Semi-Daily Journal

I disagree. The point of the story is that the Administration wanted a woman to be #2 at Treasury. Since the Administration knows precisely what policy is to be, all these appointments are just getting the "right" superficial look to the position.

Let's see now, who is head of the Council of Economic Advisors? Yes, I know and no it could not possible matter as long as our chosen Harvardian thinks as meant to think. Bah.

Brad,

Maybe this will help:

http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/03.06.08.html

It's even about a NYT reporter.

It's diversity. Isn't this what was wanted, more attention given to issues of race and gender?

OK, so Dr. DeLong corrected the original "weak lead" of the article, but what I *still* don't know from the story or the correction here is: is Susan Schwab a good choice? What are her policy views, and will she have any opportunity to influence the administration?

I hate to disagree with you, but names in headlines should be recognizable by a high percentage of the population. I follow the federal government more closely than probably 99% of the population and I do not know who Susan Schwab, Leet and Fisher are. Therefore, saying "Susan Schwab To Be Treasure No.2; Leet to Take Fisher's Job" tells me less than the original headline.

Conversely, if you saw the headline "Disney named High Mugwump", you would be confused and wonder is it the corporation or someone related to Walt, and headlines shouldn't cause confusion.

Yes, but if I read that Disney were named High Mugwump I would certainly be impressed. Even the thought impresses me. Oh my.

Disney,

I don't credit myself with following anything more closely than 99% of my fellow citizens, but I knew 2 of the 3 names. In addition, there may be a value to headlines beyond drawing attention to the article. It tells readers there are names they should know.

As regards whether Schwab will prove a good choice - she has reasonable credentials but misses out terribly on the rule that one should choose one's predecessors well. Ken Dam was a pro, whatever you might think of the policies Treasury adopted while he was there. Leet is closer to the traditional mold of a Treasury guy than the Treasury Secretary, but M&A expertise is still not dead-center on the issues that he'll find in his portfolio. He is probably Snow's choice (handled M&A for CSX while Snow was at CSX) which will be a big help in getting a hearing for his (and his staffs) views. The big issue for Leet is likely to be whether he (under pressure from John Corzine and others) will resurrect the 30-year bond. Killing the bond is Fisher's claim to fame, though he has made lots of administrative changes, too. Fisher is another guy who will be hard to follow, so like Schwab, Leet's reputation at Treasury may have as much to do with his predecessor than his own accomplishments.

Geez, Brad, your constant whinging about the fourth estate is getting a bit tiresome, especially when your proposed lede would be spiked by any competent desk editor at a mid-sized daily. For one thing, it's boring. For another, it fails to explain the significance of the story. Why should anyone (other than a few hundred Treasury watchers) be interested in this staff shuffle? Because of the appointment of a woman to a previously male-only bastion. Which, of course, is precisely the point the NYT story makes.

Don't feel embarrassed at flunking Journalism 101. It's hard. A competent journalist has to do original research with subjects who are often intentionally trying to mislead her. She also must entertain as well as enlighten, produce on deadline and face the people she's written about the next day.

If you don't mind me saying so, those challenges are considerably more difficult than those faced by many academics. Around the newsroom here, we like to say that "Economists predict..." is not a story. But "Economists accurately predict..."---now that would be news!

Ian, you're a journalist? Brad, did you hear? Go get him. Oh, please let's have a food fight!

"Journalists" are astonishingly poor at economic reporting and interviewing! Find me a single cogent interview or significant report on PBS Nightly Busienss Report. Same for the PBS News Hour [let us listen to Diane Swonk of Bank One ushering in an economic boom now that the Administration had wiggled a finger].

Brad is right to be critical as can be!

By the way, why can't the press figure out that 77 American soldiers and 10 British soldiers have been killed in Iraq since May 2? Why do they report of 20 something deaths?

Wake up and think "journalists."

JD,

The funny thing is that I agree with you that a lot of economics reporting is dim, less than enterprising, just plain wrong. Of course, so is a lot of economics, which rather removes the sting in your complaint.

More to the point, the debate here wasn't about the facts of the Treasury shuffle or about the accuracy of the NYT story; it was purely about a debate over how the story was presented. In that regard, I don't know of any working journalist who wouldn't wince at Brad's suggested lede. The problem, as a former editor of mine was prone to bellowing, is that you can have the most accurate, most knowledgeable story in the world, but if no one reads it, you haven't accomplished much. (My former editor had a far more pungent way of expressing this truth, but we'll let that be for now.) Try reading Brad's lede aloud to a friend who has a passing interest in economics, but no deep interest in Treasury matters. Then ask them if they want to continue with the tale. If they do.... well, you really should broaden your social circle.

Let me add in a shameless attempt at flattering our host that Brad is obviously a deft and entertaining essayist, judging from the material on this site. So I'm a bit baffled by his less-than-scintillating rewrite. The only thing I can conclude is that he was outraged that a major media outlet would highlight the sex of a high government appointee. Maybe he's right to be piqued (although I don't think so personally), but even if he is, it's the job of a good reporter to find another significant angle to this story that will prompt readers to move on to paragraph two.

JD,

The funny thing is that I agree with you that a lot of economics reporting is dim, less than enterprising, just plain wrong. Of course, so is a lot of economics, which rather removes the sting in your complaint.

More to the point, the debate here wasn't about the facts of the Treasury shuffle or about the accuracy of the NYT story; it was purely about a debate over how the story was presented. In that regard, I don't know of any working journalist who wouldn't wince at Brad's suggested lede. The problem, as a former editor of mine was prone to bellowing, is that you can have the most accurate, most knowledgeable story in the world, but if no one reads it, you haven't accomplished much. (My former editor had a far more pungent way of expressing this truth, but we'll let that be for now.) Try reading Brad's lede aloud to a friend who has a passing interest in economics, but no deep interest in Treasury matters. Then ask them if they want to continue with the tale. If they do.... well, you really should broaden your social circle.

Let me add in a shameless attempt at flattering our host that Brad is obviously a deft and entertaining essayist, judging from the material on this site. So I'm a bit baffled by his less-than-scintillating rewrite. The only thing I can conclude is that he was outraged that a major media outlet would highlight the sex of a high government appointee. Maybe he's right to be piqued (although I don't think so personally), but even if he is, it's the job of a good reporter to find another significant angle to this story that will prompt readers to move on to paragraph two.

After reading about this in the newspaper I assumed that Brad would have a "Topkapi Palace" post. The part about needing to spend more time with his family sounded like good standin for the muffled scream and soft thud of the falling body. Needless to say I was disapointed.

"It would be hard to write a headline that conveyed less information"
~~~

Well, I don't know ... how about this one, also in today's Times:

"Family Dead in Murder-Suicide Showed Signs of Strain"

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/10/nyregion/10SLAY.html

I thought he made an interesting, mm, information-theory point: "Susan" is so reliably the name of a woman that specifying her name also tells anyone "Woman Is Named No. 2", while adding a little extra for people who know who she is, or think they do, or are wondering if she's related to the brokerage.

And it's more civilized than referring to someone as "woman" twice.

I kind of like the "High Official" for its ruby-button air, but something more specific about who quit what position would be better.

There is nothing surprising about the uninformative headline about the Treasury. The NYT offers mental junk food all the time.