Paul Krugman wants an explanation:
In Daniel Okrent's parting shot as public editor of The New York Times, he levied a harsh charge against me: he said that I have "a disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."
He offered no examples of my "disturbing habit," and maybe I should stop there: surely it's inappropriate for the public editor to attack the ethics of one of the paper's writers without providing any supporting evidence. He responded to my request for examples with criticisms of specific columns. Those criticisms were simply wrong: in each of those columns I played entirely fair with my readers, using the standard data in the standard way.
That should be the end of the story.
I want to go back to doing what I have been doing all along: using economic data to inform my readers.
PAUL KRUGMAN
Princeton, N.J., May 24, 2005
Well why the hell did Okrent not provide us with examples? Why did he not respond to Krugman's letter here?
All you ever wanted to know about Daniel Okrent is revealed right there. What do you think of your hero now Jay Rosen?
Update [2005-5-28 19:34:3 by Armando]: I missed this:
The writer is an Op-Ed columnist for The Times. He and Daniel Okrent will be addressing this matter further on the Public Editor's Web Journal (nytimes.com/byroncalame) early in the week.
Now that will be interesting. I bet ya Krugman destroys him. Any takers?
Update [2005-5-28 19:40:4 by Armando]: My take on Okrent's tenure. My take on his disgraceful attack on Krugman.
And a sign of hope.