Krugman used to be a business writer. I really never noticed a partisan bent, although I wasn't paying much attention to it (or him). He seemed to come alive politically, as well as coming out fighting, after than charge about Enron. Perhaps it will go away after this issue dies.
The scoring is interesting in that it tries to measure partisanship rather than ideology. I have always found the distinction important and have talked about it some on these threads. Best I can tell, no one else finds it of the slightest interest. It's always nice, when you're in a lonely position, to make a connection. <g>
<<Here's a dictionary definition of partisan:
1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
The main point is that I'm trying to draw a fundamental distinction between ordinary party preference and actual partisanship (blind, prejudiced and unreasoning allegiance). So the numbers reflect ideology to some degree (positive or negative PI), but the method is trying to show that columnists differ greatly in how they treat the two parties, even when their ideology is similar (compare the treatment of the Enron scandal by Paul Krugman and Frank Rich). Lying in Ponds welcomes the views of pundits across the ideological spectrum, but not those who are really offering distortion rather than enlightenment.>> |
