Should the New York Times fire Paul Krugman for his remarks that 9/11 was a "day of shame"?
Krugman is an economist that is a liberal economic columnist for the NYT. He says that Bush, Giulianni and others hijacked 9/11 for their own personal and political profits and that has made the day a "day of shame". He published these thoughts on the 10th anniversary, causing many people to call for his release from NYT staff. I personally don't care whether they fire him or not, but it is just another reason for me to never purchase their paper.
Yes, he should be fired. That was irresponsible and totally ideology biased, not to mention such a statement is just insulting to anyone with a grasp of reality. While I doubt he'll get axed, they really ought to just re-name the paper to Rabid Liberal Times.
So, is freedom of the press only for some? I haven't read the article but op-eds are by their very nature one person's opinion.
If you want to be an open-minded person you should consider all views, even those you disagree with.
That's a ridiculous idea. Paul Krugman is the Times' best op-ed writer, a respected professor at Princeton and London School of Economics not to mention his Nobel Prize for work in the field of international trade economics. If Obama and Congress had followed his advice the country probably would be well on its way to recovery rather than facing a double dip recession.
Ralph Deeds and Uninvited Writer are quite right! The Obama administration could do very well to listen to a serious Keynsian like Krugman. After all, a newspaper COLUMN is, by definition, opinion, becaues Heaven knows we don't want to have any ideology-based opinion embedded in the news stories themselves, since the idea, there, is "objectivity," and so forth.
I agree with Ralph Deeds that Paul Krugman is the Times' best op-ed writer, however, I suspect we would disagree on the merits of that distinction.
While I would probably label, as too far left, most of what Paul Krugman writes including his Keynsian economics I would also defend him and his right to speak his mind and offer his opinions. In order to make an informed decision, and if we are to have a national discussion with any chance of reconciliation, we need to hear from everybody. The fact that we may not like or agree with a "another" opinion is irrelevant.
We don't have to agree with what Paul Krugman writes but it would serve us well to be informed of his ideas. His op-ed pieces reflect the honest opinion of millions of Americans and that cannot be ignored or silenced.
I was unaware that our media system was expected to operate behind the Iron Curtain. People can be outraged if they wish, though I don't really see why. But, what he said is in no way grounds for termination. He is protected by the Constitution to say and print whatever he wants. Of course, it's up to NYT to decide if they want him gone.
Honestly, how can you argue with him? There a myriad of reasons why we should be ashamed of 9/11, especially on the anniversary. 3,000 people died due to a completely preventable attack, over 6,000 troops have since died in what are now the two longest wars in our nation's history, and we are no closer to winning the "War on Terror" than we were 10 years ago. What disgusted me most, was that the attack was used to further Bush's political agenda all in the name of fighting "terrorism." Just listen to Gulianni in the debates after the attack. He says "terror," "terrorism," "9/11" or something similar every other sentence. If anyone disagrees with what Krugman said, maybe they should just not read the stuff he publishes and turn on Bill O'Reilly.
It IS America............
He should not be " fired" for speaking his thoughts.
His counterparts, will chastise him as they see fit...........it is ALSO their protected right to do so.
It is up to the citizens to be well read enough, to decide if they follow or are led to slaughter.
It takes a brave soul to speak up about what actually happened that day. The facts are that millions were made by insider trading with advance information on the events of that fateful day. The U.S. had plans to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9/11 , but lied to the public in order to gain support and used 9/11 to launch an empirical "war on terror" in which we justify pre emptive strikes.
congress signed a bill granting 168 million in tax payer money to fight terrorism...when in relity peanut alergies kill more americans every year than does terrorism. Since 9/11 no more than 68 Americans have been killed by terrorist acts while 400,000 die from heart disease....yet heart disease gets 16 million in funding.
Watch A& E for Truth on youtube...it exposes the lie
I see where Paul Krugman is coming from and certainly do not think he should be fired for speaking his mind. This is America after all where we cherish free speech. People should be careful what they wish for when they call for the firing of someone at a newspaper that says something they do not agree with. If people don't like his commentary, don't buy the newspaper that he writes for. I excercise this freedom with when I choose my media sources.
The real problem is that the mainstream media has been too scared to ask the hard questions about what happened on 9/11/01 and afterwards. Paul Krugman is just scratching the surface of what real journalists should be asking about that terrible day and all the strange behavior by the government on that day and in the years afterwards. Such as why there were no planes protecting Washington, DC when the Pentagon was hit by a plane a full hour AFTER the WTC north tower was hit by a plane? How does that happen? Why was there no Congressional investigation of this major security failure?
Like Paul Krugman, the political theater and commercialization of the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks makes me sick and makes me feel like it is a shameful behavior. The very fact that the Republican party had their national convention in NYC in 2004 was designed to play up the whole 9/11 tragedy to emphasize their national security positions, which was purely political theater of the most cynical nature. Then we have all these corporations looking to capitalize on the tragedy with their 9/11 commercials this weekend. Truly sickening.
Exactly!! Let him voice his opinion, he has a right to. Just as we have a right to boycott the Times.
Ah yes, the free market and capitalism at it's finest! A perfect example of why it's the best system in the world! If you don't like it, or they offend you, you quit shopping there. It can force them to change their ways or go out of business. If they are popular they will thrive.
We don't need regulations when we have capitalism. The public decides who succeeds. Good service and products, not regulations decide who prospers. Not who sucks government dick the best.
it was a shame for America but a tragedy for thousands or perhaps millions of people. But definitely a shame for government and security services.
by uncorrectedvision 9 years ago
What was my title? I thought about it and decided that Paul Krugman was the real point of this forum. I do know something about economics, politics and Paul Krugman. I know very little about the products of Summer's Eve. Krugman is a partisan, a warrior for one side and no...
by lady_love158 9 years ago
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 57504.htmlThis is bold! This is leadership! Using the recommendations from Obama's own debt commission Ryan constructed this budget. Look for the democrats to demagogue, distract, and disparage this while not bringing forth a reasonable plan of their...
by Ralph Deeds 7 years ago
Not according to Paul Krugman who says economic zombie ideas have eaten Rubio's brain!!!http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/opini … n&_r=0
by James Smith 7 years ago
Austrian Economist Bob Murphy PHD (author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism), has challenged Paul Krugman to a debate about the business cycle. Krugman claims he is 'too busy', but the folks at KrugmanDebate.com don't buy that, so are pledging money to a food bank in New York if...
by RealityTalk 7 years ago
Is freedom of speech compromised in America today?It appears difficult to publish articles pertaining to racism, unless the racist in question is white skinned. It also appears difficult to publish articles pertaining to same-sex marriage if the article is anti-same-sex marriage; even if the...
by Ralph Deeds 10 years ago
"The Third Depression"--http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opini … ef=opinion
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|