Mark Thoma makes the basic case against Robert Samuelson. Brendan Nyhan adds in the point that Samuelson's column is extremely long-lived, he's been writing it for the past thirty years. I really wonder about this kind of thing. There are plenty of columnists I don't like, but normally they're at least good at generating buzz and discussion. But what's Samuelson's value to the Post? Are there people who, at the margin, are ready to drop their Washington Post subscriptions if they don't get to read about how we should cut Social Security benefits for the nine millionth time?
« I Hear It's Windy | Main | Unreconciling »
A Question About The Post
01 Aug 2007 12:59 pm
Comments (7)
Samuelson DOES have a fourth belief, which is that global warming is real, but it is far better for mankind to go extinct than to attempt to solve the problem by doing things recommended by people (environmentalists) who annoy Robert Samuelson, because to do so would further annoy him.
Samuelson has done excellent work on immigration, far above the pathetic level common at the Washington Post, which has been the most mindless on the topic of all the major outlets, which is saying a lot.
Isn't this like tenure, once you give a columnist tenure you can't fire him just because he is boring. The plusses and minuses appear to be similar.
You imply that the purpose of the Washington Post is to make a profit.
The purpose of Murdoch's British newspapers was to use their considerable political clout to ensure that Murdoch's Sky network became dominant over its competitors. Cable TV was crippled when the government ensured that the cable franchises were ludicrously tiny and the industry spent 10 years consolidating whilst Sky was concentrating on marketing and buying up the best content.
The purpose of the Wapo is to use their political clout to ensure that Kaplan becomes dominant in providing educational services. Kaplan is dependent for its growth on Title IV funds, test standarisation (NLCB) etc.
The owners of the Wapo know the writing is on the wall for newspapers (Buffett has said newspapers are in a long-term decline). So they fluff their best customer (the US government) and Kaplan grows at 20% a year.
Samuelson is so much better than the usual op-ed writer. It's depressing that Matt just dismisses him because Samuelson keeps pointing out the obvious fact that we can't sustain entitlement spending at current rates when boomers begin to retire in five months. (Those born in 1946 can take Social Security at 62.)
For Matt and Krugman to dismiss the whole issue by saying oh, if we didn't cut taxes on the rich, we'd have the money to take care of it, is incredibly lazy. One way or the other, the problem has to be dealt with. Good for Samuelson, pretty much alone among major newspaper pundits, for making this point.
Comments closed August 15, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
i don't think there are people at the margin who would drop their wapo or nytimes or fill-in-your-newspaper-here if the entire op-ed page disappeared, as it eventually will (bloggers are, of course, a far superior replacement).
since we have two idiot sons - pinch sulzberger and donald graham - running the wapo and the nytimes, it's probably beyond them to imagine such a change, but it will come....
Posted by howard | August 1, 2007 1:54 PM