Let’s say these Enron-funded pundits did nothing illegal or unethical. Let’s say they just took $50,000 minimum from this company for legit extra-curricular work. Maybe they didn’t know what a scam Enron was at the time. The point is at some point in the future any big corporation could be a scandal. And what does the pundit do then? He can disclose, sure, as Krugman and Noonan have. But that doesn’t get rid of the problem, unless they actually return the money. Isn’t there some cloud inherently over Krugman’s and Noonan’s subsequent writing about Enron? At least some of their readers now suspect something fishy went on. Haven’t these pundits essentially undermined themselves as independent watch-dogs of the culture? Isn’t the entire point of the press to be independent – observers of problems not part of them? Krugman and Noonan and Kristol cannot now be taken fully seriously whenever they write about Enron. John Ashcroft recused himself from any professional attorney-general dealings with a company he once got money from. Shouldn’t Krugman and Noonan and Kudlow and Stelzer and Kristol now recuse themselves from any further Enron commentary?
AND WHY IS NOONAN SO VAGUE?: Does she really not know how much she got from Enron? She gives a lee-way from $25,000 to $50,000. C’mon, Peggy. You should have a 1099 hanging around somewhere. You didn’t shred it, did you?
SOME LIKE IT HOT: Many people in the magazine business have their Tina stories. Here’s mine. At some point in the Tina era at the New Yorker, I got a call from Tina asking me to write a piece about “religion.” After routine flattery, she got to the point. “We have a fabulous issue coming up on religion and Dick Avedon is photographing several religious figures and icons and I wondered whether you could do an accompanying essay,” she asked in her clipped, breathless tone. “About what?” I asked. “Religion is a pretty big topic.” “Oh, that would be up to you,” Ms. Brown replied. “Anything that’s hot right now in religion. Anything hot.”… continued here.