Boxing Match: The New York Times vs the Financial Times

Clive Crook has decided to get in the boxing ring with Paul Krugman, the famous one-handed economist. It's dangerous though, because the Financial Times is vulnerable to falling into the same trap that the New York Times fell in years ago.

A one-handed economist, is by definition an incompetent economist, and in Krugman's case , an incompetent journalist. Being one-handed means you are no longer committed to being as unbiased and fair as possible, the truth is no longer a high priority, entertaining becomes the the only priority ( in Krugman's case, he was hired to be a pitbull, with the mission to blame everything on George Bush , an approach which makes east coast Americans feel good).

Krugman, Ashlee Vance and countless other NYT journalists over the years have shown themselves to be talented and entertaining writers - and at the same time , incompetent journalists. ( You can be a very good writer regardless of whether you are writing fiction or non-fiction ).

Years ago, the NYT realized that entertaining writing went quickly to the bottom line, but accuracy and fact-checking did not. The rest is history.

The reason the Financial Times and the Economist are in danger of this trap is because of their business model. What helps their profit margins is that they have a reputation for very entertaining writing - especially during turbulent economic times. For years, they have been writing paragraphs about the US current account deficit that can send a chill down your spine.

Now, the FT is better at accuracy than the NYT ( which frankly , is not saying that much ). But accuracy doesn't pay the bills. Enjoyable reading does. There lies a trap. Beware.