Lying in Ponds

In today’s column, Brendan Miniter ridicules Jim Traficant for attempting to defend himself against corruption charges by “impinging his accusers’ motives” [impinging? I'm on vacation, maybe the WSJ editors are also]. In typical fashion, Miniter finds a way to impinge Bill Clinton as well.

Lying in Ponds is hitting the road Monday morning. The whole family is piling into the car and driving to Denver to see family there and along the way, as we drive through North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado. We should be back by August 2. If you live along that route and see a minivan with North Carolina plates carrying frazzled parents and three surly children, you may want to just steer clear. I’ll be updating the site periodically from the road, but I won’t be reading e-mail.

Boxscore

KINSLEY OUT, STRASSEL IN: With his mildly Republican-leaning column from yesterday, Michael Kinsley drops into 11th place, lifting Kimberly A. Strassel into the Lying in Ponds Top Ten. Ms. Strassel’s statistics look very similar to those of her Wall Street Journal colleague Collin Levey.

From his bio page: “Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. . . Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the “new trade theory,” a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to “that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge.” Krugman’s current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises.”

Over the first six months of 2002, Paul Krugman has utterly dominated the Lying in Ponds rankings. There are two separate measures of partisanship which are calculated and then averaged together to form the basis for the rankings. The total partisanship index attempts to quantify the intensity of partisanship over all columns. Mr. Krugman leads in that category on the basis of his staggering ratio of 396 negative to 19 positive Republican references. The median column partisanship index reflects the consistency of partisanship from column to column. Most pundits occasionally use a column to criticize their own party and/or praise the other one. Mr. Krugman is nearly alone among the 37 pundits in that not even one of his 52 columns is contrary to his prevailing political orientation.

About half of Mr. Krugman’s positive Democratic references are to Bill Clinton, while his four most frequent negative Republican references are to: administration(104), Bush(76), Bush administration(49), and George W. Bush(23). Several things seem to set Mr. Krugman apart from the other pundits in the rankings. He finds an anti-Republican angle in nearly every issue he covers, including state budget crises and the elections in France. Unlike many other Democratic-leaning pundits, he rarely mentions Republicans considered to be moderates — among his more than 400 Republican references are only four to John McCain and none to Colin Powell. Most pundits get a fair number of positive references to the other party by allowing their opponents to speak by quoting them fairly, even if they then criticize their position. In Mr. Krugman’s screeds, Republicans are rarely granted the privilege of stating their position.

Bryan Keefer of Spinsanity recently criticized Mr. Krugman and two other commentators for “inflammatory accusations”: “If Dowd, Krugman and Moore wish to disagree with Bush’s policies, they should do so on the merits, rather than attempting to discredit them by suggesting Bush wants to appoint himself dictator. Lurid claims about “paranoid nightmares” and fictitious threats are not substantive contributions to the debate.” Lying in Ponds has been very critical of Mr. Krugman’s writing on Enron and related scandals: “Mr. Krugman has mentioned Enron in nearly half of his columns this year, a total of 99 times. Despite this intensive coverage, Krugman has (unlike Frank Rich . .) studiously avoided mentioning Democratic connections to Enron and has mentioned the parallel Global Crossing scandal only once.”

With six months of columns still to come, it’s too early to concede the partisanship title to Mr. Krugman, or even to conclude that his writings are in fact excessively partisan. But to this point, Mr. Krugman’s dominance of the rankings is easily understood by comparing his exhaustive but one-sided treatment of Enron and other corporate scandals with the equally outraged but far more balanced perspective provided by his Times colleague Frank Rich:

Democrats want to believe that Enron is the Republicans’ Armageddon. Republicans hope Global Crossing will prove the Democrats’ comeuppance. Dream on. Political cross- dressing is a distinguishing feature of this systemic scandal, much of it entirely legal, in which the only currency that counts comes in green, not the red and blue of the electoral map. As countless Democrats have turned up on the lists of Enron and Arthur Andersen campaign beneficiaries, so the former President Bush is among those who joined Mr. McAuliffe in test-riding the Global Crossing gravy train.

From his bio page: “Robert L. Bartley is editor and vice president of The Wall Street Journal, where he has guided editorial opinion for more than 25 years. He is responsible for the editorials, op-ed articles and the Leisure & Arts criticism and also directs the editorial pages of The Asian Wall Street Journal, The Wall Street Journal Europe and WSJ.com, the Journal’s online edition. He writes the “Thinking Things Over” column, appearing each Monday on the Journal’s opinion pages and on OpinionJournal. In June 2000, Mr. Bartley revived the column, a platform that had been used by three previous Journal editors and first initiated in 1936. He participates with other vice presidents in the business management of the Journal and its parent, Dow Jones & Co. . . In 1980, Mr. Bartley won a Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing. He has also received a Gerald Loeb Award and a Citation for Excellence from the Overseas Press Club of America. In 1992, his book on Reagan Administration economic policy, “The Seven Fat Years: And How To Do It Again,” was published by the Free Press.”

In his book, Eric Alterman does not have a high opinion of Mr. Bartley’s leadership of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page: “Beginning in 1972, when the Midwestern conservative firebrand was given de facto control over the Journal’s editorials (the title “editor” did not follow until 1979), they have had a harsh and unforgiving tone. Throughout the Bartley era, Journal editorials have been among the most dependable allies of the far-right elements of the Republican party on both foreign and economic issues in the entire punditocracy, going so far as to attack other journalists in advance of their published works when they fail to hew to the administration line.”

Robert L. Bartley was ranked second in the Lying in Ponds Top Ten after the first six months of 2002. Perhaps serious consideration should be given to the possibility that columns by Bartley, Claudia Rosett and Brendan Miniter are actually written by the same person. The numbers for all three are eerily similar — a 9 to 1 ratio of negative to postive Democratic references, about half of the negative Democratic references are directed toward the Clintons, and the positive Democratic references are rare and somewhat obscure. Like Ms. Rosett, Mr. Bartley’s positive references to Democrats have been mostly limited to those who are safely deceased — Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy (the only good Democrat is a . . ?). In a memorable column in April, Mr. Bartley, finding it sad to see Bill Clinton “spend his retirement nurturing grievances”, graciously summarized the Clinton scandals in order to help him “achieve a measure of inner peace and historical detachment”.

Mr. Bartley does dish out a fair amount of criticism of the Bush administration; the ratio of his Republican references is only 2 to 1 positive. But his praise of the administration has been at times extravagant — three pro-Bush columns were titled “Conquering Guilt, Forging a New Era?”, “Next for Bush: A New Political Era?”, and “At Dawn in a New Diplomatic Era”. In the last column he timidly predicted that “we can expect that President Bush’s doctrine of preemption against terrorist gangs and terrorist states will set the diplomatic tone of the next half-century.” Mr. Bartley has written about Enron in a way which deflects the scandal away from Republicans. He wrote a couple of columns which narrowly limited criticism to Enron itself, then wrote another which blamed the scandal on “the societal collapse of standards and morality over the last three decades or so”, although he sees signs of progress in the “post-Clinton era”.

From her bio page: “Claudia Rosett is a member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. She writes a weekly column, “Letter from America,” for The Wall Street Journal Europe, which also appears as “America the Beautiful” on OpinionJournal.com. . . In May 1990 Ms. Rosett received an Overseas Press Club citation for interpretation of foreign affairs, for her on-the-scene coverage of the Tiananmen Square uprising in 1989.”

Ms. Rosett was in third place in the Lying in Ponds Top Ten after six months of columns. Writing mostly about international affairs, she earns her ranking by being categorically contemptuous of Democratic foreign policy — here are the negative Democratic references from a June column about North Korea: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Carter, Clinton, Carter, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Carter, Clinton. Except for one April column critical of what she saw as Bush-Powell timidity in the Middle East, her praise for the Bush administration has been effusive — here are the positive Republican references for a February column on Bush’s “axis of evil” speech: Bush, President Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush. But lest you imagine that Ms. Rosett is unwilling to also praise Democrats when appropriate, her only positive Democratic references this year were to a famous phrase spoken by a Democratic president — Franklin D. Roosevelt in his first inaugural address, nearly 70 years ago.

From his Washington Post home page: “Michael Kinsley, editor of Slate, writes a weekly column for The Post.” Eric Alterman, describing Kinsley’s work as former writer and editor-in-chief of the New Republic in his book: “He was ideologically anti-ideological. He had an unerring eye for cant, hypocrisy and sanctimony. He was hysterically funny and, perhaps most important, politically fearless. Kinsley turned sacred cows into hamburger without regard for political or ideological affinity.” In addition to this praise, Alterman also expresses disappointment: “But however talented a writer or critic he may have been, Kinsley did not inspire. He laughed, he cajoled, he mocked, and he satirized, but even the most astute reader of his work would have had a hard time conjuring up what motivated Kinsley’s political zeal.”

Mr. Kinsley was ranked fourth at the end of June, but his position has fluctuated all year, mostly because he seems to alternate between streaks of partisan and non-partisan columns. He hasn’t had much to say about Democrats, but Mr. Kinsley’s high ranking is a result of enough negative Republican references to put him behind only Paul Krugman and Frank Rich in that category.

From his bio page: “Tom Bray writes the “From the Heartland” column, which appears Tuesdays on OpinionJournal.com. He also writes a twice-a-week column for the Detroit News, where he served as editor of the editorial page from 1983 until 2000. From 1964 to 1983 he worked for The Wall Street Journal as a reporter, bureau chief and member of the editorial page staff.”

Thomas Bray’s columns conform to the pattern set by most of his colleagues at the Wall Street Journal editiorial page. His Democratic references are strongly negative, about 6 to 1 negative to postive. His Republican references are about 2 to 1 positive — there is fairly frequent criticism of the Bush administration, but the tone is generally one of disappointment rather than dismissal. Unlike many of his colleagues, Mr. Bray does not spend much time criticizing Bill Clinton, although he was criticized on this site for a column about golf which included one gratuitous swipe at Mr. Clinton. Mr. Bray writes many columns about environmental issues (almost always criticizing environmentalists) and the automobile industry.

From his bio page: “Brendan Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column, The Western Front, appears Mondays. Before joining the Journal in September 2000, he edited the Forum section of the Commentary pages for the Washington Times. While there he started a weekly feature on the editorial page, “Nobles and Knaves,” which spotlighted often-unknown individuals behind major events. Earlier, he was a reporter for the Northern Virginia Daily in Front Royal and has edited publications for the U.S. Marine Corps. Mr. Miniter enjoys fly-fishing and holds a B.A. in history from George Mason University.”

Mr. Miniter was sixth in the Lying in Ponds Top Ten at the six month mark. Like many of his Wall Street Journal colleagues, Mr. Miniter’s high partisanship score comes mostly from the 9 to 1 ratio of negative to positive Democratic references. Exactly half of Miniter’s 44 D- references are to Bill Clinton. He is extremely stingy with positive Democratic references — four of his five for the year came in one column which praised former Clinton cabinet member and current Harvard president Lawrence Summers.

From his biography page: “Frank Rich, a columnist on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times since 1994, was given the additional title of senior writer for The New York Times Magazine in 1999. Every other Saturday he writes a 1,400-word opinion piece for the Op-Ed page.” In his book, Eric Alterman praises Rich for “a sense of literary style”, says that he “brought a critic’s eye to the drama of national politics”, and describes him as “an important counterweight to the page’s moral scolds, as well as to most of the heavyweights in the punditocracy.”

Frank Rich was in seventh place at the six month mark with a Democratic partisanship score of 34, even though he has made three times as many negative as positive Democratic references. The reason for the paradox is that he is even more negative toward Republicans, with an astonishing 198 negative references in only 12 columns. This criticism of both parties has Rich tied with Paul Krugman as the most negative pundit. In the commentary on this site, Rich’s treatment of the Enron scandal has often been favorably compared to Krugman’s: “he [Rich] gets major credit here for providing a far more balanced view of the Enron scandal than most of his peers. He slashes Republicans unmercifully, but does not spare Democrats caught in the Enron web, and also discusses the Global Crossing scandal more than any pundit in these rankings.” Lying in Ponds has not yet attempted to propose a threshold partisanship score which would indicate that a columnist is excessively partisan, but Frank Rich’s columns this year suggest that his sharp criticism of Republicans is based more on principle than partisanship.

From her Washington Post home page: “Mary McGrory, who has been a national columnist since 1960, won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1975. Her column generally appears on Thursdays and Sundays.” Ms. McGrory was honored with the 2000 Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Society of Newspaper Columnists.

Ms. McGrory was in eighth place at the six month mark; she’s in a clump of columnists with similar rankings. Her numbers are very consistent — her median column PI and total PI are both in the low 30’s. The numbers are also remarkably symmetric — she has 2.8 times more positive than negative Democratic references and 2.6 times more negative than positive Republican references. Ms. McGrory and Paul Krugman have by far the most negative Republican references of all the pundits, but McGrory has 140 positive Republican references to Krugman’s 19. Many of Ms. McGrory’s R+ references are to Republican moderates like Colin Powell or mavericks like John McCain, which could be seen as an indication that she is sincerely driven by ideology rather than partisanship (because she is willing to praise centrist Republicans). A more cynical interpretation could be that praising Republican dissidents is just another way to criticize Republicans.

After the first six months of 2002, Michael Kelly of the Washington Post was in ninth place after being as high as second in May. His ranking is volatile mostly because he writes enough non-partisan columns about the Middle East and the Catholic Church to keep his median column PI fluctuating with each column — it’s currently a low value of -6. But when Kelly does write about partisan topics, he proves that he belongs in the Top Ten, trashing Democrats and praising Republicans with equal intensity. Kelly has more negative references to Bill Clinton than any other pundit in the rankings, and is also among the leaders in positive references to George W. Bush. Kelly has made only three positive Democratic references — one in January, one in March and one in May. His one Democratic column of the year was mostly a result of criticism of Colin Powell’s approach to the Middle East.

With six months of columns in the books, it seems like a good time to review where things stand (think of it as the All-Star Break). For the next couple of weeks, I’ll summarize the performance of each member of the current Lying in Ponds Top Ten. Counting down from number 10 . .

Collin Levey “is an assistant features editor of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. Her column appears on alternate Thursdays.” Ms. Levey has only a tenuous hold in the top ten — because of her minimal number of columns and her extremely small number of political references, her partisanship score is volatile; it could easily change dramatically with one column. So far she has very consistently written columns expressing a conservative ideological view on an eclectic set of cultural issues — anti-circus activists, environmental issues, school textbooks, guns, roller coasters (?). But she rarely links these ideological issues to the parties or to party members. Remarkably, she has not yet even mentioned George W. Bush this year — just one passing mention of George H. W. Bush. Levey’s partisanship score is high because the few political references she has made have been consistently Republican; she has yet to make a single positive reference to any Democrat.