Monday, March 29, 2004

Why David Brooks is the stupidest person writing for the New York Times.

A good piece in Philadelphia Magazine, Boo-Boos in Paradise, that does a decent job in pointing out the dumb as dirt mistakes that David Brooks has made over the years. Anybody who's excuse seems to be, "If you believe what I tell you and accept it as fact, that's okay, but if you don't believe it, it's because you're too stupid to recognize satire," deserves to be fired. He won't be.

My favorite part? "'This is dishonest research. You're not approaching the piece in the spirit of an honest reporter, he said. 'Is this how you're going to start your career? I mean, really, doing this sort of piece? I used to do 'em, I know 'em, how one starts, but it's just something you'll mature beyond.'" You'll mature beyond this kind of piece? This advice from the man who, when he said that "neoconservatives" were the imaginings of anti-semitic liberals, claimed that he was "still learning" how to write a column and had simply been applying a literary device? Really? The New York Times provides on-the-job training now? Maybe Jayson Blair should have claimed to have been using a literary device, too.

It's called: Fiction.

The man shouldn't be able to get a job writing greeting cards. And yet, because he says what he wants to believe to be true with only the barest sheen of scholarship to support it, he's getting paid handsomely to be the dolt.

No comments: