NYTimes' Paul Krugman Versus CBS News' Jim Murphy

The Executive Producer of CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, Jim Murphy, is getting a little punchy. And not punchy good, but punchy bad. Be very afraid. He's mad as hell and he's not gonna take it anymore.

And it's not the first time with Murphy. Not hardly.

One would think that having reached the rarified air of network news, one might be above the fray, beyond getting into a spot of the old rough and tumble with the Op Ed Page of the Old Gray Lady. Upon achieving the sanctified grace of Network News, one might be inured to media violence, and thus immune to the slings and arrows of outrageous editorials. Uh-uh, you'd be wrong on that count, baby pop.

First, Murphy went punchy after Howie Kurtz, with wide haymakers and low, inside body shots, saying, slyly:

"The endless debate over how American politics are covered by domestic media gets another treatment in today's Howard Kurtz column in the Washington Post. And in the sidebar debate over television versus print as a source for comprehensive treatment, Howie comes down firmly on the side of print without ever saying so. But it's obvious in the subtext of Kurtz's report that he reached two conclusions from a selective viewing of the CBS Evening News reports about this year's issues called 'What Does It Mean To You?'"

Now, Murphy, 1-0, undefeated in the Chattering Class Smackdown (held daily in Romenesko Letters), sharpens his axe to grind, target: Paul Krugman; let the beatings begin, true believers. On July 30th Murphy wrote to Romenesko's Letters:

"The entire staff of the 'CBS Evening News with Dan Rather' was pretty miffed after reading Paul Krugman's (July 30th "Triumph of the Trivial" column) that claimed not a SINGLE issues piece has aired on the big newscasts in the past two months."

Translation: At the Tiffany Network that day, we burned your column in effigy; much oxen was sacrificed to the Elder Gods over the flames, and much sweet meats and honey ale was consumed. Me alpha-man, hear me roar!

"(Krugman) must have missed the SIXTEEN different 'issues' pieces we did over a four week period during that time, part of a series that will continue until the election. With the resources of the New York Times you would think that would be kind of difficult to miss."

Translation: My boldface is bigger than yours. And, what's worse, you don't know how to use your, uhm, resources.

"The Washington Post's media critic found the series so intriguing amid all the debate over campaign coverage he actually wrote an article about it. How can anyone take an editorialist's arguments seriously when he ignores some FACTS completely?"

Translation: If Howie, my ex-nemesis is cool with it, then you must be blind.

On Poynter (2nd Item down), NY Timesman Paul Krugman responds in kind:

"In response to Jim Murphy's comment regarding my July 30 column on the absence of issue coverage in this election, and the 'miffed' staff at CBS Evening News ... Mr. Murphy apparently misread what I said."

Translation: Do you own a library card? Have you ever? Do you want me to help you with the big words?

"I did not say that there has been no issue reporting at all over the past two months; I said that issue coverage is very thin, and that there has in particular been no clear explanation of even the most basic elements of the Kerry health care plan.That statement is, alas, true."

Translation: The old Gray Lady may be a bit chubby in the backside, and CBS News may be, uhm, supermodel thin, but our readers like a little meat on the bone -- something to grab onto ... (The Corsair imitates expressive Italian hand gestures to illustrate his point, mouthing the words, 'abondanza, abondanza'')

"The CBS evening news report from June 29 was the best coverage of the competing health care plans I could find."

Translation: Why can't we be friends? I'm a respected columnist, an intellectual even, I don't need this kind of shit.

"But did it explain that the Kerry plan would cover most of those now uninsured? No."

Translation: I am not averse to issuing a bitchslap if the occasion warrants. Remember executive producer boy, an animal is most dangerous when it is cornered ...

"Did it explain that the plan would, according to the Kerry campaign, be financed by a tax-cut rollback? No. In fact, by giving time to Bush claims that 'the Kerry plan would break the bank', without mentioning Kerry's plan to pay for it with a tax-cut rollback, the CBS report conveyed the false impression that the plan is unfunded pie in the sky."

Translation: Some constructive, diplomatic criticism, my media brother, let's work through this.
"Bear in mind that this is not one among many issues: health care-cum-tax cut rollback is Kerry's signature domestic policy proposal. Yet a voter who gets his or her news from TV, even CBS with its 'issues' series, would have little or no idea of what Kerry is offering, or how it differs from Bush."

Translation: TV has it's uses, but print media is for the weighty analysis, that's how it was all divvied up in the beginning-- you get the big money, we get the prestige. Live with it.

Tune in next week, when Jim Murphy blasts any media critic (50-50 odds on an Eric Alterman, Jim Murphy Smackdown up next) who dares -- dares! -- criticize the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather.

Murphy dares you to smack the Eveready battery off his shoulder ... he dares you ...