Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Krugman v. Gupta
The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is unhappy with the Obama administration for offering the job of surgeon general to Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent and former Clinton White House policy wonk. According to The Washington Post, Gupta "has also been offered a top post in the new White House Office of Health Reform, twin duties that could make him the most influential surgeon general in history." That Gupta seems eminently qualified and would be the highest-ranking Indian-American to serve in the federal government is of no consequence. Because the TV Doc, says Krugman, criticized (or as he writes, "mugged") Michael Moore on CNN by questioning some of the numbers in his lousy pro-Cuba film Sicko—and made two mistakes in doing so. Here is Krugman:
What bothered me about the incident was that it was what Digby would call Village behavior: Moore is an outsider, he's uncouth, so he gets smeared as unreliable even though he actually got it right. It's sort of a minor-league version of the way people who pointed out in real time that Bush was misleading us into war are to this day considered less "serious" than people who waited until it was fashionable to reach that conclusion. And appointing Gupta now, although it's a small thing, is just another example of the lack of accountability that always seems to be the rule when you get things wrong in a socially acceptable way.
There is no need to revisit whether or not Moore "got it right" in his film or in his counterattacks on Gupta and CNN, but it should be pointed out that our future surgeon general copped to two mistakes in his criticism of Sicko. One was the result of a transcription error ($251 was read as $25), the other was an incorrect affiliation. Even if Krugman is broadly correct, this is partisan hackery at its worst: Gupta—a proponent of single-payer health care, incidentally—should be held "accountable" for having criticized an incoherent film by a director with a history of abusing source material?
Also, I recommend a quick read of Gene Epstein's Econospinning, which convincingly demonstrates that Krugman (in his role as Times pundit) might want to consider holding himself "accountable" for his slippery use of source material.
I reviewed Sicko here.
LurkerBold|1.7.09 @ 2:25PM|#
Wow, this is so wrong on so many levels. The racist attacks on Dr. Gupta for one and the baseless attacks on Moore for telling the truth about Cuba.
shecky|1.7.09 @ 2:37PM|#
There is no need to revisit whether or not Moore "got it
right" in his film or in his counterattacks on Gupta and
CNN,
but what the hell, let's give it another go.
PR|1.7.09 @ 2:43PM|#
as long as we're holding people accountable, has Krugman ever been employed by a company that didn't end up looted of all its shareholder value?
|1.7.09 @ 2:48PM|#
Krugman has A NOBEL PRIZE! Truly, we are entering a golden age of argument by authority.
Urkobold™|1.7.09 @ 2:52PM|#
WHO CARES ABOUT SOME FAT FUCK'S CRAPPY, FICTIONAL MOVIE? LET'S MOVE ON TO THE CRUX OF THE MATTER: WHAT'S GUPTA'S POSITION ON 'BATING?
Jaybird|1.7.09 @ 3:01PM|#
WHO CARES ABOUT SOME FAT FUCK'S CRAPPY, FICTIONAL MOVIE?
LET'S MOVE ON TO THE CRUX OF THE MATTER: WHAT'S GUPTA'S POSITION ON
'BATING?
Go 'way, batin'.
|1.7.09 @ 3:03PM|#
FrBunny,
Dude, I wouldn't go around quoting Luskin if you're going to bash
inaccurate, partisan writers. Luskin is the Bill Kristol of
economics writers. Here's what he said in mid-September
2008
This would suggest that anyone who says we're in a recession, or heading into one -- especially the worst one since the Great Depression -- is making up his own private definition of "recession."
nicole|1.7.09 @ 3:07PM|#
I think Krugman himself "is just another example of the lack of
accountability that always seems to be the rule when you get things
wrong in a socially acceptable way." Ugh.
Reason #57483 not to read the Times.
|1.7.09 @ 3:09PM|#
So, does this mean we can expect, any day now, the nomination
for Nancy Grace as the Attorney General? Lou Dobbs for Commerce?
[shiver]
If the Dems really want to stick it to the Republicans and more
importantly, Faux News, Obama will withdraw his other nominations
and put forth an all-CNN cabinet.
|1.7.09 @ 3:10PM|#
Calling Jacob Sullum - Dr. Gupta did a nice piece on CNN about MDMA (ecstasy) and mind alteration a few years back...if we are to have a Surgeon General he seems like a reasonable choice...
|1.7.09 @ 3:13PM|#
Gupta MDMA link:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2008/11/13/gupta.ecstasy.therapy.cnn?iref=videosearch
|1.7.09 @ 3:14PM|#
Dude, I wouldn't go around quoting Luskin
Dude, quoting Luskin wasn't anywhere close to the point. His link
came up before the direct link to Krugman's 2005 piece. Luskin's
inability to define a recession doesn't change the fact that
Krugman should flee this Pot v Kettle embroglio before anyone
reminds him that people remember stuff.
So to reiterate:
Krugman = Giant. Fucking. Balls.
Luskin = Epic. Fail. Economist.
All fixed? :)
|1.7.09 @ 3:17PM|#
That Gupta seems eminently qualified and would be the
highest-ranking Indian-American to serve in the federal government
is of no consequence.
I would certainly agree that his ethnic background is of no
consequence. I'm a little puzzled as to why it was mentioned at
all.
One thing that gives me qualms is that he admitted to making a
mistake. It sounds like he has absolutely no idea how political
appointees are supposed to act.
Other Matt|1.7.09 @ 3:24PM|#
Nancy Grace as the Attorney General
Fuck. Now I have that mental picture to carry me through the rest
of the day.
One thing that gives me qualms is that he admitted to making a
mistake.
That might be a plus to me. What are you speaking of, I must have
missed something when my eyes fogged over in horror at the thought
of Nancy Grace in an actual position of legal power.
|1.7.09 @ 3:24PM|#
The best classic Krugman part of that quote is actually where he tries to jam in a complete non sequitur reference to Bush and Iraq, like he would stroke out if he doesn't say it enough.
|1.7.09 @ 3:24PM|#
RC, you mean political appointees annointees are
supposed to be flawless and beyond reproach? Thank heavens heavens
this guy is human and self-aware enough to withstand this abuse
with dignity. Maybe.
LurkerBold|1.7.09 @ 3:27PM|#
One thing that gives me qualms is that he admitted to making
a mistake.
Any you probably laugh at all other change you can believe in
too.
|1.7.09 @ 3:39PM|#
Personally I was hoping for a Dr. Oz appointment.
Y'know, cause Oprah needs more power and access.
Reinmoose|1.7.09 @ 3:40PM|#
Krugman has A NOBEL PRIZE! Truly, we are entering a golden
age of argument by authority.
It seems that way.
Listen to the experts SugarFree, they will guide you down the right
path.
libertarian democrat|1.7.09 @ 3:40PM|#
I disagree with some of Dr. Gupta's positions, but the man is
certainly qualified.
And the vast majority of his criticism of Sicko was spot on.
|1.7.09 @ 3:43PM|#
Does the Surgeon General's office actually have any power or
importance?
Pretty much just a big soapbox--influence yes, actual political
power, no.
|1.7.09 @ 3:55PM|#
Not even in medicine is there a qualified appointment that didn't suck dick at the house of Clinton.
Naga Sadow|1.7.09 @ 4:02PM|#
JW you fool!!! I'm sick of the "Change" trademarked crap! Are you tryin to make my head explode!
|1.7.09 @ 4:03PM|#
Also, I recommend a quick read of Gene Epstein's
Econospinning, which convincingly demonstrates that Krugman (in his
role as Times pundit) might want to consider holding himself
"accountable" for his slippery use of source material.
I can sign on to the Econospinning endorsement. However,
it's not really suited to a "quick read", as it's pretty dry and
heavy.
tarran|1.7.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Abraham Lincoln's Surgeon general had a great deal of power. If I recall, he finished the job started by Booth when he tried to explore the wound to Lincoln's brain.
cunnivore|1.7.09 @ 4:09PM|#
WHAT'S GUPTA'S POSITION ON 'BATING?
Funny you mention that. If it hadn't been for Joycelyn Elders, I
would never have figured out how fun it was to make Mr. Smileyworm
get big. And you dare say the Surgeon General has no power!
Naga Sadow|1.7.09 @ 4:12PM|#
cunnivore,
I'm gonna need a little background info on that last post cuz the
first thing I was thinking after reading your post was
"WHAT?!?!"
|1.7.09 @ 4:25PM|#
Moore was amusing in his TV Nation days. I liked that show. I
haven't found a Moore movie I like yet.
""""the new White House Office of Health Reform"""
I don't like the way that sounds, at all.
Reinmoose|1.7.09 @ 4:27PM|#
Naga -
The sooner we get it over with, the sooner we can move on to the
rest of our commiserating
Bill F.|1.7.09 @ 4:27PM|#
That's it, Reinmoose. The Obama Presidency is just pulling a big TITS OR GTFO on America.
Naga Sadow|1.7.09 @ 4:30PM|#
Reinmoose,
I can find no fault with your logic. Today was my first day off
since last Monday and I started the drinking early. King's Estate
Pinot Noir is good stuff by the way.
Urkobold™|1.7.09 @ 4:43PM|#
THE URKOBOLD WAS OUT LAST WEEK WITH BARRY, SNORTING COKE OFF A
COUPLE OF WHORES' ASSES, AND RECOMMENDED
THIS DOCTOR AS HIS SURGEON GENERAL. THE URKOBOLD IS SURPRISED
THAT HE CHANGED HIS MIND, BECAUSE HE SEEMED QUITE ENTHUSIASTIC
ABOUT THE PROPOSAL AT THE TIME.
OBAMA'S PRO-BATING, BY THE WAY.
|1.7.09 @ 4:44PM|#
If I recall, he finished the job started by Booth
I was never a buff, but
Manhunt was very sympathetic to the surgeon. According to that
account, Lincoln was a slow goner from bang, and the surgeon
popping out the clots is all that kept him alive from the theater
to the boarding house.
Matt|1.7.09 @ 4:51PM|#
>>>And appointing Gupta now, although it's a small
thing, is just another example of the lack of accountability that
always seems to be the rule when you get things wrong in a socially
acceptable way.
This example may be poor, but Krugman is right about the socially
acceptable ways in which to get things wrong, or right, in
Washington.
ck|1.7.09 @ 4:54PM|#
Even if Krugman is broadly correct, this is partisan hackery at its worst: Gupta-a proponent of single-payer health care, incidentally-should be held "accountable" for having criticized an incoherent film by a director with a history of abusing source material?
Even if Sicko is everything that you say it is, that
doesn't justify making invalid, factually flawed criticisms of it.
There are enough valid criticisms to be made of it.
Let me make sure I understand the Moynihan Standard here:
- Misrepresenting claims made in a documentary in order to
criticize it: NOT partisan hackery
- Holding a journalist accountable for misrepresentations
and invalid criticisms: partisan hackery
|1.7.09 @ 5:18PM|#
And Moynihan pointed out as much in this post:
There is no need to revisit whether or not Moore "got it right" in his film or in his counterattacks on Gupta and CNN, but it should be pointed out that our future surgeon general copped to two mistakes in his criticism of Sicko
Sean|1.7.09 @ 5:19PM|#
Gupta has said on a number of occasions that he would never allow medical or recreational marijuana use. bastard.
Kolohe|1.7.09 @ 5:21PM|#
Let me make sure I understand the ck standard here:
- Making a couple of minor mistakes (one of which was based on an
error carried forward), and then publicly acknowledging them -
hackery
- Saying that despite those publicly acknowledged mistakes in his
statements, the speaker has never been 'held to account' - and
furthermore that those misstatements are the equivalent of the
'mistakes' that have lead to the Iraq war - not hackery.
I wouldn't even call either of these 'partisan' because Gupta,
Krugman, Obama, and to a much lesser extent Moore, are all on the
same 'team'.
.|1.7.09 @ 5:37PM|#
Anyone who can cut into actual brains without killing
the patient is OK in my book.
Extra points for never, ever mentioning masturbation
techniques!
In this he is far superior to the standard H&R troll, or
Surgeon General for that matter.
And he's cute!
Win win!
ck|1.7.09 @ 6:28PM|#
Let me make sure I understand the ck standard here:
You don't.
First, they were not "minor" mistakes. The entire basis of Gupta's
critique is that Moore was using inaccurate numbers ("fudging the
facts"). But he wasn't. (The problem with Moore, and single-payer
health care advocates generally, is not that their numbers
are wrong.)
Second, even after acknowledging that his specific critiques of
Moore's data were incorrect, Gupta held fast to the position that
Moore was "fudging facts".
The combination of these two things do constitute hackery on the
part of a journalist, yes.
Next, here is Moynihan's sentence:
Even if Krugman is broadly correct, this is partisan hackery at its worst: Gupta-a proponent of single-payer health care, incidentally-should be held "accountable" for having criticized an incoherent film by a director with a history of abusing source material?
You're making a different argument than he is. He's not saying that
Gupta should be forgiven since he admitted error, he's saying that
Sicko was a bad film and therefore even invalid criticism of it is
no great offense. And this is precisely the kind of thing that went
on during the buildup to the Iraq War.
A: Saddam fed dissidents into woodchippers! He's building nuclear
bombs!
B: I don't think there's any evidence of that.
A: So you're defending Saddam!
|1.7.09 @ 7:57PM|#
Krugman's setting himself up as some kind of expert, and he
can't even spot a Potemkin village hospital?
I've heard of ivory-tower morons in my time, but he takes the
cake.
-jcr
Umbrella Corp Public Relations|1.7.09 @ 9:37PM|#
Naga-
They are, in fact related.
(as is Ms. Pryor, although more distantly)
B|1.7.09 @ 10:32PM|#
So now criticizing a "documentarian" who makes "documentaries"
more devoid of fact than an Oliver Stone historical drama is enough
to qualify you from the position of Surgeon General, because let's
face it, his beef probably has more to do with Gupta's audacity to
criticize Moore and Castro than any inadvertent numerical
error.
Funny, I would have thought actual medical credentials were more
important than making a minor error related to movie
criticism.
And regardless of who was cited as the source for the amount spent
per person, somewhere along the line this information had to be
based on numbers provided by the Castro administration. Anyone who
believes that bullshit is a total fucking idiot, or Sean
Penn.
Given Paul Krugman's political leanings, I would be willing to bet
anything he has repeated that bullshit lie, sometime in his career,
that Cuba has a 99% literacy rate. Anybody fucking stupid enough to
believe that bullshit shouldn't be criticizing anyone, rather they
should be watching reruns of Romper Room and wearing a helmet at
the dinner table.
B|1.7.09 @ 10:42PM|#
"Second, even after acknowledging that his specific critiques of
Moore's data were incorrect, Gupta held fast to the position that
Moore was "fudging facts"."
He was fudging the facts. The whole fucking documentary was one big
fudging of facts, unless you think portraying Cuba's healthcare
system as one of the best in the world is somehow accurate. Or
perhaps it was accurate to omit the fact that the dupes who went to
Cuba (that includes Moore) were given access to hospitals and
health care reserved for only the government bigwigs.
Anybody that unabashedly transmits Communist propaganda to a
broader audience is "fudging facts" by default.
B|1.7.09 @ 10:47PM|#
And to the person who insists Gupta's error is such a big deal, why is it not a similarly big deal when he states, repeatedly, that he was mistaken? Are we now insisting that our public officials cannot ever make errors, inadvertent or not?
B|1.7.09 @ 11:00PM|#
"Does the Surgeon General's office actually have any power or
importance?
Pretty much just a big soapbox--influence yes, actual political
power, no."
I disagree with the above statements for the simple reason that
when a Surgeon General appointed by a Democratic President during a
time of large Democratic majorities in Congress implies in one of
his statements that legislative remedies should be used to affect
certain "desirable" public health outcomes, there is a very good
chance we will be looking at some more nanny-state bullshit passing
the Pelosi-Reid congress. They aren't exactly known for their
fondness of government restraint.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245