okay, I see that you and the kos people are saying is that you can read Brad DeLong instead of Krugman. Okay, fair enough, I guess.
DougJ
Brooks and Herbert were part of the national debat?
Jon H
Actually, though, even beforehand, the WSJ had a much higher profile in the media, and the Times hasn’t had much at all.
When I see a print columnist or reporter on TV, it’s usually someone from the Wall Street Journal, or the Washington Post/Newsweek.
The Times columnists are more likely to show up in other media when they have a new book out. Brooks is something of an exception, because he has a weekly gig with Lehrer which predates his Times job. Times reporters don’t turn up much at all, it seems.
I seem to see the WSJ’s John Harwood all over the place, and Gerry Seib is on CNBC most days.
Randolph Fritz
Um, maybe this is because the WSJ’s publishers are unabashed right-wing dingos and the NY Times publishers believe in publishing a newsletter.
Paul Krugman, as an academic economist, teacher of economics, and co-author of one of the new basic texts on the subject, probably has more effect on national policy than just about about any other commentator; he moonlights as an op-ed columnist.
Sal
kos isn’t arguing that they’re petty or irrelevant, just that you can find similar views & expertise for free, and that putting them in pay per view will end up limiting their influence on public debate, at least as columnists for one of the major media outlets in the US, which will result in that debate being skewed towards the right in an unrepresentative fashion, and yes, as someone with a Humanities degree, minor in English, I don’t generally believe in run on sentences, but, as someone with a degree in the field, I grant myself, at least on this occasion, an exemption.
Thank you.
WyldPirate
I used to think Mr. Cole had a decent head on his shoulders. No more. Anyone that would conclude that Krugman is irrelevant because he is put behind a pay firewall instead of based upon his writings given what kos wrote can’t think straight.
kos’ point was that the NYT’s ACTIONS are what made Krugman and the rest of the op-ed columnists at NYT, not their writing.
No wonder schools are fucked up with teachers like Cole whose reading comprehension seems so bad. He thinks like Tierney writes.
Defense Guy
Krugmans a wanker. He’s better off behind the firewall, beacuse then he has less chance of people catching his lies. The indoctrination has gone well with WyldPirate apparently. Keep that mind closed buddy.
James C.
The best line I’ve ever heard about Maureen Dowd came from ex-boyfriend, Michael Douglas, at his bachelor party several years ago. While obviously a bit tipsy, he announced to the assembled friends that “Dowd was the worst lay of his entire life…even worse than Brenda Vacarro!”
DougJ
Come on, DG, you’re not *that much* of a partisan idiot are you? You don’t usually sound like one.
I have a test: if someone is a Democrat and hates George Will, I don’t listen to them, and if someone is a Republican and hates Paul Krugman, I don’t listen to them.
Defense Guy
I don’t hate him, DougJ, but he does lie and his analysis is wrong as often as it is right. Not a great record for an economist.
He has BDS, and I don’t recall Will having the same type issues with Clinton.
ppGaz
[ spits coffee ]
[ spits more coffee ]
First thing in the morning, and I am already mopping up the kepyboard.
summr
It’s called the shit, life’s unfair rule. If Bush can get into Yale as a legacy, graduate with a C average, get into Harvard Business School with that C average, graduate from b-school, ruin several businesses, become president and appoint known incompetents (Brownie, etc.) to the highest offices and get unquestioning support from those who know there are smarter, more competent options for president out there, I see no reason why a Bob Herbert should be dinged for sustaining a 35 year career as a journalist.
It is interesting how Rick instantly cited affirmative action as the sole reason for Herbert’s hire. I guess he has performed a comprehensive study showing that every white reporter in existence in the last 35 years is demonstrably better than Herbert by some objectively defined criterion. Wonderful. As an African who has lived in the US for almost two decades I never cease to be amazed by this hypocrisy. Or by the positive difference in the way I am treated (once my accent is heard) compared to African Americans. But there are other things outside the US that bother me more so I’ll save my outrage for now.
jobiuspublius
The Times paywall, as much as we may not like it, might actually not make it’s columnists totally irrelevant, for better or worse. It might reach some campaign donors or voting block and, by excluding the rest of us, provide them with an environment to their liking.
Defense Guy
All part of the evil Republican ploy designed to prop up the coffee industry. Thanks for your participation.
ppGaz
Well that’s not totally fair to Bush. After all, he also had to overcome a serious drinking problem.
ppGaz
Actually, John Cole’s sophomoric little rantlet aside, and Herbert’s quite distinguished three-decade career notwithstanding, if Herbert had done nothing in his entire career but write about this one story, he’d be a hero as far as I am concerned. Herbert provided national exposure to a truly awful story of injustice:
Tulia Texas
Tulia Outrage
DougJ
By the way, DG, that thing about satanism earlier was a joke. I was trying to parody a left-wing reaction to what you were saying. I guess it was too subtle.
Actually, George Will made an ass of himself over Lewinsky. He said the president should be impeached for “abuse of the English language” or something like that. I still respect the guy, though; at least two-thirds of his arguments are very difficult to rebut. That’s my standard for a good Op-Ed writer, that most of their arguments be hard to rebut. Sadly, Krugman and Will are the only two I know of who meet that standard. A depressing number of Op-Ed pieces don’t even contain arguments.
ppGaz
Too subtle for this place? For DG?
Now that’s a sense of humor that isn’t just dry, it’s dessicated.
Defense Guy
DougJ
I got it. I didn’t think you were a satanist, and if you were, hey, its your life not mine.
ppGaz is now my biggest fan. It’s good work I do. I am sure I deserve it for that crap I was throwing at him not so long ago.
Defense Guy
BTW – I was against the impeachment. He lied, yep, but find me one who hasn’t. Hell, find me any politico who hasn’t. Not an excuse, more of an expectation at this point. The adultery thing, while objectionable to me, is really between him and his family. I hope she still kicks his ass for it.
I didn’t know Will was a proponent.
ppGaz
Actually, I weigh only 160 lbs.
;-)
DougJ
It surprised me that he was. BTW, on him and Krugman, I think Will is the best, better than Krugman. I just find that it is pretty hard to find gaping holes in Krugman’s arguments for the most part. Whereas with, say, Friedman or Brooks or Kristoff or Krauthammer, there is usually a real problem in the first paragraph or two.
ppGaz
Yes, you’ve made that abundantly clear today.
However, methinks that you are giving points for good OpEd writing, at the expense of intellectual integrity.
Will has long been a GOP whore, Doug. Get a grip.
I don’t care how well he writes his columns, he’s a whore. The trappings of intellectual finery are not a substitute for a complete absence of integrity.
And he doesn’t understand nearly as much about baseball as he claims to, either. A head full (remarkably full) of baseball lore does not make a guy you’d want to sit next to at the ballgame. He’s a bore.
A bore, and a whore.