• Reader Paul Philp of Radical Results writes, via email, that no help was needed from Clear Channel to make the Dixie Chicks pay for their lead singer's anti-war views.

  "The Dixie Chicks have a very conservative audience that was outraged by Natalie Maines. The ex-fans of the Chicks used the Internet to organize the protest, just like the anti-war folk and every other grass roots movement in the world today.
  
  "Here is a link to Free Republic where there are 55 message boards dedicated to kickin' some serious Chick butt: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/865158/posts
  
  "It seems like country music fans aren't Clear Channel Stepford Wives. They have a mind of their own and they gave the Dixie Chicks a piece of it."

• Tom Maguire at Just One Minute complains that

  "Professor Krugman comes out strongly today against freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. A big media company is engaged in an activity that is legal, visible, disclosed, and annoying to the Professor."

• John Weidner at Random Jottings (who, I have just learned, has been operating his own "Krugman Truth Squad" for some time now) sees Krugman's imagining of a corporate conspiracy centered on the Bush administration as part of an "continuing tragedy."

  "We are seeing a first-rate economist self-destruct as his partisanship becomes rabid and his dislike of anything Bush turns into blind hatred. To some of us, his columns are reminiscent of Oscar Wilde's 'Picture of Dorian Gray' as, week after week, they reflect a growing dementia, in this case political paranoia, that will eventually take him over. Other Squad members see Krugman as more akin to a hapless Robert Ludlum hero who finds that the bad guys (Republicans, the rich, corporate interests, etc.) are everywhere and control everything. There is nowhere to run, no place that is safe, and no one who can be trusted."

• Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs says "My jaw dropped last night when I read Paul Krugman’s column in the New York Times, comparing criticism of the Dixie Chicks to Kristallnacht," and has a conspiracy theory of his own -- he thinks that the word Kristallnacht appeared in early on-line editions, and was later replaced by an ellipsis.
  
  Thanks to reader Mara Gold for the pointer.
   
• David Hogberg at Cornfield Commentary dismisses Krugman's comparison:

"I guess we now know why Krugman is a professor of economics, and not history. When the Nazis took over Germany, German democracy was a joke, Germany had no democratic tradition, and it had an economy that was in the toilet. None of that applies to the U.S. (Yes, the economy is a bit sluggish, but it’s nothing like that of the 1930s.) Sorry, but protestors in America and other democracies pull publicity stunts to promote a cause all the time. Heck, Krugman should take a look at his ideological brethren in San Francisco. There are many hallmarks of a society slipping into totalitarianism—a cheap publicity stunts isn’t one of them."

• Robert Musil at Man Without Qualities says that Krugman's conspiracy theorizing puts him at odds with economic theory.

  "...Herr Doktorprofessor is entirely oblivious to the fact that he is writing a column about a topic which is informed by a fairly well-developed economic theory: regulatory capture. A lot of economic research has gone into analyzing what symptoms one should look for to determine whether a regulated business controls its regulators. But Herr Doktorprofessor ignores all that learning and structure to reach his unsupported conclusion that Clear Channel has put the fix in. But it can’t be ignored. If the 'fix' is so obviously a quid pro quo, how will other media competitors take it? And why aren't other competitors trying to do the same thing? Further, federal regulation and regulatory capture works mostly through the Congress – not the Administration. But Herr Doktorprofessor just entirely cancels Congress out of both sides of his equation.

  "Introducing Congress into the equation would expose that Herr Doktorprofessor is also ignoring a second branch of modern economics: public choice theory - the branch of economic that concerns economic choices made by democratic societies. As so often the case with this columnist, resort to silly conspiracy charges substitutes for the hard work of applying difficult economics. He can leave that to real geniuses like Dr. James M. Buchanan, who won the 1986 Nobel Prize in economics for his contributions to public choice theory. A man has to know his limitations."

• Times Watch notes that a story by Douglas Jehl in the Times yesterday on pro-war rallies focused extensively on the Clear Channel connection, and noted that the company "has been criticized by those who contend that media companies should not engage in political advocacy." Times Watch is right-on when it says,

  "One wishes the Times was equally concerned about the largest force behind the anti-war protests--the Stalinist organization ANSWER. The group, led by Ramsey Clark, former attorney general turned Saddam Hussein supporter, calls for President Bush’s impeachment on its web site."

  I noticed that Jehl took the trouble to contact Clear Channel for a comment, and they responded that the events were "not sponsored by Clear Channel corporate." Krugman does not mention Clear Channel's denial.
  
  Thanks to Orrin Judd at The Brothers Judd for the pointer.
   

• Reader Roderic H. Fabian points out this message posted to the discussion boards at The Motley Fool. It's not about Krugman, but it's a fascinating glimpse into how the other members of the liberal media have dealt with the Clear Station story.

  "I was listening to a conservative talk show host named Glen Beck this morning (WGST, AM 640 Atlanta) and he told the following story. Beck has a nationally syndicated talk show and suggested at some point that the people listening on the affiliate stations call their local stations and ask them to sponsor local 'Rallies for America' as a way to show support for our troops and as a counter to the anti-war protests that had been getting so much media attention...

  "The Chicago Tribune ran a story about this that focused on the fact that Beck is an employee of Clear Channel Communications, a company that has lobbyists and could be attempting to curry favor from the Bush administration with these rallies. The person who wrote the story asked somebody in the industry what he thought about it, and the response was that there was no evidence that Clear Channel had anything to do with the rallies, but if they did it would be disturbing...
  
  "...Beck gets a call from NPR who wants to discuss the rallies with him for a piece they will run on NPR. They tell him the interview will run 20 minutes. The interview starts with them asking him if he would describe himself as the 'typical conservative talk radio show host'. He says he doesn't think there is such a thing, and that as an example he voted for Bush for President and for Lieberman as his Senator. The NPR person consults with one of his associates and decides to pursue another line of questioning. He then asks about the rallies and how they got started. Beck tells him that he made a comment on his show one day, somebody called in, and it quickly became a groundswell. He said that some affiliates got so many calls that it temporarily shut down their switchboards.
  
  "The NPR person then says that Clear Channel has legislation in Congress and isn't it possible that they had something to do with all of this? Beck tells them that Clear Channel had nothing to do with it, that he talks about whatever he wants to and if advertisers don't like it they can stop advertising, if Clear Channel doesn't like him they can fire him. He pointed out that one of the rallies he participated in was in Philadelphia for an Infinity station (I assume they carry his show). After talking with another couple of minutes, the NPR guy tells him his denial sounds plausible and he doesn't think they have a story after all. Beck asks him why the turnout at these rallies isn't a story, or the innuendo in the Chicago Tribune isn't a story. The NPR guy tells him they were pursuing the Clear Channel angle. End of conversation, no story on NPR."

There's a great gotcha, in which Kaus catches Leonhardt's pessimistic econobabble contradicting Paul Krugman's pessimistic econobabble. Here's the battle of the babble (emphasis is Kaus's):

"...according to Leonhardt:

"'the aging of the population will slow the growth of the labor force.'

"But wait. Wasn't it only five months ago that Paul Krugman was telling us rapid labor force growth was bad, because

"'an economy that is growing, but in which employment grows more slowly than the labor force, may be in recovery by some measures, but it will feel like it's still in recession.'

"Yes! It was only five months ago!"

Then Kaus adds,

"Leonhardt also sounds an alarm because

"'baby boomers, who are approaching retirement -- are likely to increase their savings at the expense of spending.'

"But wait again! Wasn't it only a few months ago (and a few days ago, and a few years ago) that we were warned about America's "anemic" savings rate? And the dire possibility that boomers might not increase their saving? It was!"

No wonder Kaus calls Leonhardt "Downhardt". And he's right that these are examples of Easterbrook's Law: "All economic news is bad."

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:28 AM | link