uggabugga





Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Krugman vs Okrent:

Over at the New York Times Public Editor's Web Journal there is (for now) an exchange between Krugman and Okrent, to settle the charge(s) made against Krugman in Okrent's final column as the Times public editor. Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler thinks Okrent is way off base. TNR's Jonathan Chait says Okrent was cowardly and dumb.

We went over to the Times' webpage and there is a discussion, but there's a lot of material and lining up the charges and rebuttals isn't easy. So we put the material into a table to make it clearer (and slightly rearranged the order of sentences to line up topics). Krugman has made some errors, but they seem minor. Okrent is claiming much more than he can demonstrate, and ends up saying that he's got much more on Krugman ("copious files", "I could go on"), but doesn't deliver the goods. One thing for sure is that Okrent engages in a lot of ad hominem attacks.

FYI, the table for the exchange is below:

Krugman Lays Out Why He Believes Okrent Was Wrong Okrent Responds Krugman replies Okrent is saying TYPE
When I asked Daniel Okrent for the specifics behind his final attack, he offered two examples of what he claimed was improper use of numbers. This was the first time I heard from him, or anyone else, about either alleged problem. For a man who makes his living offering strong opinions, Paul Krugman seems peculiarly reluctant to grant the same privilege to others. Just one last word. Mr. Okrent has so far offered only one example that, if true, would have justified his all-out attack on my ethics. Everything else is picking nits:    
  And for a man who leads with his chin twice a week, he acts awfully surprised when someone takes a pop at it.   Krugman should expect a pop on his chin. Bully
  Because only a fool or a supply-sider would eagerly engage in a debate on economics with Prof. Krugman, I’ll try to eschew argument and stick to facts – or, at least, the sort of statements that he himself represents as purely factual:   Krugman makes statements that he represents as factual. Charge: lying
  1. I offered him only three examples of “shaping, slicing and selectively citing” (for some reason, he’s left one out of his rebuttal) because I was at home when he began bombarding me with outraged demands for retraction and apology; I’d completed my tenure as public editor the preceding week, and did not have any files with me. When I had the chance to consult some of my reader mail later in the week, some of his greatest mis-hits immediately came to the fore. I’ll get to a few of those in point No. 5, below.   He (Okrent) has a good excuse for not providing examples of Krugman's failings. Evasion
  2. This was the first he heard from me on these specific issues partly because I learned early on in this job that Prof. Krugman would likely be more willing to contribute to the Frist for President campaign than to acknowledge the possibility of error.   Krugman will not acknowledge the possibility of error. Ad hominem
  When he says he agreed “reluctantly” to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word “reluctantly”; I can’t come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism.   Krugman's attitude towards substantive criticism is so bad there isn't a word for it. Ad hominem
  But I laid off for so long because I also believe that columnists are entitled by their mandate to engage in the unfair use of statistics, the misleading representation of opposing positions, and the conscious withholding of contrary data. But because they’re entitled doesn’t mean I or you have to like it, or think it’s good for the newspaper.   Krugman is a columnist who makes unfair use of statistics, misleads on opponents' positions, and witholds contrary data. Charge: unethical
Let me start with the example that, I think, sheds most light on what is going on: Mr. Okrent’s claim that I engaged in "blending, without explanation, numbers from the household survey and the establishment survey -- apples and oranges -- apparently in order to make a more vivid political point about Bush (5/25/04).”

He’s referring to two different surveys conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which provide alternative estimates of employment. Some people play games by mixing and matching numbers from the two surveys, and Mr. Okrent has apparently spent the past year firmly believing (without having checked with me) that I did the same thing, to score political points. But I didn’t. All the numbers in my 5/25/04 column came from the establishment survey.

Moreover, I not only played fair with my readers, I urged them to check the data for themselves. Here’s what I wrote in the column:

“Go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site at stats.bls.gov. Click on ‘U.S. economy at a glance,’ then on the green dinosaur next to ‘Change in payroll employment’ for a 10-year chart of monthly job gains and losses.”

If Mr. Okrent had done that, he would have seen for himself that what I said about job growth was true.
3. The mixing of household and establishment numbers in his 5/25/04 column: Missing from the BLS chart he cites is any number that even resembles the 140,000 new jobs each month needed to keep up with the growing population a statistic he cites in the column, and upon which he seems to have based some of his computations. To my knowledge, that number only appeared in the household survey.

The only significant example was his claim that I blended household and establishment survey data on jobs, in an attempt to score political points. But as I showed in the previous note, I didn't and in the column itself I pointed readers to the correct data. Now Mr. Okrent claims that he was only referring to my assertion that the economy needs to add 140,000 payroll jobs per month, which for some reason he thinks comes from the household survey. (It doesn't.) Sorry, that's an unconvincing evasive maneuver. Mr. Okrent clearly accused me of playing mix and match with the job numbers themselves. In fact, in our correspondence, when I said that it was all payroll data, he declared that "your insistence that you relied only on one set of numbers is very puzzling. I don't see how the math works any other way; maybe you could further enlighten me." In other words, the only accusation that could have justified Mr. Okrent's attack was completely unfounded. And now he's not enough of a mensch to admit his error.

Krugman incorrectly handled household and establishment survey data Charge: Krugman misled readers
For his other example, Mr. Okrent criticized me for “asserting that the 40 percent unemployed out of work for more than 15 weeks was a 20-year record" (2/10/04, 3/12/04) without acknowledging that the comparison only applies back to the redesign of the CPS questionnaire. See Polivka and Miller, The CPS After Redesign, on the BLS Web site.

This sounds like another accusation that I blended two sources of data, without telling readers. In fact, all I did was use the Bureau of Labor Statistics data series on long-term unemployment, which is available on the BLS Web site, where there is no indication given to the public of any problem with comparisons between different time periods. Lou Uchitelle did the same thing in an article published in the New York Times business section, "The New Profile of the Long-Term Unemployed," two days after Mr. Okrent’s blast. That article made the same point that I did in the columns Mr. Okrent criticized: long-term unemployment is unusually high.

After Mr. Okrent directed me to Polivka and Miller, I checked it out; it’s a 1995 research paper which suggested that the 1994 redesign of the Current Population Survey questionnaire might have raised estimates of long-term unemployment. It wasn’t an official statement that pre-1994 comparisons are improper, and the BLS didn’t consider the questions raised in that paper serious enough to warrant a warning for consumers of its data. Like most such consumers, I don’t go hunting for research papers suggesting possible problems with the numbers unless the BLS says there’s reason to be concerned otherwise, it would be impossible to get any work done. Let me also say that the issue is pretty trivial: adjusting the data might put long-term unemployment at a 10-year rather than 20-year high, but it’s unarguably very high by historical standards.
4. The Polivka-Miller paper: On the substance, readers can come to their own conclusions by examining the report themselves, particularly the chart and related narrative addressing “Duration of Unemployment” on page 23 (pdf). On Prof. Krugman’s defense of his unfamiliarity with it, he’s effectively saying, “If I didn’t know about it, it must not be important.” This is a polemicist’s dodge; no self-respecting journalist would ever make such an argument. (presumably) "Everything else is picking nits:" Krugman misrepresented facts about duration of unemployment Charge: Krugman misled readers
To summarize: when I asked Mr. Okrent for evidence of my malfeasance, he provided one example in which his description of what I did was simply wrong, and another in which he accused me of pulling a fast one on readers, when all I did was use official data in a standard way.        
  5. Some other examples of Krugmania that popped out of my copious files:   There is a lot of evidence against Krugman Charge: Krugman has erred many times
  His 1/27/04 assertion that the cost of unemployment insurance “automatically” adds to the federal deficit. This two-fer misrepresents a pair of facts: that unemployment insurance is largely borne by the states, and that major federal contributions to the states come about only because of an act of Congress, which is hardly automatic. (presumably) "Everything else is picking nits:" Krugman misrepresented facts about unemployment insurance Charge: Krugman misled readers
In correspondence with Mr. Okrent, I pointed out that his specific attacks -- especially the blatantly wrong characterization of my 5/25/04 column -- were unfair. I asked him to do what he would have expected me to do, and admit that he had been in error. He refused. His 2/3/04 assertion that tax proposals offered by Democrats would help the 77 pecent of taxpayers in the 15 percent bracket or less. The most recent generally accepted figures available at the time indicated that the number was actually 64 percent. I could explain why 77 percent, not 64 percent, is the right number, but does it really matter? Krugman was wrong about percentage of taxpayers in 15% bracket Charge: Krugman misled readers
Let me repeat that Mr. Okrent never raised these issues as public editor. He now says that he didn’t because he “experienced your best-defense-is-a-good-offense approach, and found it futile to deal with it.

Maybe a description of some of my experiences with him will give some sample of what he found difficult to deal with.
       
On 6/8/04, I made a numerical mistake, reading from the wrong line in a table of tax rates during the Reagan years. Although the mistake didn’t change the column’s conclusions, I reluctantly issued a correction. But I forgot to use the word “correction,” which I hear got Mr. Okrent upset.     Krugman conceded an error; and issued a correction without using the word "correction". Krugman concedes error
Mr. Okrent questioned my assertion (10/12/04) that Congressional Budget Office estimates show tax cuts were responsible for two-thirds of the fiscal 2004 deficit. I explained that in each of its budget projections the CBO estimates how much of the change from its previous projection is due to changes in tax law, and that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities adds these numbers up to calculate the CBO’s implied estimate of the overall cost of tax cuts since 2000. I provided Mr. Okrent with the data used for that calculation        
Mr. Okrent challenged my assertion (5/9/05) that the Bush Social Security “progressive indexing” plan would impose its largest percentage reductions in retirement income on middle-income workers.

I explained that the term “retirement income” normally refers to income from all sources, not just Social Security benefits (the Social Security Administration says on its Web site that “you should not count only on Social Security for your retirement income.”) I supplied him with a study (pdf) that used Social Security Administration data to show that because high-income workers depend much less than middle-income workers on Social Security, they would have smaller percentage cuts in overall retirement income than middle-income workers. This was similar to a point I made, using different data, a week earlier (5/1/05), so I was surprised that Mr. Okrent even raised the issue.
A very recent example that nonetheless escaped my memory until Prof. Krugman generously reminded me of it in his letter: His 5/9/05 column on progressive indexing. The column itself (without the ex post facto explanation) suggestively conflates “retirement income” and “social security benefits” without sufficient explanation, but with plenty of apparent point-making.   Krugman conceded an error, which he brought up. Krugman concedes error
  Believe me -- I could go on, as could a number of readers more sophisticated about economic matters than I am.   There is a lot of evidence against Krugman Charge: Krugman has erred many times
  (Among these are several who, like me, generally align themselves politically with Prof. Krugman, but feel he does himself and his cause no good when he heeds the roaring approval of his acolytes and dismisses his critics as ideologically motivated.)   Krugman is a prima donna Ad hominem
  But I don’t want to engage in an extended debate any more than Prof. Krugman says he does. If he replies to this statement, as I imagine he will, I’ll let him have what he always insists on keeping for himself: the last word.   Krugman demands having the last word Ad hominem
If Mr. Okrent was unsatisfied with my explanations in these and other cases, it was his right to demand a fuller explanation, and, if he was still unsatisfied, to say something specific in his column.

I hope we aren’t going to get into an extended period in which Mr. Okrent, who failed to air his concerns when that was his job, then failed even in private to provide examples that bear any resemblance to what he accused me of doing, keeps throwing out new accusations.
I hate to do this to a decent man like my successor, Barney Calame, but I’m hereby turning the Krugman beat over to him.   Decent people (e.g. ombudsmen) should not have to deal with Krugman Ad hominem




5 comments

Nice chart, but it's hard to pick out what I feel is a damning statement by Okrent:

"I also believe that columnists are entitled by their mandate to engage in the unfair use of statistics, the misleading representation of opposing positions, and the conscious withholding of contrary data."

More of my reaction here, but suffice it say that if this is the philosophy at the Times, then the Times has a bigger problem than this little spat.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/01/2005 12:39 PM  

Krugman did not concede an error about the distinction between retirement income and social security benefits.

He reiterated that they were different by quoting the social security web site, which uses the terms to mean different things. Okrent disingenuously decided they do mean the same thing.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/01/2005 4:17 PM  

Just to reiterate your observation that Okrent's arguments are almost entirely ad hominem.

The Bush administration clearly has some powerful, affirmative friends at the Times.

When the economic house of cards flutters down to earth, things are going to be very tough in the US, and a new, more powerful version of ad hominen will have to be invented to describe the hysterics of the right.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/02/2005 1:24 PM  

Kind of you to make a point by point refutation. let me take one... "krugman represents as purely factual" - your spin: "he's accusing him of lying" - my spin: "he's accusing him of emotion". Get it? This is way too shrill for my taste. Look at what Krugman criticises bush over - The economy - it's a biggie. Jump all over bush on that one, but don't bother defending Krugman. He doesn't need it.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/04/2006 2:15 PM  

Cute its really very cute, and i think its a very unique and interesting fashion also, ladies can enjoy this fashion, i like it much.

writing logo

By Blogger Knox Karter, at 4/19/2012 2:51 AM  

Post a Comment