Saturday, June 18, 2016

The New York Times Messes With Walter Block, Again

Dr. Walter Block is suing The New York Times for  distortions of comments he made during a 2014 interview with NYT reporters.

But like a moth to a flame, Dr. Block, Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics, Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business, Loyola University New Orleans, can not resist talking to them--and, of course, in return, they continue to treat him as though he were one of the ugliest moths known to man the Carolina Sphinx moth.

Dr. Block reports:
[R]ecently, two reporters for this “Newspaper of Record” asked to do an interview with me on Donald Trump. I first asked my lawyers about this, and they gave the ok, provided I acquainted these new journalists with my pending law suit. I did so, and then did an interview with him/them. As one of the founding members of Libertarians for Trump ( I certainly supported the Donald’s candidacy for president, and made it very clear that others of my background (economics professors, PhDs, academics at universities, business school faculty), did so too.

And yet, this sentence appeared in the subsequent story:

“I’ve also found next to no support for Trump among economists and business-school professors, a group that included a large contingent of Romney supporters in 2012. Among academic economists, I could find only one: Peter Navarro of the University of California, Irvine, a longtime critic of Chinese trade practices”

So, I wrote this to the journalists:

But, I’m an economist, and a b school prof.

Needless to say, neither of them had the courtesy to even reply to me, let alone make amends for their erroneous reporting. Are we seeing a pattern here?


  1. Not sure why Walter Block feels the government should force the NYT to provide him a fair platform for his views. They have an agenda and everything they write is a distortion. This is not libertarianism at all. Just embarrassing, as is his continued support of Trump.

  2. Did Dr. Block record the interview just in case anything untoward was written by the NYT? It would seem this would be an automatic inclusion in the process based on the last article from hell.

    1. I wondered about that myself. It seems like an obvious thing to do as a way to back up a claim of being misrepresented. Especially with a truth challenged, hack publication like the New York Slimes.

  3. Fool me once.. fool me twice..