jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (12 posts)

Should the New York Times fire Paul Krugman for his remarks that 9/11 was a "day

  1. jdavis88 profile image95
    jdavis88posted 6 years ago

    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.

  2. bethperry profile image90
    bethperryposted 6 years ago

    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.

  3. Uninvited Writer profile image85
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    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.

  4. Ralph Deeds profile image62
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    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.

  5. wingedcentaur profile image84
    wingedcentaurposted 6 years ago

    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.

  6. point2make profile image81
    point2makeposted 6 years ago

    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.

  7. Jonesy0311 profile image60
    Jonesy0311posted 6 years ago

    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.

  8. onegoodwoman profile image76
    onegoodwomanposted 6 years ago

    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.

  9. zduckman profile image60
    zduckmanposted 6 years ago

    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

  10. Rock_nj profile image91
    Rock_njposted 6 years ago

    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.

  11. NorthEast Timber profile image60
    NorthEast Timberposted 6 years ago

    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.

  12. wedmed profile image59
    wedmedposted 6 years ago

    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.