A number of folks have asked me (Sam Grove in the comments to this post, for example) for my impression of how the piece on the NewsHour came out relative to the actual interview, its fairness, etc.
First, I thought I got decent air time. The segment was about Keynes and one of the guests (not me) wrote a magesterial three volume biography on Keynes. So he got a lot of attention. No surprise there. I was there as a counterpoint to Skidelsky and I got to raise some relevant points.
Second, the segment was never planned to be about Hayek. They only brought Hayek in because of the rap video I’m doing with John Papola, that the NewsHour liked. It was wonderful that Hayek got into it at all. In our rap and video by the way, it’s pretty much half Keynes and half Hayek. More on that soon.
Third, I spent 90 minutes taping the interview with Paul Solman and Robert Skidelsky. They used maybe 5 minutes of it. I am hopeful that the whole conversation will be made available. I thought it was fascinating. Lots of good back and forth. Not surprisingly, they used parts that showed us confronting each other. That makes for good TV and is again, unsurprising.
Fourth, I got the last word, sort of. I got to say that it’s possible that the stimulus has worsened confidence because of the increase in the debt. I’m sure I had more to say on this topic in the 85 minutes that were left on the cutting room floor, but that’s life. For TV, I thought this was a very high level conversation.
Fifth, John Papola and I will be launching a website (next month most likely), EconStories.tv that will have the rap video plus interviews with leading economists, including Skidelsky and much more. F. A. Hayek will get plenty of exposure on that site. So will Keynes. Stay tuned.
