Letter Unprinted by the New York Times
To the Editor:
Re: "Multiple Reality Syndrome," by David Brooks (Dec. 4):
Mr. Brooks writes that earlier in the Iraq war "Sometimes I'd come away from off-the-record conversations and background briefings [with administration officials] feeling my intelligence had been insulted, because even in private, officials would ignore realities that were on newspaper front pages."
I have just reread Mr. Brooks' dozens of columns on Iraq. He wrote that "senior members of his administration are capable of looking honestly at their mistakes" (Dec. 9, 2003). He described the Bush administration as "drunk on truth serum," practicing "honesty and candor." (Dec. 13, 2003). He proclaimed that Mr. Bush has "exceptional moral qualities" (Nov. 23, 2004), and that "two years from now...Bush's [inaugural] speech, which is being derided for its vagueness and its supposed detachment from the concrete realities, will still be practical and present in the world, yielding consequences every day." (Jan. 22, 2005).
But he never informed his readers that Bush and his team insulted his intelligence. Thanks to Mr. Brooks, 27 months into his column, for finally getting around to telling us.
Todd Gitlin
...
Todd Gitlin is a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University and the author of a new book, The Intellectuals and the Flag.
Hmm. I wonder if Mr. Brooks suddenly found the check was no longer in the mail? Nothing will focus the mind of a columnist more than losing that monthly check.
December 12, 2005 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it took Mr. Brooks 27 months to figure out his intelligence was being insulted...or maybe he took a slug of that truth serum and unwillingly said it.
December 12, 2005 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice catch! It is really a travesty to read the op-ed page that used to have Tom Wicker and Russell Baker now with David Brooks and John Tierney. It really parrallels the decline of leadership, particularly the decline of the Republican Party of Javits, Brookes, and even McLoskey to the Repuglican Party of today.
What further does this 1984-type shift of reality reflect? When Repuglicans need to dissociate themselves from the Administration that they supported 100%, and continue to support -- to dissociate themselves from W Bush & Co. the better to serve them -- this is the kind of tack we can expect.
The key memes of the 2006 election are already being trotted out: yes we are not W Bush army Repuglicans; say "Merry Christmas" and kick a politically correct type in the ass; key Democrats (like SNL with its parody of a nondenominational Christmas) helping to promote wedge issues like flag-burning; the spinning of Wal-Mart, something Krugman has finally really given the good kick it merits, as the paradigm for Bushonomics; a pass on things like walking out of a climate change conference from the mainstream press generally; complete silence over such issues as Votergate Ohio 2005, even the controversy let alone the powerful argument for the overwhelming likelihood of election tampering.
This last issue might be key. Ohio is a state that, without chicanery, is turning from red to blue -- if the elections will be honest. But let's see what the Diebold machines tell us; Fitrakis and Wasserman at FreePress.org suggest that Ohio might presage America as a whole, and they might be right. The country's 'natural' political path in a functioning democracy might be back to the Democratic Party bigtime, but there is enough tramoya (jury-rigging of appearances) to obviate the democratic process in favor of what those complicit in it call "serving".
December 12, 2005 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
A bit harsh, but an interesting thought . . .
December 12, 2005 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it. We all know he's a hack and a shill.
December 12, 2005 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Todd,
I don't think your letter is strong enough. You've nailed Brooks as a liar, and a liar he should be called. There are two alternatives.
1. In 2003-2004 Brooks believed the WH was spinning him. But he wrote favorably of the WH's ethical and moral qualities. Therefore, he lied then.
2. In 2003-2004 he believed what the WH told him and therefore, wrote approvingly. Now, he says he knew they were insulting his intelligence. Therefore, he's lying, now.
While no one would expect your complaints to be published (op-ed's aren't subject to correction), as a journalism academic I would think you could get into an email discussion with the editorial page.
I'd want to know if there's a third set of facts which I've overlooked and which explains/excuses Brooks' apparent dishonesty.
December 12, 2005 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the Times has to have "balance". Safire used to provide it. Now we have "bright" (Rich, Dowd, and Krugman) balanced with "dull" ( Tierney and Brooks).
December 13, 2005 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Something changed on the Times op-ed pages after 2000. Safire was the must-read conservative who gave libs something to chew on. At the same time, his libertarian slant sometimes took him out of step with standard Republican positions. That all seemed to change with GWB's election when Safire became nothing more than a cheerleader for Bush.
Brooks and now Tierney are also mere cheerleaders. Brooks is clever and subtle and attempts to shape his columns to suggest objectivity but in the end he never bites the Republican hand that feeds him and any complement he has for the folks on the other side is decidedly back-handed in nature.
Tierney is worse. I saw him on one of the cable news networks after Katrina decrying how FEMA's shortcomings were really the fault of the Clinton administration! My God, Mr. Tierney, your statute of limitation for alleged Clinton failure runs awful long.
Foremost, Brooks and Tierney partisans who use their columns to advance Republican talking points and who will never challenge the president in any serious way. This was not the case when Clinton was in office. He was often criticized by those on the middle and the left as well as those on the right.
December 13, 2005 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Todd, the Grey Lady doesn't do snark. No wonder the letter's "unprinted."
Lies about WMD? No problem.
White House Cheerleading from Brooks? Yep.
Snark?
Come on -- that's not journalism.
December 13, 2005 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the most interesting psychological events to watch is when a true beliver starts to have his faith shaken.
Back in the 1930's lots of the Soviet sympathizers started to realize that their imagined socialist utopia was not as they believed. Many at this point turn into vocal anti-communists and became the grandfathers of the current neo-con movement.
It is, thus, not uncommon to see a person flip completely in such a case. David Brock is a good example. It will be interesting to see if David Brooks continues on the path to "enlightenment."
December 13, 2005 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well the Times has to have "balance". Safire used to provide it. Now we have "bright" (Rich, Dowd, and Krugman) balanced with "dull" ( Tierney and Brooks).
Dowd is bright???
Of those three, the only one who is even close to the partisanship of an average conservative "pundit" is Krugman. In fact, I believe Krugman is the best columnist writing from the left in the country; outside of him, you are down to Al Franken and (usually) Jon Stewart to find people making consistently strong arguments from a left wing viewpoint who also manage to sound sane. The rest of the mainstream pundits are sort of left in that they aren't Republican hacks - that's where the bar is set for being a "liberal" columnist these days.
December 13, 2005 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Brooks pretends to be a columnist who provides a take on events from a conservative point of view. In reality, he, like all other "conservative" columnists in the mainstream media is actually nothing more than a PR flack for the GOP. I don't know why anyone pays any attention to him.
I have now written two letters to PBS about his egregious statement on the November 18 Newshour that the Bush Administration has been cleared by Congressional committees (plural) of misusing intelligence to mislead Congress and the American people. This was about a week after Reid shut down the Senate to demand that Congress finally start an investigation into exactly that issue.
It was obvious Brooks was just parroting talking points because it was also a week in which Republican politicians and several other of their media acolytes were all saying the same thing.
Neither the hapless Pat Oliphant nor the man who was sitting in for Jim Lehrer didn't call him on it. Par for the course.
What I want to know is how, year after year, a liberal or semi-liberal with an independent viewpoint is time and time again paired up with someone who is clearly just doing PR for one side as if that's balance. Maybe all of the "conservatives" are compromised, but then shouldn't equally partisan Democrats be paired with them for balance?
Something tells me I may be waiting a long time for my answer from PBS.
December 13, 2005 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Times doesn't do snark? Dowd is all snark all the time. Rich leans toward snark. Brooks and Tierney occasionally seem to be trying to get there, but it always falls flat.
What is amazing about this is that Brooks more or less admitted to being and eyes-wide-open version of Judy Miller, and Gail Collins (or whoever edits the letters) refuses to let Gitlin call him out on it.
It also illustrates the utter contempt that conservatives have for the public in general (flyover rubes can't handle the truth) while they babble about democrats being elitist for opposing "intelligent desing."
December 13, 2005 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I must congratulate all of you who seem to be able to figure out what Brook's columns are about. After a paragraph or two, my brain turns into scrambled eggs, and I usually quit.
He seems either not sure of what he's trying to say, or not to believe what he's saying, or, flat out, not to know what the hell he is talking about. That he has a column in the "Newspaper of Record" says more about the newspaper than it does about Brooks.
December 13, 2005 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Times Select is giving Brooks a reality check. He's never been in the top-20 e-mailed list since that was introduced.
Brooks has been shilling, wittingly, for the administration for years. Now he has to face facts - it's going to be a long journey for him. Lots of stuff to check and balance, so to speak.
The man's been a fool, and knows it.
December 17, 2005 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink