This morning’s Washington Post contains a gloomy story from Frank Ahrens about the prospects for recovery compared with the prospects for a slowdown or the dreaded double-dip recession.
In the story, one liberal (Paul Krugman) and one conservative (an equity strategist on Wall Street) were cited as sources. That’s not so surprising.
What is surprising is that the writer takes a full paragraph to examine Krugman’s perceived “biases” — that is, that he believed the federal economic stimulus was too small, and hence believes more stimulus is needed to prevent further economic problems.
Those don’t seem like “biases” so much as “a point of view,” but OK.
The trouble is, the Wall Street guy has no such disclaimers affixed to his argument about maintaining the Bush tax cuts on the richest Americans. In case you’re keeping score at home: A Nobel-prize winning economist requires numerous caveats. A Wall Street guy with a personal economic stake in his political views is presumably objective.
This offends me almost as much as Ahrens transcribing his back-and-forth e-mail exchange with the guy — including printing the portion of his reply that is ALL CAPS. I think there is a bipartisan consensus that this constitutes reader abuse.