Sometimes—not often, but sometimes—I think that print journalism doesn’t deserve to live. Mostly I feel that way when I see a lengthy story on an important subject by some of the business’s most respected reporters that seems to have no sense of history or deep knowledge of its subject. Case in point: Newsweek’s long profile of Larry Summers, titled “The Reeducation of Larry Summers.”

First, a couple caveats. One, I understand that Newsweek doesn’t want to do too tough a piece on Summers because, in theory, he’ll be an important source for the magazine over the next few years. In that context, this article is a bit better than the dreadful schlock that Time served up a couple weeks back.

And two, one of the two reporters who wrote this piece actually interviewed me, and we had, IMHO, a more substantive conversation than what appears in the magazine.

And a third caveat: I don’t mean to sound arrogant when I say this, but there is simply no excuse for a White House reporter covering Larry Summers not to have read Harvard Rules. That none of them seem to have doesn’t really surprise me, though.

Here’s a big reason why reading HR would be useful background: the theme of the Newsweek article, “reeducation,” is an element in Summers’ career that is thoroughly covered in HR, and if the writers had read the book, the knowledge that Summers was, in theory, “reeducated” at least twice before*, and then always reverted to form, would have provided their story with greater depth and resonance.

For example: economist Christy Romer says this about Summers in the Newsweek piece:

“You could never call Larry Summers humble,” says Christina Romer, chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers. “But there is a difference in him in the sense that, when he starts to make a comment, he says, ‘Now, I could be wrong but …’ I feel the old Larry would not say, ‘I could be wrong.’ That’s a nice change.”

Well, except it’s not really a change at all. Consider this, from page 28 of HR, describing things that Summers learned from Bob Rubin in the late ’90s:

Summers could never become humble, but he could at least act it. So he learned to preface his opinions, as Rubin did, with softening phrases, such as, “I’m not an expert on this, but…” Or, “It’s just one man’s opinion, but….” Or, “It seems to me that…”

So the behavior that Romer is describing is at least ten years old.

There’s another element of Summers behavior that Newsweek does imply but doesn’t document: his tendency to blame other people for messes that are largely his own creation.

Consider this remarkable quote, about Summers’ evisceration of CFTC commissioner Brooksley Born, after she dared propose that derivative-trading be regulated.

According to witnesses at the CFTC, Summers proceeded to dress her down, loudly and rudely. “She was ashen,” recalls Born’s deputy Michael Greenberger….

Summers told NEWSWEEK: “I believed at the time, and believe much more strongly today, that new regulations with respect to systemic risk were appropriate and necessary, but expressed the strong view of Secretary Rubin, chairman Greenspan and SEC chief Levitt that the way the CFTC was proposing to go about it was likely to be ineffective and itself imposed major risks into the market.” (At the time, the Rubin Treasury Department argued against the Born proposal by maintaining that the CFTC didn’t have legal jurisdiction.) Still, Summers allowed that “there’s no question that with hindsight, stronger regulation would have been appropriate” before the financial crash. He added: “Large swaths of economics are going to have to be rethought on the basis of what’s happened.”

Summers’ response is pretty remarkable. He essentially frames himself as the messenger boy of Bob Rubin, Alan Greenspan, and Arthur Levitt (as if Summers ever cared about Arthur Levitt!). This surely downplays Summers’ role in policymaking, as well as the, um, enthusiasm with which he seems to have rebuked Born.

And Summers’ language, once you parse it, is hilarious: No, we wouldn’t want to impose major risks on the market!

Because, you know, regulating complicated financial instruments with high levels of risk and leverage would definitely be risky.

(I mean, really, no wonder Summers shows contempt for reporters.)

The point matters because the article almost entirely omits the obvious argument that Bob Rubin and Larry Summers contributed very much to the current financial crisis, a not-insignificant argument to make when you realize that one of them is now in charge of solving it.

And then Summers adds, well, it’s not really my fault, “large swaths of economics are going to have to be rethought on the basis of what’s happened.”

That’s a fascinating idea, and a reporter might follow up by saying, “Huh. Like what?”

Because nothing that has happened seems to have discredited any longstanding economic theory, and there certainly isn’t any bold new theoretical answer to recent events; it’s just a standard Keynesian, pump-up-the-economy response.

But by saying, well, it’s the fault of economic theory that now needs to be reconsidered, Summers is moving the question of blame off his shoulders onto those of past economic thinkers. (Calling Dr. Freud….)

A final point: For all the talk about the nice new Larry, Newsweek doesn’t even mention that already there have been reports of tension between Summers and Joe Biden, Summers and Tim Geithner, and Summers and Paul Volcker. That would seem relevant, no?

My feelings about journalism aside, we all want to see Larry Summers succeed in his current position. By definition, it would be good for the country if that happened. But journalists don’t do the public any favors when they fail to raise the important issues that attend this new ascension of Larry Summers.

______________________________________________________________________________________

* One in the late ’90s, when Summers was positioning himself to replace Bob Rubin, and once after the women-in-science comments.