NYT public editor Daniel Okrent wrote this in his farewell column on May 22:
Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults. ... some of Krugman's enemies are every bit as ideological (and consequently unfair) as he is. But that doesn't mean that their boss, publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., shouldn't hold (Krugman and other columnists) to higher standards.
I didn't give Krugman (or the others mentioned) the chance to respond before writing the last two paragraphs. I decided to impersonate an opinion columnist.
Come May 29, Krugman and some readers responded:
Your column was marvelous. I'm sure you didn't do much for the digestion of Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd at their breakfast tables. My only complaint is that you have to wear a hair shirt over calling the paper "liberal."
My goodness, when its "conservative" columnist rails that the moderate wing of the Republican Party can't win the day on the most important issue of the year (judges), the only question is, Is the Times liberal or ultra-liberal? The latter is correct.
PAUL KNOPICK
Laguna Hills, Calif., May 22, 2005
• A question: You stated that "Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."
On what basis do you make this charge? I'd like a couple of examples, please, with firm data to back up your charge - especially since Mr. Krugman regularly exposes the current administration's "shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers" rather convincingly, to my eyes.
STEPHEN ROBERT FRANKEL
New York, May 22, 2005
• In Daniel Okrent's parting shot as public editor of The New York Times, he levied a harsh charge against me: he said that I have "a disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."
He offered no examples of my "disturbing habit," and maybe I should stop there: surely it's inappropriate for the public editor to attack the ethics of one of the paper's writers without providing any supporting evidence. He responded to my request for examples with criticisms of specific columns. Those criticisms were simply wrong: in each of those columns I played entirely fair with my readers, using the standard data in the standard way.
That should be the end of the story.
I want to go back to doing what I have been doing all along: using economic data to inform my readers.
PAUL KRUGMAN
Princeton, N.J., May 24, 2005The writer is an Op-Ed columnist for The Times. He and Daniel Okrent will be addressing this matter further on the Public Editor's Web Journal (nytimes.com/byroncalame) early in the week.