more on Krugman on Media Self Censorship and Support for Incumbent Policies

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Bruce Campbell <bc () clicknation com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 00:50:18 -0400
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Krugman on Media Self Censorship and Support for Incumbent
Policies

Fair and Balanced? Krugman? You decide.

On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 04:24 America/New_York, Krugman wrote:

> Meanwhile, both the formal rules and the codes of ethics that formerly
> prevented blatant partisanship are gone or ignored. Neil Cavuto of Fox
> News
> is an anchor, not a commentator. Yet after Baghdad's fall he told
> "those who
> opposed the liberation of Iraq" ‹ a large minority ‹ that "you were
> sickening then; you are sickening now." Fair and balanced.


Here's Neil Cavuto's reply to Krugman.

Best line: "you sanctimonious twit", but there's more.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86795,00.html


********************************
Potshots From a Hypocrite

Wednesday, May 14, 2003
By Neil Cavuto

Since no good deed goes unpunished, leave it to The New York Times to
take a shot at me. Not The Times itself, but columnist Paul Krugman,
who blasts me for my apparent blatant partisanship.

He writes:

"Neil Cavuto of Fox News is an anchor, not a commentator. Yet after
Baghdad's fall he told Œthose who opposed the liberation of Iraq¹ -- a
large minority -- that Œyou were sickening then; you are sickening
now.¹"

First off, Mr. Krugman, let me correct you: I'm a host and a
commentator, just like you no doubt call yourself a journalist and a
columnist. So my sharing my opinions is a bad thing, but you spouting
off yours is not?

Exactly who's the hypocrite, Mr. Krugman? Me, for expressing my views
in a designated segment at the end of the show? Or you, for not so
cleverly masking your own biases against the war in a cheaply written
column?

You're as phony as you are unprofessional. And you have the nerve to
criticize me, or Fox News, and by extension, News Corporation?

Look, I'd much rather put my cards on the table and let people know
where I stand in a clear editorial, than insidiously imply it in what's
supposed to be a straight news story. And by the way, you sanctimonious
twit, no one -- no one -- tells me what to say. I say it. And I write
it. And no one lectures me on it. Save you, you pretentious charlatan.

Let me see if I have this right, Mr. Krugman. Journalists who opposed
this war are OK. Those who support it are not. Says who? You?

I'm less of a journalist because I was in favor of this war, but you're
more of a journalist because you were not? You imply that by being in
favor of this war, I'm pandering, and by extension, my company is
pandering to the White House.

Nowhere does it ever occur to you, one can legitimately not agree with
you. That doesn't make me less of a journalist. But, Mr. Krugman, it
does make you more of an ass. Here's the difference: You insinuated it,
I just said it.

Now may I suggest you take your column and shove it?


The Snoofmadrune weblog
http://www.clicknation.com/snoof

bruce campbell
[  72 Madison Avenue   12th Floor   New York NY 10016  ]



------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/