Paul Krugman is still my hero. No one tells it so consistently the way it is. I occasionally part ways with him, as on the tax cuts for the rich, where he just beat that horse to death, but he is remarkably lucid and a darn good writer.
Today's column nails the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of the Republican members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which is now officially a joke.
Unfortunately, I may have to part ways more permanently with my other hero pundit economist, the incredibly prolific Simon Johnson, who has been so good on the too big to fail question. Johnson seems irremediably ensconced in the deficit hawk camp, as this column today evidences, whereas I continue to find the post-Keynesian view of deficits completely convincing. In any case, Johnson's voice in this issue will be lost in the chorus of orthodoxy, whereas he was a prophetic voice crying in the wilderness on the bank issue.
Update: Alas, now the leading post-Keynesian guru, Bill Mitchell, has consigned Simon to the nether world for the same offense. Underlines the importance of diversity of opinion, I guess
Friday, December 17, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
New Congress
Marc Fisher has a great p.1 story in the Post today about the tradition of Mr. Smiths coming to Washington promising reform and quickly getting coopted.
He starts off with a very funny anecdote about a newly elected Virginia Congressman, Morgan Griffith, who says there is nothing, nada, that he is looking forward to in DC. Except, maybe, he ventures after a pause, a Redskins game. Fisher obligingly finds a Republican "strategist" who affirms that Griffith will be sitting in a skybox before he knows it.
Lawmakers generally end up liking Washington so much they stay on as lobbyists or other hangers on even after they leave office. Best line of the story goes to PR firm owner Craig Shirley, who says, "They run against Washington calling it a cesspool and discover that it's really a hot tub."
Not sure if this means Marc Fisher is back to reporting. Maybe he has been and I just haven't noticed. Be happy to see more stories like this one in the Post.
He starts off with a very funny anecdote about a newly elected Virginia Congressman, Morgan Griffith, who says there is nothing, nada, that he is looking forward to in DC. Except, maybe, he ventures after a pause, a Redskins game. Fisher obligingly finds a Republican "strategist" who affirms that Griffith will be sitting in a skybox before he knows it.
Lawmakers generally end up liking Washington so much they stay on as lobbyists or other hangers on even after they leave office. Best line of the story goes to PR firm owner Craig Shirley, who says, "They run against Washington calling it a cesspool and discover that it's really a hot tub."
Not sure if this means Marc Fisher is back to reporting. Maybe he has been and I just haven't noticed. Be happy to see more stories like this one in the Post.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Forbes
My old buddy and sometime nemesis Lew Dvorkin floated some pretty scary prevarications in his introduction of changes to come at Forbes, where he is now "chief product officer." Here is his justification for compromising what little is left of Forbes' editorial integrity, followed by my response to its posting on Talking Biz News under the headline "How Forbes is changing journalism."
Dvorkin:
Making New Connections in a New Media World
By LEWIS DVORKIN
I began my transition to digital media 15 years ago, first as editor-in-chief of a magazine about the internet, then eight years at Aol and most recently as founder of an online news startup.
During that time I marveled at how many in the media world continued to find comfort in playing the role of gatekeeper, even as emerging technologies threatened their rule.
I had spent a fulfilling career as a print journalist. But I also watched as readers who wanted to share their knowledge about the news were relegated to the silo known as Letters to the Editor, with its strict rules for submission and placement far away from hallowed news pages.
Advertisers were put in silos, too, dictated by the principles of Church vs. State. Some marketers, notably Mobil, found their way out when The New York Times allocated space on its Op-Ed page in the late 1970’s for advocacy advertising.
I recently happened upon a nearly 30-year-old quote from Herb Schmertz, Mobil’s outspoken former head of public relations. It is eerily identical to the mantra of today: “There’s a dialogue out there,” he said, “and you’re either in it or you’re not.” Mobil decided to speak up, using scarce space in The Times to get its message out during the early days of America’s gasoline crisis.
Then the Web arrived. Its underlying technologies – and limitless space –began to topple the media’s traditional barriers. At will, readers could join the news conversation in real time, publish their thoughts and stories – and engage with journalists who cared to do so.
By taking to the Web, audience members with deep topic-specific expertise successfully took on quite a few professional journalists with far less knowledge. Marketers, experts in their own right, also became respected content providers in an increasingly information-obsessed society.
Next came Social Media. Its core elements effectively blew up every gate, wall and silo erected by the media. Suddenly, the media’s three distinct voices — journalists, consumers and marketers — could openly roam about and publish within close proximity of each other, connecting, communicating and learning. They began to form new kinds of relationships within highly personalized news streams.
Today, everyone can be a creator or curator of content. What was yesterday’s audience is today’s cadre of potential experts who can report what they know or filter information for distribution to friends who trust their judgments.
Advertisers can do the same. Intel, already both a blogger and tweeter, recently launched Free Press, a news section on its corporate web site with technology articles written by Intel staffers (some even have journalism credentials). Intel hopes to attract an audience, but it’s also making these stories available to be republished by traditional news organizations, many of which now have fewer resources for original reporting.
At Forbes, we’re beginning to open up our print and digital platforms so many more knowledgeable and credible content creators can provide information and perspective and connect with one another. In doing so, we will be totally transparent. All participants will be clearly identified, delineated and labeled.
Audience participation has long been part of Forbes.com. With the launch of this year’s Forbes 400, we began to place reader content in the contextual flow of the pages of our magazine (and there is much more to come). In next week’s issue we introduce a similar concept for advertisers. Today, SAP, a leading business software company, became our first digital AdVoice partner.
Our goal is to extend the Forbes reach, to make our magazine and Forbes.com a forum for journalists, consumers and marketers. We hope to fulfill what has always been the promise of our industry: open dialogue that leads to new and rewarding relationships.
My response:
Lew talks as if the concept "vested interest" didn't exist.
"Audience members with deep topic-specific expertise successfully took on quite a few professional journalists with far less knowledge," he says in describing how the Web created new possibilities for corporate interests to follow Mobil's pioneering efforts to tell the American public the truth about energy.
Right. These "audience members" also have an agenda, and one of the traditional roles of those editorial gatekeepers that Lew is now ready to dispense with is to put that agenda in context. Yes, the Web permits a dialogue, and those interested in the insights of Intel staffers can go to Intel's site.
I think we all embrace the diversity of ideas, opinions and informations that the Web makes available. My question is why Forbes as a Web site should be the aggregator of all this wonderful content from "marketers" and "consumers". Will it be open to absolutely everyone or is someone still deciding which choice Intel pieces will be "republished"? Calling SAP "our first digital AdVoice partner" certainly seems to suggest that these corporate shils will pay to have their content on the Forbes site and presumably since everything will be "transparent" that fact will that be disclosed.
Why not, really? But then the headline above should cut out the last word to read "How Forbes is changing." Call the new Forbes what you will -- a content marketplace, a corporate-consumer dialogue, a hack forum -- it has nothing to do with journalism.
Dvorkin:
Making New Connections in a New Media World
By LEWIS DVORKIN
I began my transition to digital media 15 years ago, first as editor-in-chief of a magazine about the internet, then eight years at Aol and most recently as founder of an online news startup.
During that time I marveled at how many in the media world continued to find comfort in playing the role of gatekeeper, even as emerging technologies threatened their rule.
I had spent a fulfilling career as a print journalist. But I also watched as readers who wanted to share their knowledge about the news were relegated to the silo known as Letters to the Editor, with its strict rules for submission and placement far away from hallowed news pages.
Advertisers were put in silos, too, dictated by the principles of Church vs. State. Some marketers, notably Mobil, found their way out when The New York Times allocated space on its Op-Ed page in the late 1970’s for advocacy advertising.
I recently happened upon a nearly 30-year-old quote from Herb Schmertz, Mobil’s outspoken former head of public relations. It is eerily identical to the mantra of today: “There’s a dialogue out there,” he said, “and you’re either in it or you’re not.” Mobil decided to speak up, using scarce space in The Times to get its message out during the early days of America’s gasoline crisis.
Then the Web arrived. Its underlying technologies – and limitless space –began to topple the media’s traditional barriers. At will, readers could join the news conversation in real time, publish their thoughts and stories – and engage with journalists who cared to do so.
By taking to the Web, audience members with deep topic-specific expertise successfully took on quite a few professional journalists with far less knowledge. Marketers, experts in their own right, also became respected content providers in an increasingly information-obsessed society.
Next came Social Media. Its core elements effectively blew up every gate, wall and silo erected by the media. Suddenly, the media’s three distinct voices — journalists, consumers and marketers — could openly roam about and publish within close proximity of each other, connecting, communicating and learning. They began to form new kinds of relationships within highly personalized news streams.
Today, everyone can be a creator or curator of content. What was yesterday’s audience is today’s cadre of potential experts who can report what they know or filter information for distribution to friends who trust their judgments.
Advertisers can do the same. Intel, already both a blogger and tweeter, recently launched Free Press, a news section on its corporate web site with technology articles written by Intel staffers (some even have journalism credentials). Intel hopes to attract an audience, but it’s also making these stories available to be republished by traditional news organizations, many of which now have fewer resources for original reporting.
At Forbes, we’re beginning to open up our print and digital platforms so many more knowledgeable and credible content creators can provide information and perspective and connect with one another. In doing so, we will be totally transparent. All participants will be clearly identified, delineated and labeled.
Audience participation has long been part of Forbes.com. With the launch of this year’s Forbes 400, we began to place reader content in the contextual flow of the pages of our magazine (and there is much more to come). In next week’s issue we introduce a similar concept for advertisers. Today, SAP, a leading business software company, became our first digital AdVoice partner.
Our goal is to extend the Forbes reach, to make our magazine and Forbes.com a forum for journalists, consumers and marketers. We hope to fulfill what has always been the promise of our industry: open dialogue that leads to new and rewarding relationships.
My response:
Lew talks as if the concept "vested interest" didn't exist.
"Audience members with deep topic-specific expertise successfully took on quite a few professional journalists with far less knowledge," he says in describing how the Web created new possibilities for corporate interests to follow Mobil's pioneering efforts to tell the American public the truth about energy.
Right. These "audience members" also have an agenda, and one of the traditional roles of those editorial gatekeepers that Lew is now ready to dispense with is to put that agenda in context. Yes, the Web permits a dialogue, and those interested in the insights of Intel staffers can go to Intel's site.
I think we all embrace the diversity of ideas, opinions and informations that the Web makes available. My question is why Forbes as a Web site should be the aggregator of all this wonderful content from "marketers" and "consumers". Will it be open to absolutely everyone or is someone still deciding which choice Intel pieces will be "republished"? Calling SAP "our first digital AdVoice partner" certainly seems to suggest that these corporate shils will pay to have their content on the Forbes site and presumably since everything will be "transparent" that fact will that be disclosed.
Why not, really? But then the headline above should cut out the last word to read "How Forbes is changing." Call the new Forbes what you will -- a content marketplace, a corporate-consumer dialogue, a hack forum -- it has nothing to do with journalism.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
MSNBC
Can't tell you how disappointed I was with MSNBC coverage of elections this evening. Chris Matthews has become insufferably full of himself. He actually questioned Rand Paul's description of the Senate as the "world's greatest deliberative body" -- a well-known and historic reference -- by asking if "anybody" has ever heard of that before.
Rachel Maddow, intelligent and articulate as she is, has become insufferably strident and doctrinaire. Eugene Robinson should stick to writing because he can't keep up with these TV personalities. I thought Larry O'Donnell was off his nut talking about the U.S. defaulting on its debt but that apparently is the received wisdom inside the Beltway if Congress should somehow not raise the debt ceiling. Saints preserve us. Keith Olbermann's rhetorical leading questions are just tiresome, though his passion is still engaging.
These were my heroes in the 2008 election. How times have changed.
Rachel Maddow, intelligent and articulate as she is, has become insufferably strident and doctrinaire. Eugene Robinson should stick to writing because he can't keep up with these TV personalities. I thought Larry O'Donnell was off his nut talking about the U.S. defaulting on its debt but that apparently is the received wisdom inside the Beltway if Congress should somehow not raise the debt ceiling. Saints preserve us. Keith Olbermann's rhetorical leading questions are just tiresome, though his passion is still engaging.
These were my heroes in the 2008 election. How times have changed.
Charles Krauthammer
Charles Krauthammer used to be reasonably intelligent but he has not fared well in the polarized era. Maybe it has something to do with dyeing his hair.
I try not to read him in the Post, but last Friday, he did pick up quickly on Obama's "enemies" diatribe in his Univision address, which was obviously another huge political error on the president's part.
But then Krauthammer went on, much as a global warming denier, to assert that this midterm election was not about the economy:
"Democratic apologists would prefer to pretend otherwise - that it's all about the economy and the electorate's anger over its parlous condition. Nice try. The most recent CBS/New York Times poll shows that only one in 12 Americans blames the economy on Obama, and seven in 10 think the downturn is temporary. And yet, the Democratic Party is falling apart. Democrats are four points behind among women, a constituency Democrats had owned for decades; a staggering 20 points behind among independents (a 28-point swing since 2008); and 20 points behind among college graduates, giving lie to the ubiquitous liberal conceit that the Republican surge is the revenge of lumpen know-nothings."
He ignores the obvious points that even if you don't blame the economy on Obama and even if you think the downturn is temporary (what isn't in life?), you still want the administration to do something about it. Once again, this pundit, well beyond his sell-by date, lets ideology blind him to the facts.
The tip-off is his concluding throwaway prediction: Rangers in seven.
I try not to read him in the Post, but last Friday, he did pick up quickly on Obama's "enemies" diatribe in his Univision address, which was obviously another huge political error on the president's part.
But then Krauthammer went on, much as a global warming denier, to assert that this midterm election was not about the economy:
"Democratic apologists would prefer to pretend otherwise - that it's all about the economy and the electorate's anger over its parlous condition. Nice try. The most recent CBS/New York Times poll shows that only one in 12 Americans blames the economy on Obama, and seven in 10 think the downturn is temporary. And yet, the Democratic Party is falling apart. Democrats are four points behind among women, a constituency Democrats had owned for decades; a staggering 20 points behind among independents (a 28-point swing since 2008); and 20 points behind among college graduates, giving lie to the ubiquitous liberal conceit that the Republican surge is the revenge of lumpen know-nothings."
He ignores the obvious points that even if you don't blame the economy on Obama and even if you think the downturn is temporary (what isn't in life?), you still want the administration to do something about it. Once again, this pundit, well beyond his sell-by date, lets ideology blind him to the facts.
The tip-off is his concluding throwaway prediction: Rangers in seven.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Inside Job
Charles Ferguson's documentary does a great job of laying out the financial crisis and showing the outrage that bank executives, who deserve to be called "banksters," have not been prosecuted.
My favorite line is Nouriel Roubini's response when he's asked why there has been no investigation of the crisis. "Because then," Roubini says in his thick accent, "you would find the culprits."
Hopefully the film will stoke the sense of public outrage and make it impossible for the politicians to sweep this under the rug. As I've made clear in my MarketWatch columns, I think the non-response to the financial crisis (along with numerous other mistaken economic policies) are the reasons for Obama's failure, at least so far, as president. The film makes patently clear why Geithner, Summers and Bernanke as well -- all involved in creating the mess -- could hardly be relied upon to clean it up.
Most of what was in the film was familiar to me, but there were a couple of novelties I appreciated. One was the film's focus on the corruption of academic economics. I suspect Ferguson had to go this route because he couldn't get enough bankers and government officials in front of the camera, but it's certainly a valid point and completely in line with the complaint of the post-Keynesians about the thuggish hijacking of the profession. Martin Feldstein, in particular, who I have thought of as simply misguided, came across as smug and odious.
The other novel approach was the focus on the role of drugs and sex on Wall Street. We financial journalists have to sail above this seamy side of life, but it's gratifying to see Ferguson not shying away from it and putting it in the proper perspective of the rampant sense of entitlement and amorality that characterizes all of Wall Street activity. It is another sign of the absence of any sort of integrity.
My favorite line is Nouriel Roubini's response when he's asked why there has been no investigation of the crisis. "Because then," Roubini says in his thick accent, "you would find the culprits."
Hopefully the film will stoke the sense of public outrage and make it impossible for the politicians to sweep this under the rug. As I've made clear in my MarketWatch columns, I think the non-response to the financial crisis (along with numerous other mistaken economic policies) are the reasons for Obama's failure, at least so far, as president. The film makes patently clear why Geithner, Summers and Bernanke as well -- all involved in creating the mess -- could hardly be relied upon to clean it up.
Most of what was in the film was familiar to me, but there were a couple of novelties I appreciated. One was the film's focus on the corruption of academic economics. I suspect Ferguson had to go this route because he couldn't get enough bankers and government officials in front of the camera, but it's certainly a valid point and completely in line with the complaint of the post-Keynesians about the thuggish hijacking of the profession. Martin Feldstein, in particular, who I have thought of as simply misguided, came across as smug and odious.
The other novel approach was the focus on the role of drugs and sex on Wall Street. We financial journalists have to sail above this seamy side of life, but it's gratifying to see Ferguson not shying away from it and putting it in the proper perspective of the rampant sense of entitlement and amorality that characterizes all of Wall Street activity. It is another sign of the absence of any sort of integrity.
Kathleen Parker
I've kept an open mind about Kathleen Parker because sometimes she seemed to strike a moderate note and on the whole seemed reasonable for a conservative commentator.
But her thoughtless, insensitive and stupid column on Anita Hill has pretty much destroyed her credibility for me.
Parker writes: "She may have told the truth, but so what?" So what???
So much wrong with this column, it's hard to know where to begin. The tagline, "Let's hope Clarence Thomas has enough faith to survive his second lynching -- and to forgive poor Ginni." Poor Clarence.
This gem: "You see, to be scandalized, one must be deeply sensitive to the mention of anything sexual." Can she truly be so sheltered coming from her farm in South Carolina or wherever it was she was observing the world that she doesn't understand when you cross the line between off-color remarks and sexual harassment? Or is she really just astonishingly stupid? This rivals the naivete (and hypocrisy?) of some of Christine O'Donnell's remarks on chastity and abstinence.
Thankfully, Ruth Marcus, God bless her heart, stepped in and said what needed to be said. After recounting Hill's anguished narration, Marcus, who covered the hearings at the time, said, "If this sounds like a 'so what' situation to you, please explain what your reaction would be if you found your wife, your daughter -- or yourself -- in this predicament."
Plus, if, as Parker does, you concede that Hill might have been telling the truth, then Thomas perjured himself. "To acknowledge that Hill may have told the truth is to accept that Thomas may have lied -- repeatedly and under oath. If Hill testified truthfully, Thomas committed perjury. And this seems, even now, like a pretty big so what."
It's always seemed to me that this is a no-brainer. Anita Hill had no reason to take the stand and lie, whereas Clarence Thomas had every reason to lie.
I haven't yet seen the new Parker-Spitzer show on CNN, though I've been meaning to watch it because I think Eliot Spitzer is a smart guy (in some respects). But if Parker is as vapid as this column indicates, I'm not sure I could stand to watch her.
But her thoughtless, insensitive and stupid column on Anita Hill has pretty much destroyed her credibility for me.
Parker writes: "She may have told the truth, but so what?" So what???
So much wrong with this column, it's hard to know where to begin. The tagline, "Let's hope Clarence Thomas has enough faith to survive his second lynching -- and to forgive poor Ginni." Poor Clarence.
This gem: "You see, to be scandalized, one must be deeply sensitive to the mention of anything sexual." Can she truly be so sheltered coming from her farm in South Carolina or wherever it was she was observing the world that she doesn't understand when you cross the line between off-color remarks and sexual harassment? Or is she really just astonishingly stupid? This rivals the naivete (and hypocrisy?) of some of Christine O'Donnell's remarks on chastity and abstinence.
Thankfully, Ruth Marcus, God bless her heart, stepped in and said what needed to be said. After recounting Hill's anguished narration, Marcus, who covered the hearings at the time, said, "If this sounds like a 'so what' situation to you, please explain what your reaction would be if you found your wife, your daughter -- or yourself -- in this predicament."
Plus, if, as Parker does, you concede that Hill might have been telling the truth, then Thomas perjured himself. "To acknowledge that Hill may have told the truth is to accept that Thomas may have lied -- repeatedly and under oath. If Hill testified truthfully, Thomas committed perjury. And this seems, even now, like a pretty big so what."
It's always seemed to me that this is a no-brainer. Anita Hill had no reason to take the stand and lie, whereas Clarence Thomas had every reason to lie.
I haven't yet seen the new Parker-Spitzer show on CNN, though I've been meaning to watch it because I think Eliot Spitzer is a smart guy (in some respects). But if Parker is as vapid as this column indicates, I'm not sure I could stand to watch her.
Washington Post
I still subscribe to the Post and sometimes it surprises me with some good journalism, but I see it turning into something of a rag these days.
The coverage of the G20 meeting of finance officials last weekend marked a new low in business coverage. A scene-setter on Friday was transparently based on a Treasury briefing and shamelessly toed the official line. It even described Geithner's proposal to cap payments imbalances as "elegant" in the lead.
This pandering continued on the reporting of the event itself, with the final story once again parroting the official line. In fact, it looked as though the Post didn't even send a correspondent, so it had to depend on Treasury for its information and could offer no reporting from other participants to round out the picture.
I had kept a subscription for a long time because I know the time is near when we won't have newspapers delivered to our door any longer. But I got fed up, particularly with Fred Hiatt's direction of the editorial pages and the general deterioration in reporting, writing and editing, and canceled. So then they called and offered me six months of daily delivery for the price of the Sunday delivery alone -- so six months for $48. An offer I couldn't refuse. But it still annoys me on an almost daily basis.
The coverage of the G20 meeting of finance officials last weekend marked a new low in business coverage. A scene-setter on Friday was transparently based on a Treasury briefing and shamelessly toed the official line. It even described Geithner's proposal to cap payments imbalances as "elegant" in the lead.
This pandering continued on the reporting of the event itself, with the final story once again parroting the official line. In fact, it looked as though the Post didn't even send a correspondent, so it had to depend on Treasury for its information and could offer no reporting from other participants to round out the picture.
I had kept a subscription for a long time because I know the time is near when we won't have newspapers delivered to our door any longer. But I got fed up, particularly with Fred Hiatt's direction of the editorial pages and the general deterioration in reporting, writing and editing, and canceled. So then they called and offered me six months of daily delivery for the price of the Sunday delivery alone -- so six months for $48. An offer I couldn't refuse. But it still annoys me on an almost daily basis.
New blog
I have a couple of specialized blogs, on food and books, but I'd like to comment sometimes on other things. Rather than set up more individual blogs (film, media, etc.), I plan to use this as a catch-all for other subjects.
I get plenty of opportunities to express my opinions in print. I write a political column for MarketWatch and a regular perspective on international finance for OMFIF that is transitioning from more classical news to a blog-like format. I may cross-post some of those here. I also occasionally write reviews on IMDB or Amazon.
As the title indicates -- Weltanschauung as many know is German for what is generally translated as "worldview" -- these will simply be observations of mine about things I see going on. I spend a lot of time using a lot of different media and frequently these postings will be about what I see there -- both the substance of the issue and the way it's reported.
I get plenty of opportunities to express my opinions in print. I write a political column for MarketWatch and a regular perspective on international finance for OMFIF that is transitioning from more classical news to a blog-like format. I may cross-post some of those here. I also occasionally write reviews on IMDB or Amazon.
As the title indicates -- Weltanschauung as many know is German for what is generally translated as "worldview" -- these will simply be observations of mine about things I see going on. I spend a lot of time using a lot of different media and frequently these postings will be about what I see there -- both the substance of the issue and the way it's reported.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)