July 27, 2006

Tom Friedman Learned All He Knows About Economics in 6th Grade

Or so it seems, because apparently he feels there is never any context of variation that matters when comes to matters of trade. You see "free trade" is good, not "free trade" is bad, and that's all you need to know - ever. And he's happy to write column after column on good "free trade" bills, even when he hasn't the foggiest idea what's in them.

I wrote a column supporting the CAFTA, the Caribbean Free Trade initiative. I didn’t even know what was in it. I just knew two words: free trade.

OK, that's problematic on a number fronts, but perhaps - for Friedman - one would think it would be most problematic in terms of his employment contract. Does the Times know they have hired a guy who writes about topics he doesn't have the first clue about? If so, why exactly do they continue to employ him instead of someone who, oh I don't know, actually does a little journalism and investigates the topics of their columns? I think Ezra puts it well:

Friedman's comments should trigger a conversation with his editors in which being fired hangs as a distinct possibility: If Tom Friedman is indeed writing about legislation based on his gut reactions to words in their titles, he's probably not the sort of guy the New York Times wants to hand an op-ed page slot to. If he's just lying about the stratagem in order to prove how fully he's bought into the elite consensus on free trade, he should be given paid leave and sent to a psychologist until his self esteem is no longer so low that he's obsessed with being the most enthusiastic lemming in the line. In any case, this is a very stupid statement by someone who's career is predicated on the belief that he's not a very stupid man.
Posted by armand at July 27, 2006 12:46 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Media


Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?