A preliminary Nexis check found no Enron puff-pieces by Bill Kristol, while he was being paid $100,000 for being on an “advisory board” for Enron, apart from a banal, unsigned Weekly Standard defense of Ken Lay last June. There was this Irwin Stelzer piece last November, but it includes a relevant disclosure about serving on the board (no fees mentioned). Make what you will of it. If you dig up anything relevant, please let me know. Stelzer, meanwhile, still hasn’t emailed me back with a list of Enron-paid pundits. I’ll let you know his response as soon as he does. The $50,000 Enron payee, Larry Kudlow, however, wrote two Enron pieces before disclosing his fees. Since the pieces were harshly critical of Enron, there’s no scandal, but he surely should have mentioned it the very first time he ever wrote about Enron.
THE REAL POINT: But the point of this is not some smoking gun proving a nefarious quid pro quo. Washington corruption doesn’t usually get that crude. What this is about is the enmeshment of some of the pundit class in major corporate money. It seems to me that an integral part of a journalist’s vocation is independence – independence from any monetary interests that could even be perceived as clouding his or her judgment. Disclosure is a must – and not just when the subject matter comes up a few years down the line. The reading public has a right to know if their favorite columnist is getting private money from major corporations, especially when it’s to the tune of $100,000. They have a right to know how much and for what. We demand it of politicians. Why should we not demand it of the journalists who police them? To put this in perspective, Paul Krugman got more Enron money for adding his name to their advisory board (and precious little else) than any member of Congress. In fact, he got more than double the ten-year cumulative total of the biggest Enron beneficiary, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. If it’s corrupting for politicians, why is it any less corrupting for pundits, who can exercise as much power as many Congressmen and often have more influence than individual Senators? And what’s really amazing is the sheer contempt this pundit class seems to have for criticism. Check out Paul Krugman’s arrogant preening cited below. Kristol made a bit of a joke of it. I’m sorry, but part of the integrity of journalism, as with finance, is transparency. It seems to me incumbent on every pundit who took money from Enron to disclose it now, in detail.
ON A ROLL: Slate’s Tim Noah takes on Doris Kearns Goodwin. It’s pretty devastating.
MEDIA BIAS WATCH: “Nearly all traces have now vanished from the Web site of the liberal political journal the Nation of a story that appeared there last week on George W. Bush, Enron and baseball. The story first claimed that, “When George W. Bush co-owned the Houston Astros and construction began on a new stadium, Kenneth Lay (Enron’s chairman) agreed to spend $100 million over 30 years for rights to name the park after Enron.” The trouble was, as both the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard noted: Bush never co-owned the Houston Astros. He co-owned the Texas Rangers.” – Brit Hume, Fox News. So the Nation is a liberal magazine but the Weekly Standard is just a magazine? This thing, like Enron, seems to affect both sides.
LETTERS: In defense of Paul Krugman (kinda).
KRUGMAN – “I’M IN THE CIRCLE OF THOSE WHO GET MONEY CALLS”: Here’s Krugman’s take on his big-money corporate fees. No apologies. Just bragging about his own money, accusing critics of being envious of his fat wallet, or part of a right-wing conspiracy. Here’s a beaut: “Academic economists who have established international reputations in policy-relevant fields are constantly called by governments and companies, seeking their services – and yes, offering to pay for them. Think about it: how could it be otherwise? And many respond to those calls.” Er, you know what, Paul? I can think of how it could be otherwise. Economists devoted to their science could actually study governments and markets without being paid by big corporations. They could get those calls subtly corrupting their independence and say, “Thanks, but no thanks. I have tenure and a salary and I’d rather teach my students or devote myself to journalism with no apparent conflicts of interest.” Not Krugman. Then he says this:
“By 1999, 22 years after I got my Ph.D., having published 15 scholarly monographs and around 150 professional papers, I was certainly in the circle of Those Who Get Money Calls (though I didn’t get there until around 1995). So the Enron offer didn’t come as a surprise, and it certainly didn’t corrupt me – as my articles about them surely prove.”
Poor Krugman. Imagine having to toil in academe for so long without corporate goodies. What a relief he’s now in the circle of “Those Who Get Money Calls.” Does it in any way worry him that being in those circles might actually give an appearance of conflict of interest for a journalist? Nah, not at all. If a big scandal like Enron blows up, does it in any way concern him that his writing might seem to your average reader a little tainted by his being on the Enron payroll in the past, earning more than double most people’s annual salaries for doing what he brags about as next to nothing? Krugman’s contempt for those for whom $50,000 is a lot of money is simply shocking. Doesn’t he realize that that group includes many Times readers? His own paper regularly accuses politicians who take corporate money as being tainted. Yet Krugman has just gotten more Enron money in one swoop than any member of Congress in ten years. Double-standards, anyone?
ANYONE WANT AN IRON LADY?: Thatcher’s statue is for rent.
The Dish 