Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Paul Krugman: #1 Most Partisan Columnist in U.S.

Lying in Ponds is an attempt to encourage vigorous, independent commentary in the American punditocracy by quantifying and analyzing partisanship. Lying in Ponds tries to draw a fundamental distinction between ordinary party preference and excessive partisanship. The presence of an excessive partisan bias transforms journalism into advertising, too distorted and unreliable to be useful in any serious political debate. Political parties are a healthy, essential part of American democracy; excessive partisanship is not. The methods used here are an attempt to quantify only partisanship, and are not intended as a more general guide to the quality of a columnist.

Lying in Ponds currently tracks the Democratic and Republican biases of a selection of regular political columnists from various sources, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal’s OpinionJournal, and the Washington Post.

Final Rankings for Partisanship:

2002: #1 Paul Krugman

2003: #1 Ann Coulter, #2 Paul Krugman

2004: #1 Ann Coulter, #2 Paul Krugman

2005: #1 Paul Krugman

2007: #1 Ann Coluter, #2 Paul Krugman (tied with Joe Conason)

2008: #1 Paul Krugman


At 10/14/2008 11:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This shows how worthless Krugman's latest award is

At 10/14/2008 11:22 AM, Blogger MovingEast said...

But the award was for models he build 25 years ago - and they have value. His intellectual achievement in that should be considered and appreciated separately from his job in the newspaper, don't you think?

At 10/14/2008 11:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And it grand old tradition of academia, one jealous professor jabs at another for winning a prize :-)

And all of this while the normal (non-tenure) world crumbles in partisanship by the intellectuals

At 10/14/2008 12:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Man, someone is a little jealous this morning.

I agree with movingeast. No matter what you think of his partisanship, his contributions to New Trade theory are undeniable.

Congratulations, Paul!

At 10/14/2008 1:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

uncle Paul gets a prize for a 25 year old THEORY?

one that will be proven to be more than just a bit wrong by technology?

heh. those whacky Swedes.

At 10/14/2008 1:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He deserves recognition for his models; however, it's too bad he sold his soul to get big bucks from the NYT and to sell books as of late.

At 10/14/2008 2:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps, Krugman will be visited by 3 spirits this evening....while there is still time to repent...and do some serious research!

This prize recognizes Krugman's outstanding early work which still stands regardless of his work for the NYT. The prize for journalism is a Pulitzer not a Nobel!

Surely, Krugman is not the only person in America who is allergic to George W (seem to recall a few sneezes from my fellow posters :). Journalism has swung toward editorial opinion and away from investigative journalism. One can trace this development back to the Whitewater scandal where rumor started to be reported as news and the development of the Op Ed. The news itself seems to have shifted toward opinion and pithy soundbites from pundits like Stossel, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Moore, etc. The expansion of news sources coupled with the dwindling time the public spend on getting news reinforce the sound byte opinion approach.

Eventually, people tire of being told what to think and ask for "just the facts". Krugman's writings have been fairly typical of recent journalistic trends.

Agree that he is capable of much more interesting work. Perhaps, the prize will inspire him to recapture the excitment of his early research. It is very easy to lose that spark of inspiration and motivation that makes great insights possible.

At 10/14/2008 2:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If we want to recognize academic models from 25 years ago, how about Playboy's "The Girls of the SEC Conference" from 1993?

At 10/14/2008 2:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Take a look at previous nobelists. The prize generally recognizes contributions made decades ago.

It's like getting a lifetime achievement award from the Oscars. The odds favor those who live to 90 plus.

At 10/14/2008 4:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Krugman is a communist? Oh, Columnist. Maybe both.

At 10/14/2008 4:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Too bad he's been wrong about everything since. Whatever he forecasts, put your money on the opposite.

At 10/14/2008 6:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, I don't agree with him on most things...except for corn based ethanol but one should try to give the devil his due.

At 10/14/2008 6:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They also rank George Will as a slightly partisan Democrat.

At 10/15/2008 12:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Further proof that the Nobel committee is filled with idiots. Krugman's 25 year old theory is bunk as his is treasured broken window fallacy.

At 10/15/2008 5:41 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> Lying in Ponds

Krugman should be a natural for that. He's all wet already, and he's got the lying part down. Now he just needs to go jump in the lake!

At 10/15/2008 5:43 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> Krugman is a communist? Oh, Columnist. Maybe both.

Attach a few additional legs to him, and he could be a committee.

You know -- six or more legs and no brain.

At 10/16/2008 11:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't speak for his contributions as an economist, but his editorials are hyper-partisan, hateful vs. Republicans/conservatives and off the fringe of the truth.

All of which make him deserving of the "#1 Most Partisan Columnists in US" ranking.

As for the Nobel committee, I don't know how reputable their selections are in economics, but their selections for the so-called "peace prize" are a cruel joke and show true cluelessness.


Post a Comment

<< Home