Sunday, August 8, 2010

This Just In: NYT Columnist Paul Krugman Has Just Disclosed That Someone Has Threatened To Kill Him.

This just in from the crime blotter: NYT columnist Paul Krugman has just disclosed that a death threat has been made against him.

Under the headline, "I Love The Smell Of Death Threats In The Morning," the Nobel laureate has used his NYT blog to disclose the existence of the alleged murder plot, though he has failed to provide any specific details.

"Haven’t gotten one of those in a while," Krugman posted at 8:54 a.m. today, implying the possibility of a pattern of threats. "I was starting to think I was losing my touch."

The economist added, with no further details or explanation: "No, it’s clearly not serious."

Some immediate questions come to mind: Has Krugman reported the threat to the authorities? Does he know the alleged would-be killer's identity? Did it come via email, or mail, or phone, or in person? What were the reasons for the threat?

Also, how does Krugman know for certain that the threat is "not serious"? And if it's not serious, why did he post the existence of it on his widely-read blog? Isn't that an unwise way to deal with death threats -- perhaps encouraging others to follow suit in search of publicity?

There is, of course, another possibility -- which is that Krugman is noting someone's casual "I oughtta kill you, you stupid jerk" comment to add to his sense of self-importance. By posting a "not serious" threat on his blog, maybe he's just milking the moment to remind us that his economic views make people angry and violent -- as opposed to, say, bored and sleepy.

In any case, we look forward to more information on this breaking crime story out of Princeton this morning.


Anonymous said...

Self-importance? That only applies to people who are not important. You seem to think he is incapable of thinking the things you mentioned for himself. As for the details, satisfying your morbid curiosity is not part of his CV. Believe me on this one. No professor or school takes these threats casually ever since Virgina Tech. Try to think before trying to be glib sometimes.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @10:46,

Yes, death threats can be serious, but Krugman himself says this one was "not serious." So why tell us about it at all?

Roberto said...

I'm with NYTpicker. What's Krugman's point?

If it's "not serious", why mention it? Everyone who has had even a small portion of the 15 minutes Andy Warhol suggested we'll all have some day has had a death threat. Hell, most people who've been or are still married or have siblings have had them.

Yawn. Sounds like a deadline-beater to me.

Anonymous said...

On the summary of this post on Times Wire, Krugman writes, "I'm having an impact." Is this how he measures his impact? By the number of death threats he gets?

Total said...

I'm not clear on what the correct behavior is for getting a death threat. Must one observe a dignified silence? Should one check with the nytpicker to see what is acceptable disclosure? Since the nytpicker is so obsessed with what's in the NY Times style book, perhaps there's a section on death threats?

Anonymous said...

@total: If you are so totally uninterested in nytpicker's take on things, why are you reading this site and commenting on it? You can go join all the commenters on Krugman's post, who have extolling his bravery all morning.

Total said...

@anonymous Such an embarrassing response on your part! I didn’t I wasn't interested in nytpicker's take on things, I criticized this specific post. In addition, the "well if you don't like it, you shouldn't read it" is so horribly Internet-cliché-speak that you should be humiliated to even have typed the words.

Anonymous said...

seems unnecessary to write about this in "nytpick." whether he is implying self importance or is just scared and seeking comfort from his readers, this isn't much of a scoop

Anonymous said...

Is this really being presented as a scoop? To me it looks like NYTPick is just making fun of Krugman's self-importance. That's fair game.

Anonymous said...

I think Krugman is simply pointing out that he -- like a lot of newsmen in the past and a few in the present -- gets threatened. Mainly because he presents details that are unpleasant to consider and impossible to ignore without consequence.

If someone is threatening Krugman, he must grasp the reality of it. Despite TV shows to the contrary, if someone is out to get you, someone will succeed if they are willing to put enough effort into it, and the likelihood of a last-minute rescue by clever and resourceful private investigators and their grizzled counterparts on the police force is not high.

Krugman, I suspect, simply isn't interested in playing the whole "if I take my shoes off at the airport, the terrorists will never be able to do something bad again" nonsense.

Certainly, he has notified the police. If not, his employers have by now. He works at Princeton. He works at the New York Times. Do you honestly think, for a single second, that Princeton isn't going to have the police involved? Can you imagine the damage to the alumni fund if a student were shot while some whackjob was gunning for Krugman? Do you think the New York Times is going to risk, for a single second, the possibility of having the public editor -- if he ever shows up for work -- having to write a "well, only a few people died, and, overall, the Times did a great job with the Krugman threat" column?

Almost certainly, whoever sent the e-mail has been traced by now. If it was a physical letter, that may have been traced as well. Or Krugman knows who it is from previous communications and considers the person harmless.

Anonymous said...

Considering that The Times supposedly had hire someone to deal with the amount of hate mail he was getting when Bush was at his height and Krugman was the lone mainstream voice attacking him, I'm sure he's developed a filter to what is serious and what is not. There are also editors involved, and if he were to post something questionable, he'd probably be asked about it. He's making a joke because it's not a particularly serious threat, as opposed to someone mailing him a bullet with his address and a picture of him and his wife.

dejordy said...

Every columnist of his stature gets death threats. Why is this even an item?


Because unlike most columnists, Krugman turned the topic of his death threats into a short, flip blog post.

Anonymous said...


flip as it may have been (or maybe he doesn't take kindly to it, the NewYorker revealed he received death threats and got his house egged during the Bush administration) Krugman's blog is known for more wonkery, graphs, policy analysis and debate than a host of other blogs. And a prolific one at that..

So what if he wrote one flip post.
I've been losing interest in NYTpicker. You guys rarely update your blog, and i come a week later and this is all you have?

Or maybe the New Yorker is managing things very well these days. I see far more relevant and poignant criticism of the New York times on Salon, The Atlantic, and other places than i do here. You guys need to step it up.

Anonymous said...

Anyonymous August 12, 2010 1:41 AM:

My house got egged during the present administration, and the tree in front of my house was teepee'd as well. I think you are being a little paranoid. Can't kids have fun on Halloween anymore?

Anonymous said...

@12:09 You sound like a heartland fringe by night type. Go piss on your own kids, in your own lawn, they're goners anyhow.

Anonymous said...

Oh, actually, you most likely match the inbred retard powerless borderline chick types. Go relax by fucking yourself. Try the barn.

Anonymous said...

Is that why there exists a chrystal meth gutter sector at all?? To intimidate? Rather have'em all perpetually stuffed and glued to the couch made into vegetables by the intimidated, than let loose in the field.

Fucking moderate the threatening comments, the host should be held accountable for spreading anxiety like HIV in Zambia, or cockroaches in Baltimore, or whatever pure fabrication that serves nothing to ail the human condition.

Stop enabling these commentators, just hit delete, and watch the signal to noise clear.

Sorry for the rant, but why is it that only intelligent, even toned, reasoned comments get deleted from major media websites? Is it because humans are supposed to be seen in a contemptible light only? Or, is it because some loser monitor, feels overwhelmed by logic, and instead of reaching to calm the itch, feels upstaged and vindictive?

Anonymous said...

What shud they do when advertisers pay them to publish hate speech, propaganda, death threats? Not take the money and censor?! Ask for more money and editorial ctrl? Pick apart the metaphors and call out the sausage-brain? Or explicitly whine while getting paved, and even say nice getting fucked over thx this was a lot of fun?!! Learn to shut up and put up and take it like a hamster frat boy?!! The suggestions are endless, and the frat boys piss on you while your boss is wanking on payroll it's just aesthetic, virtual. And if yu don't like it, isn't there always android cassandra waiting to take over your hard to get easy cum easy go slot? So you might as well lard on or whither. ha ha, it's only news if the boss gets to jerk off! Ha ha, the girls in the photos don't complain when his cockbeats them! ha ha. Or makes them beg!!! Ha ha, why should you? What are you marge thatcher?!! Ha ha. Nobody loses an erection over your sweet crumbs. Ha ha sending the angry youth to fight the ugly, ha ha, cause we can describe the thud and the splatter like the way the seed is wasted and slabbered all over the keyboard!!! ha ha. Ha ha. Don't tell the ladies though, they might see you wincing and hammering away at that scoop!!! Ha ha ha ha!!!! Let's see how long this stands the nytpickr tolerance window.


Anonymous said...

Is that why Jayson Blair slipped through the cracks for so long? Cause he was subversively describing his conquests and corrupting yankee dick making it real hard the bro hood couldn' factcheck with open eyes?!!!