Monday, November 24, 2003
It’s time for another episode of Let’s Talk About How Smart I Am.
I was discussing, with a coworker, the way that the changes in information availability over the last decade or so (see article linked to in the "I told you so" comment below) have changed the landscape of politics, and that those changes are only now starting to manifest in concrete examples.
One proof I had offered was the way that information sources on the small scale, like me and other individual consumers of news reporting, could actually initiate a sequence of events that quickly rises to the attention of the mainstream media. By way of example I cited that lowly I had observed network coverage of The Chappaquiddick Kid raging on the Senate floor, saying that he wasn't quite willing to write president Bush "an $87 billion blank check." I sent a quick e-mail to Jay Nordlinger (National Review Online) commenting that, well, if the check's written for $87 billion, it's not a blank check, now is it? (Yes, yes. I know: picky. But hey, they do that smack to us, so I thought a little return fire was in order)
Anyhow, so I found out about a day later that I was quoted (as an anonymous writer) by Nordlinger in his next Impromptus column. Hey, hey, hey! Lookie me! And the thought came to me that, wow, if it had been something of importance then this same route of information interchange could have skyrocketed the information right to the surface of the Internet Ocean.
So, now I'm writing this to give a real world example of the Little Fish Makes Big Waves scenario come to life. Donald Luskin's new National Review Online article reveals how Krugman's new book, The Great Unraveling, which had a rather innocuous (mundane, even) cover in its US incarnation had a far more interesting (and intellectually consistent) and distasteful cover for its UK and Australian printings.
The article is worth reading. But back to my point is the fact, as reported by Luskin, this situation was reveled via the Internet. Check this from Luskin (he's commenting on the statement by KKKrugman that he can't remember approving the UK/Australian cover):
How is it that Krugman's awareness of the cover has been restored just now? We have new Krugman Truth Squad member Steven Kirchner to thank for that (I'd say he's got KTS Rookie of the Year pretty much locked up). Kirchner is a young Australian economist. He saw the cover in a Sydney bookstore window, and talked about it on his blog, Institutional Economics, on November 18. Ex officio KTS member Stephen Prather alerted me to it by e-mail, and I immediately posted it on my blog, The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid.
From there it was only a short time until it was a scandale on the web - and it went beyond the usual Krugman Truth Squad suspects. Even the anonymous ultra-leftist known as "Atrios" commented on it critically on his Eschaton blog. What could even he say, other than "Now This is Shrill!" On Thursday it broke into print, with Josh Gersten's front-page story for the New York Sun. So what else could the Times do but put some distance between itself and Krugman?
And, as Luskin summarizes:
Just five days from the first Truth Squad sighting to a mea culpa in the Sunday New York Times. Not bad, huh? It says a lot about our media-saturated world that a mere picture would cause so much embarrassment, considering how many, and significantly, more substantive sins weigh on Krugman's conscience. But I'm not complaining. We've finally got 'em on the run. Makes me proud of the power of the web - and of the Truth Squad.
So, I think I've been proved pretty well right (again). The trouble's only beginning for our loopy friends on the Left. We're out there with one hand on the TV remote and the other hand on the keyboard. Not only can they no longer out-shout us, they can't even hide.
To quote Mr. Luskin, "Not bad, huh?"
Nope. Not bad at all. Me, that is.
I was discussing, with a coworker, the way that the changes in information availability over the last decade or so (see article linked to in the "I told you so" comment below) have changed the landscape of politics, and that those changes are only now starting to manifest in concrete examples.
One proof I had offered was the way that information sources on the small scale, like me and other individual consumers of news reporting, could actually initiate a sequence of events that quickly rises to the attention of the mainstream media. By way of example I cited that lowly I had observed network coverage of The Chappaquiddick Kid raging on the Senate floor, saying that he wasn't quite willing to write president Bush "an $87 billion blank check." I sent a quick e-mail to Jay Nordlinger (National Review Online) commenting that, well, if the check's written for $87 billion, it's not a blank check, now is it? (Yes, yes. I know: picky. But hey, they do that smack to us, so I thought a little return fire was in order)
Anyhow, so I found out about a day later that I was quoted (as an anonymous writer) by Nordlinger in his next Impromptus column. Hey, hey, hey! Lookie me! And the thought came to me that, wow, if it had been something of importance then this same route of information interchange could have skyrocketed the information right to the surface of the Internet Ocean.
So, now I'm writing this to give a real world example of the Little Fish Makes Big Waves scenario come to life. Donald Luskin's new National Review Online article reveals how Krugman's new book, The Great Unraveling, which had a rather innocuous (mundane, even) cover in its US incarnation had a far more interesting (and intellectually consistent) and distasteful cover for its UK and Australian printings.
The article is worth reading. But back to my point is the fact, as reported by Luskin, this situation was reveled via the Internet. Check this from Luskin (he's commenting on the statement by KKKrugman that he can't remember approving the UK/Australian cover):
How is it that Krugman's awareness of the cover has been restored just now? We have new Krugman Truth Squad member Steven Kirchner to thank for that (I'd say he's got KTS Rookie of the Year pretty much locked up). Kirchner is a young Australian economist. He saw the cover in a Sydney bookstore window, and talked about it on his blog, Institutional Economics, on November 18. Ex officio KTS member Stephen Prather alerted me to it by e-mail, and I immediately posted it on my blog, The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid.
From there it was only a short time until it was a scandale on the web - and it went beyond the usual Krugman Truth Squad suspects. Even the anonymous ultra-leftist known as "Atrios" commented on it critically on his Eschaton blog. What could even he say, other than "Now This is Shrill!" On Thursday it broke into print, with Josh Gersten's front-page story for the New York Sun. So what else could the Times do but put some distance between itself and Krugman?
And, as Luskin summarizes:
Just five days from the first Truth Squad sighting to a mea culpa in the Sunday New York Times. Not bad, huh? It says a lot about our media-saturated world that a mere picture would cause so much embarrassment, considering how many, and significantly, more substantive sins weigh on Krugman's conscience. But I'm not complaining. We've finally got 'em on the run. Makes me proud of the power of the web - and of the Truth Squad.
So, I think I've been proved pretty well right (again). The trouble's only beginning for our loopy friends on the Left. We're out there with one hand on the TV remote and the other hand on the keyboard. Not only can they no longer out-shout us, they can't even hide.
To quote Mr. Luskin, "Not bad, huh?"
Nope. Not bad at all. Me, that is.
Comments:
Post a Comment
