contrarian-substack-com-grqlkr.txt (13876B)
1 [1][https] 2 3 [2]The Contrarian 4 5 SubscribeSign in 6 7 Share this post 8 9 [8] 10 [https] 11 The Contrarian 12 The Contrarian 13 Departing the New York Times 14 Copy link 15 Facebook 16 Email 17 Notes 18 More 19 20 Departing the New York Times 21 22 I left to stay true to my byline 23 24 [9] 25 [htt] 26 [10]Paul Krugman 27 Jan 28, 2025 28 11,237 29 30 Share this post 31 32 [12] 33 [https] 34 The Contrarian 35 The Contrarian 36 Departing the New York Times 37 Copy link 38 Facebook 39 Email 40 Notes 41 More 42 [13] 43 441 44 1,023 45 [14] 46 Share 47 48 As many people reading this know, last month I retired from my position as an 49 opinion writer at the New York Times—a job I had done for 25 years. Despite the 50 encomiums issued by the Times, it was not a happy departure. If you check out 51 my [15]Substack, you will see that I have by no means run out of energy or 52 topics to write about. But from my perspective, the nature of my relationship 53 with the Times had degenerated to a point where I couldn’t stay. 54 55 [16] 56 [https] 57 58 Charles Kaiser has written a [17]fair-minded article in the Columbia Journalism 59 Review about my departure. What I want to do in this post is add more context. 60 Let’s be clear: I am not planning to have a running feud with the Times: I 61 came, I saw, I felt I had to leave, and I moved on. 62 63 But I believe that the story of why I left says something important about the 64 current state of legacy journalism. 65 66 The background: until 2017 or so, I felt extremely happy with my role at the 67 Times, for a couple of reasons. 68 69 One, I felt that I had finally cracked the code of opinion column-writing. When 70 the Times hired me at the end of 1999, I was an economics professor who wrote 71 occasionally for a broader audience. And crafting 800-word plain-English essays 72 for readers with no background in economics is, shall we say, a bit different 73 from writing 5000-word academic journal articles full of equations and diagrams 74 for a small professional community. For a while, I struggled with the 75 transition. 76 77 But eventually I figured it out. I actually took pleasure in the craftsmanship, 78 in boiling an argument down to its essentials, expressing it in ordinary 79 language, and making it interesting. Furthermore, I believe that my writing 80 affected the national discourse, especially over issues such as George W. 81 Bush’s attempt to privatize Social Security, the march to the Affordable Care 82 Act (despite Obama’s initial reluctance), and the unjustified fiscal panic of 83 the early 2010s. 84 85 During my first 24 years at the Times, from 2000 to 2024, I faced very few 86 editorial constraints on how and what I wrote. For most of that period my draft 87 would go straight to a copy editor, who would sometimes suggest that I make 88 some changes — for example, softening an assertion that arguably went beyond 89 provable facts, or redrafting a passage the editor didn’t quite understand, and 90 which readers probably wouldn’t either. But the editing was very light; over 91 the years several copy editors jokingly complained that I wasn’t giving them 92 anything to do, because I came in at length, with clean writing and with 93 back-up for all factual assertions. 94 95 This light-touch editing prevailed even when I took positions that made Times 96 leadership very nervous. My early and repeated criticisms of Bush’s push to 97 invade Iraq led to several tense meetings with management. In those meetings, I 98 was urged to tone it down. Yet the columns themselves were published as I wrote 99 them. And in the end, I believe the Times — which eventually [18]apologized for 100 its role in promoting the war — was glad that I had taken an anti-invasion 101 stand. I believe that it was my finest hour. 102 103 So I was dismayed to find out this past year, when the current Times editors 104 and I began to discuss our differences, that current management and top editors 105 appear to have been completely unaware of this important bit of the paper’s 106 history and my role in it. 107 108 Two, previous Times management and editors had allowed me to engage in the 109 higher-level economic debates of the time. The aftermath of the 2008 financial 110 crisis led to a great flowering of economics blogs. Important, sophisticated 111 debates about the causes of the crisis and the policy response were taking 112 place more or less in real time. I was able to be an active part of those 113 debates, because I had an [19]economics blog of my own, under the Times 114 umbrella but separate from the column. The blog, unedited, was both more 115 technical — sometimes much more technical — and looser than the column. 116 117 Then, step by step, all the things that made writing at the Times worthwhile 118 for me were taken away. The Times eliminated the blog at the end of 2017. 119 Here’s my [20]last substantive blog post, which gives a good idea of the kind 120 of thing I was no longer able to do once it was eliminated. 121 122 For a while I tried to make up for the loss of the blog with threads on 123 Twitter. But even before Elon Musk Nazified the site, tweet threads were an 124 awkward, inferior substitute for blog posts. So in 2021 I opened a Substack 125 account, as a place to put technical material I couldn’t publish in the Times. 126 Times management became very upset. When I explained to them that I really, 127 really needed an outlet where I could publish more analytical writing with 128 charts etc., they agreed to allow me to have a Times newsletter (twice a week), 129 where I could publish the kind of work I had previously posted on my blog. 130 131 In September 2024 my newsletter was suddenly suspended by the Times. The only 132 reason I was given was “a problem of cadence”: according to the Times, I was 133 writing too often. I don’t know why this was considered a problem, since my 134 newsletter was never intended to be published as part of the regular paper. 135 Moreover, it had proved to be popular with a number of readers. 136 137 Also in 2024, the editing of my regular columns went from light touch to 138 extremely intrusive. I went from one level of editing to three, with an 139 immediate editor and his superior both weighing in on the column, and sometimes 140 doing substantial rewrites before it went to copy. These rewrites almost 141 invariably involved toning down, introducing unnecessary qualifiers, and, as I 142 saw it, false equivalence. I would rewrite the rewrites to restore the essence 143 of my original argument. But as I told Charles Kaiser, I began to feel that I 144 was putting more effort—especially emotional energy—into fixing editorial 145 damage than I was into writing the original articles. And the end result of the 146 back and forth often felt flat and colorless. 147 148 One more thing: I faced attempts from others to dictate what I could (and could 149 not) write about, usually in the form, “You’ve already written about that,” as 150 if it never takes more than one column to effectively cover a subject. If that 151 had been the rule during my earlier tenure, I never would have been able to 152 press the case for Obamacare, or against Social Security privatization, 153 and—most alarmingly—against the Iraq invasion. Moreover, all Times opinion 154 writers were banned from engaging in any kind of media criticism. Hardly the 155 kind of rule that would allow an opinion writer to state, “we are being lied 156 into war.” 157 158 I felt that my byline was being used to create a storyline that was no longer 159 mine. So I left. 160 161 That’s my story. What are the broader implications? 162 163 “Words,” [21]John Maynard Keynes once wrote, “ought to be a little wild, for 164 they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking.” That was always my 165 attitude toward opinion writing. Newspaper columns should be controversial, 166 rubbing some people the wrong way, because the main point is to get people to 167 rethink their assumptions. I used to say, only half-jokingly, that if a column 168 didn’t generate a large amount of hate mail, that meant that I had wasted the 169 space. 170 171 Yet what I felt during my final year at the Times was a push toward blandness, 172 toward avoiding saying anything too directly in a way that might get some 173 people (particularly on the right) riled up. I guess my question is, if those 174 are the ground rules, why even bother having an opinion section? 175 176 Maybe there was a time when readers would sit still for sober, dull opinion 177 pieces — history’s [22]most boring headline, “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative,” 178 was the title of a Times op-ed — because they were seen as representing the 179 views of The Establishment. And I have the feeling that Times management still 180 thinks it’s living in that world. But in today’s wide-open information (and 181 misinformation) environment, boring writing just vanishes without a trace. 182 183 On a somewhat different issue, it became clear to me that the management I was 184 dealing with didn’t understand the difference between having an opinion and 185 having an informed, factually sourced opinion. When the newsletter was 186 canceled, I tried to point out that I was almost the only regular opinion 187 writer doing policy. Their response was to point to other writers who often 188 expressed views about policy, economic and otherwise. I tried in vain to 189 explain that there’s a difference between having opinions about economics and 190 knowing how to read C.B.O. analyses and recent research papers. It all fell on 191 deaf ears. 192 193 So that’s the story of my departure from the Times. Despite the difficulties of 194 the last year, I remain deeply grateful to the Times for hiring me and giving 195 me decades of freedom to express my views to such a large audience. And I feel 196 sorry about abandoning loyal readers who still rely on legacy media and who may 197 not follow me to Substack. But my situation had become intolerable, and I 198 haven’t felt a moment’s regret over the new direction and recovering my 199 freedom. 200 201 [33][ ] 202 Subscribe 203 11,237 204 205 Share this post 206 207 [36] 208 [https] 209 The Contrarian 210 The Contrarian 211 Departing the New York Times 212 Copy link 213 Facebook 214 Email 215 Notes 216 More 217 [37] 218 441 219 1,023 220 [38] 221 Share 222 A guest post by 223 [39] [40]Paul Krugman [41]Subscribe 224 [https] Professor, CUNY Grad Center, Nobel laureate and former to Paul 225 columnist, NY Times 226 227 Discussion about this post 228 229 CommentsRestacks 230 [ht] 231 [ ] 232 [ ] 233 [ ] 234 [ ] 235 [45] 236 [ht] 237 [46]Meg 238 [47]5d 239 Liked by Domenica Alioto 240 241 Good to hear the background. And good for you for leaving. Its not the same 242 paper I’ve been reading for decades. Your word is your truth. 243 244 Expand full comment 245 Reply 246 Share 247 [50]1 reply 248 [51] 249 [ht] 250 [52]Gary 251 [53]5d 252 253 As a previous subscriber to both the NYT and WAPO, I am delighted to see two of 254 my favorites, Paul Krugman and Jen Rubin, here on Substack. Unleashed opinions 255 from knowledgeable editorialists work best here. Mr. Krugman is a truly 256 professional economist with valuable insights. 257 258 Expand full comment 259 Reply 260 Share 261 [55]4 replies 262 [56]439 more comments... 263 TopLatestDiscussions 264 265 No posts 266 267 Ready for more? 268 269 [71][ ] 270 Subscribe 271 © 2025 The Contrarian 272 [73]Privacy ∙ [74]Terms ∙ [75]Collection notice 273 [76] Start Writing[77]Get the app 274 [78]Substack is the home for great culture 275 276 Share 277 278 Copy link 279 Facebook 280 Email 281 Notes 282 More 283 This site requires JavaScript to run correctly. Please [80]turn on JavaScript 284 or unblock scripts 285 286 References: 287 288 [1] https://contrarian.substack.com/ 289 [2] https://contrarian.substack.com/ 290 [8] https://substack.com/home/post/p-155937919?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web 291 [9] https://substack.com/@paulkrugman 292 [10] https://substack.com/@paulkrugman 293 [12] https://substack.com/home/post/p-155937919?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web 294 [13] https://contrarian.substack.com/p/departing-the-new-york-times/comments 295 [14] javascript:void(0) 296 [15] https://paulkrugman.substack.com/ 297 [16] https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9a2e7592-bf60-43e4-9bab-dde5eefb084d_6500x4333.jpeg 298 [17] https://www.cjr.org/analysis/paul-krugman-leaving-new-york-times-heavy-hand-editing-less-frequent-columns-newsletter.php 299 [18] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html 300 [19] https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/ 301 [20] https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/leprechauns-of-eastern-europe/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body 302 [21] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes 303 [22] https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2023/09/worthwhile-canadian-initiative.html 304 [36] https://substack.com/home/post/p-155937919?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web 305 [37] https://contrarian.substack.com/p/departing-the-new-york-times/comments 306 [38] javascript:void(0) 307 [39] https://substack.com/profile/26817325-paul-krugman 308 [40] https://substack.com/@paulkrugman?utm_campaign=guest_post_bio&utm_medium=web 309 [41] https://paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe? 310 [45] https://substack.com/profile/59144975-meg?utm_source=comment 311 [46] https://substack.com/profile/59144975-meg?utm_source=substack-feed-item 312 [47] https://contrarian.substack.com/p/departing-the-new-york-times/comment/89289247 313 [50] https://contrarian.substack.com/p/departing-the-new-york-times/comment/89289247 314 [51] https://substack.com/profile/116054490-gary?utm_source=comment 315 [52] https://substack.com/profile/116054490-gary?utm_source=substack-feed-item 316 [53] https://contrarian.substack.com/p/departing-the-new-york-times/comment/89294574 317 [55] https://contrarian.substack.com/p/departing-the-new-york-times/comment/89294574 318 [56] https://contrarian.substack.com/p/departing-the-new-york-times/comments 319 [73] https://substack.com/privacy 320 [74] https://substack.com/tos 321 [75] https://substack.com/ccpa#personal-data-collected 322 [76] https://substack.com/signup?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=web&utm_content=footer 323 [77] https://substack.com/app/app-store-redirect?utm_campaign=app-marketing&utm_content=web-footer-button 324 [78] https://substack.com/ 325 [80] https://enable-javascript.com/