So, this is funny. Apparently Paul Krugman, NYT columnist and economist, wrote a column last year that had a phrase in it about nationalizing banks and then this week Andrew Ross Sorkin, another NYT columnist, called him to task for it. Except it turns out that Krugman didn't exactly say what Sorkin said he said. And then people all around the blogosphere apparently debated the debate. Here's an article summarizing the whole thing, with all the links intact.
In the end, the NYT public editor came out and said Sorkin was wrong for oversimplifying:
I think the right thing to do is to simply acknowledge that, in trying to quickly summarize Krugman's nuanced position, Sorkin over-simplified and got it wrong.
What's funny is that the article in the above link summarized all of the goings-on with a headline about the Krugman/Sorkin feud and a synopsis as:
So, remember back on Monday, when it looked like Andrew Ross Sorkin and Paul Krugman were set to go all Aaron Burr/Alex Hamilton on each other, only with blogs? That was a fascinating time in our lives.
Funny. And you know, for as much as I enjoy reading Krugman columns, and would be naturally interested in what was happening in connection with his name... the real reason I clicked on the link to the summary article was because I wondered how Paul Krugman had gotten into an argument with Aaron Sorkin, of Broadway and Hollywood fame (you know the guy - wrote "West Wing," among other masterpieces). And as I clicked on the link, I thought to myself, you know, Aaron Sorkin's a smart guy - but isn't he wading into waters a little too deep for his knowledge base?
Imagine my surprise. There's more than one Sorkin in NYC?