A Deadline for David Brooks

In his New York Times column today, David Brooks raved about the performance of Sarah Palin in last night's debate. Curious thing: Mr. Brooks was a talking head on PBS before and after the debate. Assume his head talked in a New York studio since his column had no dateline. So, for Mr. Brooks, the debate began at nine pm EST and lasted ninety minutes followed by post-debate debate between Mr. Brooks, Jim Lehrer and Mark Shields. After that, throw in a few minutes of saying goodnight to Mr. Lehrer and Mr. Shields and, some time around eleven PM EST, Mr. Brooks writes his column. For the Times edition in Los Angeles, you can't get the results of a night game in Yankee Stadium that ends at ten, but let's assume that debates, while less satisfying, are more important than baseball games so the Times' deadline for Mr. Brooks is loose. Let's assume -- even though, after the debate, he observed on PBS that Governor Palin mentioned John McCain repeatedly while Senator Biden barely mentioned Barack Obama the whole night -- that Mr. Brooks is a very fast writer and a very keen observer with very organized thoughts. (This, despite the fact that Senator Biden did mention Senator Obama 20 times in the first 30 minutes of the debate alone.)

I know what you're thinking: He watched the debate on PBS? Yeah, I did because I'm into uni-tasking and television is supposed to be a visual medium you watch as opposed to a written medium you read and all the other stations constantly throw crawls and graphs and meters on the screen. If I wanted to read, I would have opened a book.

Actually, I really wanted to open a book. At debate time, I was near the end of Indignation, by Philip Roth and was finding the book devastatingly heartbreaking despite the fact that Michiku Kakatani ruined one of the book's biggest surprises in the opening sentence of her Times review. Serves me right. Never read a book review. Really, never read any review. Philip Roth doesn't read them and why should he? He's a genius. One time, not in band camp, I was livid about one bad review amid twenty good ones -- and that was for a tv pilot. That was merely a case of the lowest form of journalism critiquing the lowest form of art. Roth gets reviewed for supreme literature, literature worded with exquisite detail and plotted with oppressive brilliance and he's been doing it for so long with such painstaking consistency, can't Senator Obama put forth an initiative to ban criticism of Philip Roth books? Roth is Senator Obama's favorite author too so it really seems like a natural.

And speaking of sports, what's the point of television sports criticism? Here we are in the subprime of our lives and there's some person occupying a newspaper desk to pick over what a sportscaster said about game that's over. It's not like a Broadway Musical where a bad review may keep you from seeing it. The game is over. Even if the sportscaster was so inept you'd never want to watch him/her again, you have no choice. The games are exclusive. You can't decide to watch them on another channel. There's only one outlet.

I don't know anymore. Really, I don't. Maybe in light of the financial crisis we're in, Las Vegas should change its tourism slogan. "Las Vegas: A Safe Place for Your Money." I mean, consider that Carl Icahn is constantly complaining about the management of Yahoo! when he owns 69 million shares of stock in the company. On the other hand, I met a newly-arrived immigrant recently who was assimilating so smoothly into American life he was already like 55 pounds overweight. So maybe things aren't as bad as they seem. Who knows?

All I'm saying is, it doesn't seem like Mr. Brooks, despite having a thoughtful intelligence that doesn't go excessively far astray in absolutely every column, should be doing a secondary gig at PBS ahead of his primary gig at the Times. A good column seems like something to be ruminated over, plotted, weighed and written over the gun.

Comments

[AZterritory]

Babbling Brooks . . . .

[afgail]

Just once I'd like to see just one Republican repudiate lying as their primary tool for communitcating during the election cycle. Lee Atwatter perfected the brutal art of lying about an opponent. His proteges Rove and Scheunemen give dirty politcs a bad name. McCain and Palin are just the newest editions of lying Republicans. We will never be able to mandate that political speech be truthful. But we sure can put an end to campaigns made up wholey of lies. Never reward the liars with your vote. It would be altogether fitting and proper if McCain lost in all 50 states.

[taddles]

It's not an issue if you write the NYT article before the debate...

[Audrey85]

I am trying to understand what a lot of the Republican are really thinking? Why the doublestandards. How can you win a debate, mop the floor with someone, when you don't follow the rules like answer the given questions and not pick and choose? If it was Senator Biden or Senator Obama who behaved like this empty headed woman who obviously makes a living on being sarcastic and bull crapping her way into politics, the media would have torn into them. I AM TOTALLY CONFUSED WHAT THESE FOOLS IN 2008 CALL A DEBATE!!!!

[TKI]

You see that too?

[Bitsko]

Poor David Brooks
Spent years consorting with crooks
With an inflated ego
He asked "How wrong did we go?"
And wrote some more boring books.

[siney]

poor david brooks
claimed the vice presidency was not for palin's hooks
then did an about face
so he could save face
with the party who'd sell its soul to win any race
the end

[boogiewoman]

I watch C-Span. I hope by now I can make up my mind all by myself. I do not need Brooks to help me along. By the way Biden won Mr. Brooks wink wink!!

[DrBillo]

Mr Brooks attempts to play like a maverick as a right wing enthusiast--if you have read his columns frequently you would see his hard right philosophy in most all of his writings--­proclaimin­g Palin as a great performance only fits in with the ultra conservative points as delivered from McCain's campaign---

[IncredulousGeezer]

I have the feeling that Brooks only restrains his conservative pronouncements enough to retain any credibility with PBS and the NY Times. He seems to be decent enough not to raise the hackles of Mark Shields, a lovely old Marine of impeccable liberal credentials who was in the trenches with Robert Kennedy, Sargent Shriver and Edmund Muskie, nor the odd group of fellow bloviators at the Times.
It may be that this election will test his stomach and skill, however. McCain and Palin seem a little much for any rational person, Brooks included.

[PeterLoffredo]

With a genuine effort at unbiased integrity over the past month, even though he is an entrenched conservative pundit, David Brooks has honestly and openly discredited the qualifications of Sarah Palin as a potential leader of the United States. But, you know, whenever someone is locked into a rigid system of beliefs and their accompanying ideology and dogma, it's hard to hold onto that integrity. Thus, after her preposterous presentation in last night's debate, using textbook psychopathic doubletalk, inappropriately seductive gestures and phrases, and repetitive and rote right wing soundbites, Sarah Palin apparently won Brooks over.
David Brooks, incredibly, had this to say in today's NY Times:
"On Thursday night, Palin took her inexperience and made a mansion out of it."
A MANSION?!!?
Peter Loffredo
http://fullpermissionliving.blogspot.com/

[MadJeffersonian]

"Mansion"...except its more like the kind you see dotting every suburban landscape where a plethora of bad ideas are mashed together with terrible details and shoddy construction. We all know what type of "Mansion" that is.

Mr. Loffredo, I like your blog.

[gmlaster]

Mark Shields keeps Brooks in check. I love it. Every time Brooks loses his grip on his objectivity and starts cheering too hard for the rethugs, Mark Shields puts the cold, hard smackdown on him with his clear, simple and obvious logic. But he's such a sweet guy you can't get mad at him for being so damned smart. Listening to Brooks makes my butt twitch. The only thing worse is reading his columns, which I stopped doing ages ago. He truly does think he's smarter than everybody else, and boy, does he get off on his own writing. That man is truly, deeply and passionately in love with his own opinions.

[Durango]

In a population of over 300 million people why do we need to hear from the same dozen twerps over and over again.

The same talking heads on PBS, NPR, NY Times etc etc etc.

Why do we always need to hear from the same right wing apologists?

[Madhyamika]

You got it right. It's an indication of the rotten state of journalism - even PBS is infected. So far only Bill Moyer seems to invite some new faces for his weekly program.

Those same old trite partisan talking-heads are the best reason to switch channel or turn off the TV completely.

By the way, where is Chomsky?

[realpolitic]

Brooks claims he is an intellectual, but usually uses the same, tired Republican talking points perhaps in a slightly more elevated way than most writers. He is utterly predictable. He fell in love with Bush and defended him for years. Now he transfers his naive hero worship to McCain who will eventually disappoint Brooks too. Brooks, as said, is utterly predictable.

[montemalone]

Okay,
Brooks makes his LIVING by providing voice to the right wing in The Times.
He does seem like an intelligent guy, but intelligent guys have to make a living too.
The Times has plenty of other talent. If he switches sides now, he might have to find a job.

But I think the point was, Brooks wrote his column before or during the debate. Considering I had to quit watching half way through (couldn't take any more of the Moosehunter), who can blame him?

[pfc1369]

I had a friend who once went through a stage when he thought Thomas Friedman actually had something to say.

He's over that now, and luckily he managed to miss that stage entirely with David Brooks.

[Dingoangst]

I went through that stage with Friedman too, and had one with whiskey as well. I'm over both now.
I sometimes miss the whiskey.

[realpolitic]

Good point!! I gave up on Friedman years ago when he was a blowhard for the Iraq war and has never accepted responsibility for his position.

[bobhobard]

Just so you know, Brooks was on NPR's All Things Considered and stated that the McCain engine had run out of steam and it was too late in the election cycle for him to regain hsi momentum. He predicted Obama would win the election.

[ssb752]

My wife and I also watched the debate on PBS and avoided any post analysis. Why? For the reasons Mr. Mehlman stated. I saw it. I don't anyone telling me what I saw with my lyin' ears and eyes. As Robert Zimmerman said "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

[BoVandy]

I didn't need anyone to tell me what I saw either. that's not why I watched the post debate analysis. I wanted to see what other people thought they saw. If my vote was the only vote that mattered in the election, I would have done the same thing you did.

[realpolitic]

Yes, the media influence on who won the debate can often sway the public's opinion of who won.

[fschroeter]

Professor Duh (earlier this afternoon) is 100% correct. Being always wrong on all issues puts you in the top tier of 21st century pundits. From time to time I can't take Brooks any longer and so advise the PBS staff, of course to no avail. Brooks of course is the leftmost feather of the extreme right wing.
Mark Shields is a nice enough guy but to paraphrase the famous quote from a debate of the last century, he's no Robert Scheer .... or Chris Hedges...... or Amy Goodman. I hope others will forcefully suggest to the News Hour that they might even improve their ratings if they paired one of the true believers hanging out at Fox News or the National Review with just about any of the columnists at Scheer's blog "Truthdig" for discussions that might range beyond marginal shadings of "common knowledge".

[maribelle1963]

It's hard to find truth anymore in David Brooks' columns on this campaign.

Compare the column he wrote in response to Obama's stunning convention speech--it was as mean-spirited and spiteful as anything I've seen come from him. It actually took my breath away with it's unneccessary roughness, and belied Brooks' earlier "support" for Obama.

Mr. Brooks has become offensive for three main reasons:

1.He has lost one of the best aspects of conservatives; a relentless optimism even in the face of adversity.
2. Excessively praising Ms. Palin for meeting barest minimum standards at Thursday's debate.
3. Bottom line--The Right is the conservative party, the party of integrity, personal responsibility and individual excellence. Supporting the illexperienced, ill educated and chronically dishonest Gov. Palin damages his credibility in a way he might not recover from.

Note to Mr. Brooks--this campaign will be over in a month, but we (you and your public) will be together a long, long time. I'm not sure you can spare the credibility you've lost over your bizarre fawning of Palin and subtle trashing of Obama.

[bluesjones63]

Begging to differ, David Brooks' TRASHING of Obama has not been SUBTLE.

[cavewoman]

Thanks for your well articulated objection to Brooks' strange and - regrettably, revelatory - trashing of Obama's convention speech. I have long looked forward to Brook's columns; but I have now - especially after his pre-reporting (if you will) of Palin's debate performance - come to see him as nothing but a schill. The word "schill" is harsh language, and I am sorry to say it because I really enjoy opinions other than my own; but, I am pretty much done with David Brooks for a good long while.