The Grey Lady, At It Again

 

From an article in today’s New York Times headlined “In Ireland, a Picture of the High Cost of Austerity“:

[Ireland’s] downturn has certainly been sharper than if the government had spent more to keep people working. Lacking stimulus money, the Irish economy shrank 7.1 percent last year and remains in recession.

It’s one thing to have to put up with neo-Keynesian nonsense on the editorial page.  But in supposedly hard news stories? If the reporter, Liz Alderman, had written that “Many economists, such as Paul Krugman, believe the Irish downturn has been sharper than if the government had spent more,” without also presenting any opposing view, that would have proven silly enough.  But no. The downturn, she writes, instead “has certainly been sharper than if the government had spent more.”  How does she know? She doesn’t.  She can’t.  Does she at least have an impressive body of evidence on her side?  Not exactly.  Whereas here in the United States the President promised that his vast stimulus package would reduce unemployment to 8%, unemployment remains nearly 10%.  Why is it certain that stimulus spending would have worked in Ireland?  

What Liz Alderman demonstrates in those two sentences is that she, every editor who looked at her story–really, he whole apparatus of the New York Times–have chosen simply to ignore the last half century of lived experience and intellectual progress.  Here and there, it’s true, neo-Keynesians still argue their case.  But the unchallenged Keynesian orthodoxy?  Milton Friedman, George Stigler, Gary Becker and others overthrew it decades ago.  Honestly, there are moments when I don’t see how anyone can read the New York Times with a straight face anymore.

There are 9 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Member
    @

    The High Cost of Austerity— well, isn’t that an ironic title. How about The High Cost of Spending Lots of Money in Useless Ways?

    Let’s see– if a consumer were to do this (I know Keynesians say this comparison doesn’t work when applied to the macro economy, to which I say pfffffft), it would be The High Cost of Saving Money and Living Below your Means. Oooooo, that’s a scary thought.

    • #1
  2. Profile Photo Inactive
    @TheGlaswegian

    People read the New York Times with a straight face? Really?

    • #2
  3. Profile Photo Inactive
    @OnggoFerriols

    I cannot agree with you more, Peter!

    • #3
  4. Profile Photo Member
    @CharlesAllen

    People read the New York Times??

    • #4
  5. Profile Photo Member
    @AaronMiller

    I’d like to reiterate that the New York Times is alive and kicking largely because conservatives keep buying copies and linking to its articles. If we absolutely must discuss the NYT for its cultural relevance or whatever, can we at least rely on library copies and paraphrasing? Let’s not feed the disease.

    • #5
  6. Profile Photo Coolidge
    @PJS

    How can you respect a “news” organization that makes their THEATER critic a political columnist?

    • #6
  7. Profile Photo Member
    @ScottR

    The NYT’s “downturn has certainly been sharper than if” they had been covering the news without a hidden agenda.

    • #7
  8. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Cindy
    Peter Robinson: From an article in today’s New York Times headlined “In Ireland, a Picture of the High Cost of Austerity“:

    Honestly, there are moments when I don’t see how anyone can read the New York Times with a straight face anymore. ·

    I have to agree with Aaron Miller that there is an awful lot of quoting from the NYT!

    • #8
  9. Profile Photo Inactive
    @StickerShock

    Are there any newspapers that practice the seperation of news from editorials?

    • #9

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.