The Nobel Prize laureate for Economic Sciences, Paul Krugman, has been writing op-eds for the New York Times long enough to have garnered the respect of the best journalists out there, as well as much of the general public. He’s authored 20 books and held the position of professor at both MIT and Princeton, so it’s no wonder when Paul Krugman has something to say, people listen. And he really wants journalists to hear and understand the message he delivers in his recent NYT piece about the media coverage of ourAmerica’s presidential candidates during this 2016 election.
Campaign Action
Krugman remembers all too well, like many of us, the 2000 presidential election and how George W. Bush won after losing the popular vote. Krugman adds Bush was clearly dishonest during his campaign, “in a way that was unprecedented in U.S. politics.” Those campaign lies were foreboding of what eventually happened during his administration that, "let us not forget, took America to war on false pretenses.”
Most of the media coverage in 2000 led the public to believe George W. Bush was “a bluff, straightforward guy” while portraying Al Gore as “slippery and dishonest,“ even though Gore’s policy proposals added up, and his critiques of the Bush plan were completely accurate. The media also continued to peg Gore with trivial false rumors and innuendos like, “Gore claims he invented the internet!" No, says Krugman, Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. But too late. The derogatory seeds were planted in the minds of voters, and with many,the image stuck.
In his New York Times piece, Krugman says he joins others who have a “sick, sinking feeling 'that 2000 might be happening again.”
“True, there aren’t many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon of honesty. But it’s hard to escape the impression that he’s being graded on a curve. If he manages to read from a TelePrompter without going off script, he’s being presidential. If he seems to suggest that he wouldn’t round up all 11 million undocumented immigrants right away, he’s moving into the mainstream. And many of his multiple scandals, like what appear to be clear payoffs to state attorneys general to back off investigating Trump University, get remarkably little attention.
Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.
Step back for a moment, and think about what that foundation is about. When Bill Clinton left office, he was a popular, globally respected figure. What should he have done with that reputation? Raising large sums for a charity that saves the lives of poor children sounds like a pretty reasonable, virtuous course of action. And the Clinton Foundation is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For example, Charity Watch, an independent watchdog, gives it an “A” rating — better than the American Red Cross.”
Krugman agrees that, considering the size of The Clinton Foundation, it’s right for journalists to investigate and raise questions to see if there are any wrongdoings or “improper quid pro quos” that may have taken place. But Krugman says, “nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions are, very clearly, ‘no.’”
Consider the big Associated Press report. Krugman says they dangled innuendos that implied Hillary’s meetings with foundation donors, while she was Secretary of State, “might be considered unethical— if elected president.” Krugman says those “questions” might easily lead voters to think Hillary Clinton might be meeting with “brutal foreign dictators” or “corporate fat cats,” yet AP’s only example was a meeting between Hillary Clinton and Muhammad Yunus, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and “longtime personal friend.” Thus, AP and so many other organizations seem to be working to bring down the Democratic presidential nominee and continue to end up with nothing. No news there. Krugman writes:
“So I would urge journalists to ask whether they are reporting facts or simply engaging in innuendo, and urge the public to read with a critical eye. If reports about a candidate talk about how something “raises questions,” creates “shadows,” or anything similar, be aware that these are all too often weasel words used to create the impression of wrongdoing out of thin air.”
He adds the best way to judge a candidate’s character is to look at what he or she has actually done and what policies he or she is proposing. He says Trump’s record of “bilking students, stiffing contractors and more is a good indicator of how he’d act as president.” In other words, Krugman tells journalists to focus on the facts.
“America and the world can’t afford another election tipped by innuendo.”
No, we can’t.