Krugman reveals the NYT urged him to ‘lay off’ the Bush administration.»

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/22/krugman-reveals-the-nyt-urged-him-to-lay-off-the-bush-administration/

Krugman reveals the NYT urged him to ‘lay off’ the Bush administration.»

On Friday at the Netroots Nation conference, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman spoke on a panel about “How the media learned to bend over backwards to please the right.” Krugman discussed the right wing’s success at pressuring the media and how some of that filtered down to him:

KRUGMAN: I could see a little bit of the effects. I was never told to stop writing what I was writing. It was, however, made known to me that I was making management nervous. There were occasional, “Couldn’t you do more straight economics writing?” Pretty much the last time I heard that was in 2005, when I was sort of urged to lay off a bit. The words that stuck in my mind were, “The election settled some of these things.” Basically that all stopped with Katrina, actually.

Watch it (approx. 19:00) at link~

Wait, are we referring to him or me?

:yoiks:

I can only imagine what it was like at the NYTs.

The hardest thing was weaning myself off the Sunday puzzles. But I'm fine now.

He was pounding on Bush fairly regularly about Bush's harebrained economic policies, and the NYT told him to can it.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

<Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and
wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it
so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day,
lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who
expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while the national media, with few
exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed
allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,'' and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence
of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''>

of 'hope', only to have it all come crashing down. :(

all of sudden it was like somebody hit a switch the vote started coming in 70, 80, 90%
bush .... it didn't matter the city, the state, the precinct ..... and the media knows this too.

He never intended to win.

I've yet to see anything to convince me otherwise. ANYTHING.

into hearing anyone whine. Just look at his record, before and after. Who in their right mind would put themselves through that for nothing? Don't answer.

And thanks for all the links providing the proof I'm wrong.

Oops- I answered. My bad. C'est la vie. :shrug:

was slated to win as Botany mentioned above, then you are clueless. And your links are telling. :eyes:

he got the 2nd highest # of votes in history .... and if you took the cheating away he got the highest # in history.

Knowing the NYT's history with the likes of Judith Miller and all, this still surprises me a bit.

I didn't appreciate all he was saying during the primaries, but what he's been saying in general is pretty gutsy, and all the more so considering this story.

Something wrong with this picture El Rushbo!

as they concentrate, they lose much of their independent power. The so called "free" press becomes enslaved to increasingly narrow interests.

All the corrupted powers that be only need to lean on or pressure a *handful of media owners or CEOs to make the effects known when so few control so much of the national voice.

*If those media owners and CEOs aren't already part of the corrupted powers that be.

Thanks for the thread, babylonsister.

Kicked and recommended.

We don't play it their way and they find ways to send a message. It gets downright chilling when you know they're donating something to a major public facility like a school, because you just don't know whose arm they're going to bend to get influence they never should have had in the first place.