9 ms·

I think it's pretty safe to ignore anything David Brooks is writing. He has a long track record of describing bogus societal trends.

aklemm 8y ago
Agreed. Not only is his writing just a bunch of loose thoughts imagined into very Brooks-centric concept, this is also the guy who left his wife of 20 years for a woman 25 years his junior. How do they spend their time? He pimps work like "The Road to Character" and she leads an institute that studies and teaches "character". Just...what?
- gooseus 8y ago
  I haven't read much else he's written, but I did enjoy The Road to Character... should I now be suspicious of the claims he makes about the people he described?
  - aklemm 8y ago
    Well, no, I will admit you can probably still get quite a lot out of it. I mean, I believe he's trying to do good work, but I put him in the same category as Thomas Friedman and Charlie Rose. That is, extraordinary media people with great potential who just can't get over themselves.
  - hindsightbias 8y ago
    https://fair.org/extra/david-brooks-vs-the-real-world/ https://fair.org/extra/david-brooks-vs-the-real-world/ He's been around for decades, dutifully moving the goalposts being the 'reasonable' guy. But now he's just appalled the people he thought he spoke for voted for _that_ guy. I do like that he's still around for the NYT's commenters. They remember everything.
- bauerd 8y ago
  If his writing is that bad, maybe criticise that instead of his private life?
  - aklemm 8y ago
    It only works that way up to a point. That point is when the private stuff is either illegal or is directly relevant to the work, as in this case. #metoo anyone?
    - bauerd 8y ago
      Please elaborate how his divorce is either illegal or directly relevant to his writing
      - aklemm 8y ago
        Character is a theme (and title!) of many of his writings. Ending an avowed life-time commitment in the circumstances around the way he did it brings that into question. We should all be questioning it, even if we're free to come to different conclusions.
        gkya 8y ago
        > an avowed life-time commitment That's everything what modern marriage today isn't. That's basically a religious view of marriage, which can freely exist, but has no legal binding at all, and whether divorce is ethical or not for one or some religions/"philosophies" is not necessarily universal.
        aklemm 8y ago
        If that were the case, no one would bother with marriage. It would be completely meaningless. This is an incredibly naive view. The relevant question is not whether it's legal nor what one's religion has to say on the matter. The question is whether he showed character, and we can evaluate that by whether he lived up to his word and--especially--by how his wife took it.
        gkya 8y ago
        Sorry but BS. Marriage is an economical (oiko- in oikonomia---the Greek word that is the etymological origin of economy---means family/home), legal and religious phenomenon. In modern societies the accent is on the first two, and we separate the legal meaning of it from its religious one; the former being an official bond regarding two person and their children, which governs how responsibilities, goods and resources belonging to a family core are parted and used among those individuals. That's the big part of why people bother with marriage (or things like civil unions) even if they are not religious. Regardless, "living up to one's words" means nothing regarding the validity of a statement. I can say 1 + 1 = 1, but then in my private life behave as if it was 2; that does not affect the truth of the former statement.
gaius 8y ago
Also Charles Blow. No idea why the NYT continues to employ them. Krugman is obviously writing comedy pieces...
- greesil 8y ago
  Tragedies might be a better description.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hunter23 8y ago
The question is to ask though is if the New York Times prides themselves on their quality of journalism - why do they continue employing him? Why does the top US newspaper continue to publish his articles? While I like a lot of the New York Times content (their investigative journalism is top notch), I question what their vision is if they continue publishing his stories. His gaffes (not citing sources, not vetting sources, not issuing corrections) go against the basis principles of science, social sciences, and journalism. Simply put, he shouldn't be allowed to publish in any paper that takes itself seriously.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  It's a matter of "balance". Get a right wing writer, left wing writer, diversity writer, business writer and so on. Brooks is the "reasonable" right wing guy. I would be fine if they cancelled all opinion pieces and just reported news but I don't think that would sell.
maxerickson 8y ago
But people are taking this a step too far here. Just because Brooks says something doen't mean the opposite is true.

aklemm 8y ago

Agreed. Not only is his writing just a bunch of loose thoughts imagined into very Brooks-centric concept, this is also the guy who left his wife of 20 years for a woman 25 years his junior. How do they spend their time? He pimps work like "The Road to Character" and she leads an institute that studies and teaches "character". Just...what?

gooseus 8y ago
I haven't read much else he's written, but I did enjoy The Road to Character... should I now be suspicious of the claims he makes about the people he described?
- aklemm 8y ago
  Well, no, I will admit you can probably still get quite a lot out of it. I mean, I believe he's trying to do good work, but I put him in the same category as Thomas Friedman and Charlie Rose. That is, extraordinary media people with great potential who just can't get over themselves.
- hindsightbias 8y ago
  https://fair.org/extra/david-brooks-vs-the-real-world/ https://fair.org/extra/david-brooks-vs-the-real-world/ He's been around for decades, dutifully moving the goalposts being the 'reasonable' guy. But now he's just appalled the people he thought he spoke for voted for _that_ guy. I do like that he's still around for the NYT's commenters. They remember everything.
bauerd 8y ago
If his writing is that bad, maybe criticise that instead of his private life?
- aklemm 8y ago
  It only works that way up to a point. That point is when the private stuff is either illegal or is directly relevant to the work, as in this case. #metoo anyone?
  - bauerd 8y ago
    Please elaborate how his divorce is either illegal or directly relevant to his writing
    - aklemm 8y ago
      Character is a theme (and title!) of many of his writings. Ending an avowed life-time commitment in the circumstances around the way he did it brings that into question. We should all be questioning it, even if we're free to come to different conclusions.
      - gkya 8y ago
        > an avowed life-time commitment That's everything what modern marriage today isn't. That's basically a religious view of marriage, which can freely exist, but has no legal binding at all, and whether divorce is ethical or not for one or some religions/"philosophies" is not necessarily universal.
        aklemm 8y ago
        If that were the case, no one would bother with marriage. It would be completely meaningless. This is an incredibly naive view. The relevant question is not whether it's legal nor what one's religion has to say on the matter. The question is whether he showed character, and we can evaluate that by whether he lived up to his word and--especially--by how his wife took it.
        gkya 8y ago
        Sorry but BS. Marriage is an economical (oiko- in oikonomia---the Greek word that is the etymological origin of economy---means family/home), legal and religious phenomenon. In modern societies the accent is on the first two, and we separate the legal meaning of it from its religious one; the former being an official bond regarding two person and their children, which governs how responsibilities, goods and resources belonging to a family core are parted and used among those individuals. That's the big part of why people bother with marriage (or things like civil unions) even if they are not religious. Regardless, "living up to one's words" means nothing regarding the validity of a statement. I can say 1 + 1 = 1, but then in my private life behave as if it was 2; that does not affect the truth of the former statement.

gaius 8y ago

Also Charles Blow. No idea why the NYT continues to employ them. Krugman is obviously writing comedy pieces...

greesil 8y ago
Tragedies might be a better description.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

hunter23 8y ago

The question is to ask though is if the New York Times prides themselves on their quality of journalism - why do they continue employing him? Why does the top US newspaper continue to publish his articles? While I like a lot of the New York Times content (their investigative journalism is top notch), I question what their vision is if they continue publishing his stories. His gaffes (not citing sources, not vetting sources, not issuing corrections) go against the basis principles of science, social sciences, and journalism. Simply put, he shouldn't be allowed to publish in any paper that takes itself seriously.

maxxxxx 8y ago
It's a matter of "balance". Get a right wing writer, left wing writer, diversity writer, business writer and so on. Brooks is the "reasonable" right wing guy. I would be fine if they cancelled all opinion pieces and just reported news but I don't think that would sell.

maxerickson 8y ago

But people are taking this a step too far here. Just because Brooks says something doen't mean the opposite is true.