This is a fairly well written opinion piece that takes on Giuliani's careless research and the media's preocupation with issues that lack substance. Krugman could have done a better job of citing sources (assessments of the facts have been published elsewhere) particularly for his sweeping assertion in the last paragraph that Giuliani makes a habit of speaking untruths.

OK but he seems to be holding back. The real issue with Rudy Giuliani seems to be very bad judgment....It's not hard to make a mistake....admit it and move on.....when the truth of the inaccurate stats came to lite.....Rudy did not adjust, thank for the correction and use the knowledge gained. I seem to remember his advocacy for appointment to homeland security chief????

Not a very good op-ed piece concentrating on Giuliani's absolute nonsense about healthcare, which doesn't even deserve a summary here. Watching Giuliani on TV stumble through his idiotic comments about Democrats inviting terrorists to the White House if they are elected, provided ample evidence that Giuliani is the dumbest, most unqualified, most embarassing candidate for president since George Bush. And we know where that led.

This is classic good journalism - albeit on the "opinion" page. Paul Krugman is clear-eyed, fair but doesn't mince any words. I have found him 100% trustworthy in his writings - the slightly lowered "trust" rating I gave was for the NYT as a whole which, as a newspaper, has slid badly.

It was a very good story that would have been stronger had the author cited the souces for his own statistics. But his primary point, that the media don't call candidates on blatantly false or unsuported statements is spot on.

Note that Krugman's article is as much a condemnation of the media's distorted and "gotcha !" coverage of the candidates (and just about everything else) as it is of Giuliani's amateurish lies about prostate and breast cancers. Thank God for LIBERALS like some of the more sensible bloggers on the internet, and mainstream press pundits like Paul Krugman (NYT) and Joe Conason (New York Observer) all of whom have lambasted Giuliani for his scare tactics and falsehoods and have presented ... More »

Yes. Good for an op-ed; not a research piece or primary news coverage. He missed the fact that Giuliani's source was 7 years out of date. It's one-sided only in the sense that the facts themselves are one-sided.

This opinion piece starts out somewhat promising, but then quickly gets mired in the author's biases. The City Journal is highly regarded, has very well-informed authors, and is considered less biased than the N.Y. Times. So the author's gratuitous slam of it mars the piece. In an ironic twist, his comments in the last four paragraphs demonstrate that he does not read the New York Times or watch the news networks. The Harvard study just released found that the media favor the ... More »

PK is spot-on as usual. Giuliani is an easy target because he lies so frequentky and can be caught at it, but the real value is in pointing out how bad U.S. political coverage is of such "errors" (=strategic falsehoods blithely offered in the belief that in the end, they will be widely accepted as mere misstatements, in the unlikely event they are flagged at all). BTW, did anyone catch the actual words Rude-y had just spoken when his cell phone went off during his NRA speech? he was ... More »

it is typical journalism for this day and age. what astounds me is how, with all of his misspeaks, twists of facts, claims of heroism, messianic claims of saving new york on 9/11, giuliani is still the front-runner on the republican side of the primary season!!! america went to sleep on 9/13/2001! the other side of the aisle isn't much better. some choices we, the electorate have, gunslingers on the one side and the other side is filled with babblers of useless facts and figures! the ... More »