Has Krugman been alive on the planet?


Both sides have a point:
We continue to be amazed at Paul Krugman's recent reports on the press corps' campaign coverage.

For the most recent example, see this blog post from yesterday. In his headline, Krugman asks a highly sensible question:

"How Did The Race Get Close?"

For liberals, that's the key question of the age, but Krugman's answer makes almost no sense. Has Krugman been alive on the planet? Opinions differ. Here's part of what he wrote:
KRUGMAN (9/27/16): [H]ow did the race get so close? Why, on the eve of the debate, did polls show at best a narrow Clinton lead? What happened to the commanding lead Clinton held after the conventions?

You might say that Clinton ran a terrible campaign—but what, exactly, did she do? Trump may have learned to read from a TelePrompter, but was that such a big deal?

Well, my guess is that it was the Goring of Hillary: beginning in late August, with the AP report on the Clinton Foundation, the mainstream media went all in on “abnormalizing” Mrs. Clinton, a process that culminated with Matt Lauer, who fixated on emails while letting grotesque, known, Trump lies slide.
What happened to Clinton's commanding lead? Such things are hard to measure. In large part, we would be inclined to say that the "commanding lead" was built upon ludicrous conduct by Trump, especially his war with the Khan family.

When he fired Manafort and brought on Conway, these deeply ludicrous episodes largely stopped. The polls crept back to their pre-convention status.

Is that what happened to Clinton's lead? It's always hard to say. But surely, any sentient human being can see how crazy this analysis is:

"My guess is that it was the Goring of Hillary: beginning in late August, with the AP report on the Clinton Foundation, the mainstream media went all in on 'abnormalizing' Mrs. Clinton."

Can Krugman possibly be serious?

Once again, Krugman uses his recent analytical term, "the Goring of Hillary." The term suggests an obvious fact—the treatment to which Krugman refers didn't begin in late August!

Can we talk? The Goring of Gore began in March 1999. The Goring of Hillary Clinton started in 1992, perhaps with Pat Buchanan's famous convention speech about the fiendish "Clinton and Clinton."

Can anybody possibly think that the abnormalization of Hillary Clinton somehow started in late August with that AP report? We ask our basic question again: Has Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist, been alive on the planet?

In its current iteration, the press corps' hunt for Hillary Clinton was well underway by the summer of 2014, with the Washington Post's astounding "coverage" of her speaking fees. That AP report to which Krugman refers was extremely small potatoes compared to the earlier ludicrous report about the scary uranium deal—an astounding, 4400-word report which appeared in Krugman's own newspaper, the New York Times.

We understand that the great professor doesn't want to damage his immediate interests; self-dealing has always been like that. But the idea that anything started with that AP report is a notion a skilled careerist would have to pull out of his ascot.

Might we review the history here? The Goring of Gore began in March 1999. From that day to this, self-dealers like the lofty Krugman have refused to pursue the truth about their guild's astounding behavior during this episode.

All of a sudden, Krugman has been throwing this concept around—referring back to journalistic misconduct which occurred in 1999. But as Krugman certainly knows, the Goring of Gore—and he now admits that there was such a thing!—emerged from the earlier Goring of Clinton and Clinton. As Krugman surely knows, the Goring of Hillary in this campaign is just the latest manifestation of this very old, deeply destructive, demented press corps campaign.

The Goring of Hillary Clinton! Telling the truth by half measures so late, Krugman should be ashamed.

(He blames it on the vile AP, thus letting the Times slip away.)

A truly pitiful tweet: In this truly pitiful tweet, Krugman explains why he failed to discuss the press corps' cataclysmic Goring of Gore until September 5 of this year.

No one would have listened to him! He wanted to speak, but just couldn't! (Commenters buck him up, unaware of the ways they've been played.)

Truly, that's pathetic. The truth? For reasons of social connection and career, the entire pseudo-liberal world let this important journalistic history go. Now it may be about to happen again, and people like Krugman are scared.

Not scared enough to tell you the truth. But deeply scared nevertheless.


  1. Today, the NY Times is presenting Hillary's skewering of Trump over his Miss Piggy remark as a deliberate debate strategy planned in advance, a trap into which Trump was baited. There is certainly evidence of advance intention to talk about Machado (supported by embargoed press interviews), but does this justify calling Clinton words like "cunning" (close cousin to devious). She took the debate seriously and prepared for it, but now that is being portrayed as more evidence that she is manipulative, plotting, etc.

    Clinton rules. When she does something well, it is wrong if that success was intentional. Winning debate moments are somehow supposed to be spontaneo0us for Hillary, or they are proof she is scheming and untrustworthy (because you cannot trust anyone who plans ahead?).

    This is why Clinton isn't farther ahead, in my opinion. Clinton rules.

  2. Jeez, if anybody is living on a different planet it's you BOB! Projecting much? The media is the biggest advantage the Bitch has, NYT has a front page story ready to run the day after the debate with all the dirt about the porn star and her travails! Leaving out the part about being the driver of the getaway car during a murder and threatening the judge with snuffing him if the court charges her! Which they never did! Obviously all arranged a head of time so it could run Tuesday.

    I'm just amazed you continue to beat this dead horse that the media is 'biased' against the dems!

    Try being Trump and see what it's like to be on the receiving end of media bias you flake!

    1. BOB, the New York Times is one of the media outlets which covered the Trump-Machado episode months before the debate.

      Being a sexist is the biggest disadvantage men with little dicks have. It is why some use all caps to express their hatred of women.


    2. 2:58 What are specific claims you disagree with in this piece?

  3. Actually Hillary had very favorable ratings until early 2013, when she resigned as Secretary of State and started running for President. The Republican propaganda campaign against her really started with Benghazi a little earlier and has gone on continously since then based on various phony scandals, and her ratings have declined continuously. The latest variations have been small in comparison to that long decline.
    And Trump shot to the top of the Republican heap without any disparaging coverage of his primary rivals - Jeb (for example) didn't have any e-mail problems. Trump's popularity is certainly not just due to anti-Hillary propaganda.

    1. Dave the Guitar PlayerSeptember 29, 2016 at 12:08 PM

      I think the problem with media bias is not that Trump supporters would suddenly see Hillary as a viable alternative. There is a relatively small fraction of voters who actually will be swayed by media coverage, so in a tight race, planting the idea that Hillary is corrupt may be enough to get them to vote for Trump instead. In addition, a big reason why Obama won both elections was voter turnout. All this scandal mongering will convince many voters to just stay home (or vote for third party candidates) and let Trump win. I don't even think the media bias is very political. They just enjoy a good food fight and the nation be damned.

  4. "Might we review the history here? The Goring of Gore began in March 1999."


    1. You don't have to be here.

  5. My marriage of 3 years was sinking and i was devastated. My husband broke up with me and I got no explanations from him. for me to get him back, i have to find a solution, I went to 3 different spell casters they all failed to bring back my husband, I really wasn’t sure anymore if spells were real so as i was making a search one morning i saw some great reviews about happylovespell2@gmail.com, I was a bit skeptical at first but a friend asked me to try and see what happens, so I requested for a love spell from this spell caster, he said he will take his time to do a love spell that will bring my man back to me, after some days my husband reconciled with me, It felt good to have my husband back, when he returned he said he would never leave me again. I saw him transform, all thanks to Dr happy he was like a father to me when i loose hope. now my lover is more open, with happy Spell I know love spell is real, Thanks to Dr happy Spell for getting me my man back. I appreciate all his time, effort, and energy he puts during the spell cast. contact him on via mail happylovespell2@gmail.com he is the best of all spell casters Add him on Whats-pp +2348133873774??????.

  6. Simply by using the verb "to Gore," Krugman acknowledges that the situation today may have precedent in the election of 2000. Good on Krugman for that.

    On the other hand, to read that every little up and down in the polls is to be traced to press misbehavior of three or four elections ago is to be reminded of those die-hard supply-siders who continue to attribute every Democratic uptick in the economy to the Reagan tax cuts of 1981.

    In 2000 the people had plenty of information on both Gore and Bush to give Gore a landslide, if that's what they wanted. But the people made it a squeaker and chalked one up for war and ruin. In 2016 the people have plenty of information to go with Hillary and humiliate Trump for his presumption, if that's what the people want. But the people are making this another squeaker and may wind up handing everything over to a neo-fascist fabulist who'll turn the West Wing into Trump HQ.

    If only the people were collectively as wise as me, we wouldn't need the kind of perfect press lovers of Truth and Wisdom dream of but, despite the tireless efforts of this blog, are never going to get. There's an abundance of press coverage out there, including the junk rightfully railed against in this space. Unfortunately, it's the dadgummed people who have to sort things out and decide.