Compromised Independence is not Neutrality

Paul Krugman, kvetching:
So how can this disastrous a failure of the canon’s predictions have failed to make a debt in its dominance — especially when us unicorns were predicting exactly this result?
-----------------
We unicorns, Paul, we...
(and do you mean "dent" for "debt"?)

To answer your question respectfully, I don't think you realize how much overall credibility was lost when you willingly participated in the behind-the-scenes Journolist enterprise.

Now, when you quote Annie Lowrey, or link to her husband Ezra Klein, people wonder if you are reporting independently, or still spinning for the team.  

By forfeiting your neutrality to participate in the behind-the-scenes liberal talking points, even if you would maintain you did no such thing and just wanted to share your expertise with a select few, people no longer listen the way they would had you never chosen up a side, and had merely kept reporting where the data led you.

Both Klein and Krugman advocated for the passage of the ACA, and perhaps in retrospect, if they had been more traditional reporters/probers/questioners or content with just being an economic scientist offering opinions -- instead of operating as defenders or deniers -- they might have helped the administration more in the longrun in identifying potential fixable problems in the rollout "selling" years than they are now able to do from their compromised positions of neutrality.

That's my theory of why Paul Krugman is compromised, no matter how much he preaches the "correctness" of his track record, honest apologies for his errors and misses, or touts the predictions he's made that are coming true... People have doubts.  It's as simple as that.