I suspect a series of "Thomas Friedman, 12 years ago" looks back would generate a lot of yuks. Friedman offers a lot of goofy predictions, phrasings, and oversimplifications with an easy, unearned confidence.
But some of this is the fault of the form: NYT op-ed columnists have to spit out something at least mildly discussion-worthy and topical, fitting neatly into 800 words, with an authoritative tone befitting the Gray Lady, like clockwork multiple times a week. So all the columns can't be gems, or even fully-baked.
(We're now spoiled by blogs, which can vary in frequency, length, and tone with the topic matter, and speculate and self-correct via rapid iteration with readers and other correspondents.)
To Friedman's credit, he reported Positively-You's failure – despite the boost of NYT coverage – almost exactly a year later:
Though, the lessons he draws from the failure are a mixed bag, and mostly boil down to: they couldn't afford advertising once their free media wore off.
But some of this is the fault of the form: NYT op-ed columnists have to spit out something at least mildly discussion-worthy and topical, fitting neatly into 800 words, with an authoritative tone befitting the Gray Lady, like clockwork multiple times a week. So all the columns can't be gems, or even fully-baked.
(We're now spoiled by blogs, which can vary in frequency, length, and tone with the topic matter, and speculate and self-correct via rapid iteration with readers and other correspondents.)
To Friedman's credit, he reported Positively-You's failure – despite the boost of NYT coverage – almost exactly a year later:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/03/opinion/foreign-affairs-sa...
Though, the lessons he draws from the failure are a mixed bag, and mostly boil down to: they couldn't afford advertising once their free media wore off.