Believe It or Not, Even More Stupidity from Don Luskin

Is he trying to top himself each day with more and more stupidity?


THE TIMES ADMITS IT: NO FACT-CHECKING ON COLUMNS In coaching Pat Buchanan to prepare for his confrontation with Paul Krugman on MSNBC's "Buchanan & Press," I suggested to the producer that the single most devastating question Buchanan could ask Krugman would be:

Does anyone fact-check your columns?

No matter what he answers, you can be shocked -- shocked! "No? Do you mean to tell me that there's no reality check on all the wild allegations you make in your columns?" Or, "Yes? You mean there's someone who's supposed to be catching all these lies, errors, and misquotations?"

Buchanan didn't ask that question (he had his own devastating question: "Are you kidding?"). But I now know the true answer to it. The answer is "no." No one fact-checks Paul Krugman's column, or any other op-ed columns at the New York Times.

That's according to New York Times Company VP of Corporate Communications Catherine Mathis, a very nice lady whom I contacted while researching a piece I'm working on for the print edition of National Review. When I got her on the phone and explained what I was looking for she asked in a tone of surprise and innocence, "Do you mean there's something wrong with something that Paul Krugman has written?" I just said, "Hey, you obviously don't know who I am. There are only about a million things wrong. But right now I just want to know about the process." And here's what she was gracious enough to tell me.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

That leaves the only potentially somewhat independent source of corrections for columns being the Letters section. There are numerous examples of letters correcting Krugman's screw-ups (such as here, and here <http://www.poorandstupid.com/2003_08_10_chronArchive.asp#106083632064204248>) -- but these don't have the force of officially acknowledged "corrections" of an admitted error: they're just equal time for another view. I've asked Ms. Mathis for more details on how letters get chosen for publication, and whether the columnist is involved in that decision. As soon as I find out, so will you.

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2003_08_10_chronArchive.asp#106083632064204248

Nice attack, no facts.

He can start and finish with William Safire's column. If that mendacious canker sore ever started issuing corrections, he'd be writing for the rest of his life and for the first three eternities he'll be in Hell, eating the corn out of Richard Nixon's shit.