Part 1 (9:53)
Part 2 (8:02)
Democracy Now mashup of ABC debate questions (3:09)
“Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics” (Glenn Greenwald)
Technorati Tags: amy goodman, democracy now, media, Glenn Greenwald
David Brooks is a propagandist and a liar and a big one at that. He is no different than anyone at Fox 'News' or Rush or Beck. Well, that is not exactly true. Because he is soft-spoken, dresses the nerd and doesn't spout the venom of a Coulter or Malkin, he is actually considered by many a real, level-headed, fair journalist. And that is a joke. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
So bad is Brooks that his regular spot on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer undermines the programs credibility. Same goes for Time Russert who gives Brooks a fairly regular platform. And one would have thought that the NY Times would have fired the guy after his 6,233,103 distortion, made up fact and outright lie. He is a corporate whore and a Republican apologist and nothing more. Nothing. But, I clearly have more problems with Brooks' columns and here and here than the Times editors. And I can't help but wonder why a young black journalist was fired for making up facts in a number of stories but Brooks keeps his job despite doing the same in EVERY column?
Is it because Brooks writes Op-Ed's and Jason Blair was in the news department? If so, does that mean that Opinion writers are not beholden to any set of facts or universal truths and are free to lie and generally write fiction? Because if this is the case, shouldn't the paper of record be obligated to include a fiction warning or something along side every Op-Ed? If the Times desires to be better than that, then why does it keep paying David Brooks who the editors must know is incompatible with minimal journalistic standards and integrity?
For more proof of everything above see Dean Baker's fact check of Brooks' latest atrocity here:
1) Brooks says “after a lag, average wages are rising sharply. Real average wages rose by 2 percent in 2006, the second fastest rise in 30 years.” The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the average hourly wage is 1.2 percent higher than its year ago level and still below its December 2002 level. That's almost five years of zero growth. In the late 90s, real wages were growing 1.6 percent annually.
6) He tells readers that “inequality is also rising in part because people up the income scale work longer hours.” Actually, most of the economists I know focus on the increasing inequality in hourly earnings, as in pay per hour, not total pay (see EPI's State of Working America).
8) “Globalization boosts each American household’s income by about $10,000 a year.” What does this mean? Is this compared to a world in which we can't get coffee from Brazil or oil from the Middle East, but rather have a completely autarkic economy?
It will be great when the proponents of the current trade agenda stop arguing against straw men in making their case. No one is advocating autarky.
If only eight large pieces of B.S. in one short column were the exception and not the rule for Brooks. If only. But what is worse than all the lies is that Brooks cherry picks facts and manipulates evidence to paint a picture he knows to be false. In other words, he knowingly and intentionally misleads his readers. And that is the ultimate sin of a journalist. Not to mention the job description of a propagandist.
Read Dean Baker's entire fact check of the Brooks Op-Ed at The American Prospect.
Hat tip Bhc
David Brooks strikes again. Is there anybody on the planet, deemed credible by the mainstream, who is more full of shit than Brooks? That he is the best that the NY Times can find to represent the right tells you an awful lot about the slim pickings on the right. Here's the beginning of his latest debacle:
A little while ago, a national study authorized by Congress found that abstinence education programs don’t work. That gave liberals a chance to feel superior because it turns out that preaching traditional morality to students doesn’t change behavior.
But in this realm, nobody has the right to feel smug. American schools are awash in moral instruction — on sex, multiculturalism, environmental awareness and so on — and basically none of it works. Sex ed doesn’t change behavior. Birth control education doesn’t produce measurable results. The fact is, schools are ineffectual when it comes to values education. You can put an adult in front of a classroom or an assembly, and that adult can emit words, but don’t expect much impact.
Only one problem David, you're either grossly misinformed, blatantly stupid or lying. Study after study (PDF) after study after Washington Post article emphatically state that comprehensive sex education involving birth control does produce measurable results. And if you can't read a freaking study David, take a glance over at Africa and see the devastating effects of your boy 43's disgraceful abstinence only policy's. Then if you can manage to think back seven years in that atrophied brain of yours you might recall that HIV/AIDs infections were on the decline and largely under control. What do you think the difference was?
Your columns are much like any Bush policy in that nothing good ever comes from either.
David Brooks is in rare, uh, typical form writing about Al Gore's new book, “The Assault on Reason” in the NY Times. Despite finding much fault with Gore, Brooks highly recommends the book because:
“It reminds us that whatever the effects of our homogenizing mass culture, it is still possible for exceedingly strange individuals to rise to the top.”
Some of Gore's crazy ideas include:
“the idea of self-government became feasible after the printing press.” “The eighteenth century witnessed more and more ordinary citizens able to use knowledge as a source of power to mediate between wealth and privilege.”
But then television came and ruined everything:
“conglomerates can dominate the expressions of opinion that flood the mind of the citizenry” and “the result is a de facto coup d’état overthrowing the rule of reason.”
And finally, if we are to be saved:
“The Internet is perhaps the greatest source of hope for re-establishing an open communications environment in which the conversation of democracy can flourish”
By golly, Brooks is right. This Gore character is a madman. Where does he come up with such crazy ideas that all happen to be obviously true? Then Brooks throws in a couple of Gore insults, goes off on a few weird tangents and finds humor in Gore's suggestion that the Internet is a breeding ground for logic and truth. In support of Brooks' case, I submit into evidence every column ever written by Brooks. In all seriousness, Brooks commenting on logic is like President Bush commenting on, well, logic.
Finally, for the icing on the cake, Brooks writes the following gem about the man who beat George W. Bush in 2000, was right about Iraq, right about the Bush administration, right about global warming and is right about our democracy:
“But Gore’s imperviousness to reality is not the most striking feature of the book”
Now that is chutzpah!
“The Assault on Reason” (Al Gore)
UPDATE: Check out this excellent Benjamin Barber piece on the same Brooks column
For the life of me I've never understood the David Brooks thing. What exactly does he bring to the table and why does he have a job on the NY Times editorial staff where he is clearly the weakest link. And yes, I get the whole need for conservative viewpoints aspect. My problems: 1) he's boring, 2) he's not a particularly good writer, 3) he's never really made me think, 4) he often gets his facts wrong, 5) he often makes ridiculous assertions, 6) his analysis of subjects can be sophomoric, 7) he has a knack for writing about non-issues in the middle of big news stories, and 8) he has a difficult time making relative comparisons and arguments. In a nutshell, he reminds me of a little boy trying to play grownup.
For example, in his February 22nd column, Brooks offers up a list of rules that GOP presidential candidates should follow to reach the White House. His Seventh and final suggestion is that candidates should ask themselves every day if Theodore Roosevelt would be proud of what they are doing and react accordingly. Which makes great sense, of course, because Republicans today would have loved Roosevelt's trust busting, regulation of business, Square Deals and commitment to conservation. It's absurd. Why not just tell Republican candidates to wake up and try to be a little more progressive than Al Gore?
Today's column on John McCain is problematic for a number of reasons. First - and I'm sorry if I expect better prose from the NY Times than from my blog - is the lame writing. Brooks writes that McCain “grew angrier” before he “grew sadder” and “in some ways, this campaign is like the one he ran eight years ago” “but other things are different”. Second, Brooks is just flat wrong. In the McCain piece he excuses “reports of a bloated staff” writing that the same people surround the Senator today that did in 2000. Unfortunately for Brooks and McCain, the Senator's campaign was forced to layoff many workers today. Third, Brooks shows his aversion to logic in analyzing a speech McCain gave yesterday:
“The problem with his approach is he doesn’t grapple with the psychology and culture of the Iraqis, upon which all else depends. His focus is largely military. But no one can doubt the substance and seriousness of his views.”
Thus, McCain evidences an inability to deal with the most important issues which all solutions depend, yet, no one can doubt his substance and seriousness? Dude, you just did and rightfully so. Not looking at issues necessary to resolving the conflict is the definition of not being serious.
Finally, Brooks can't help but show his flawed biases. He describes McCain's fall in 2000 as the “self-destructive anger to the dishonorable tactics he perceived Bush was using against him.” PERCEIVED? Yeah, why McCain would perceive a push poll asking voters whether they would support a candidate who had “fathered an illegitimate black child” as dishonorable is beyond me. Obviously, the Bushies would have crossed the line had they added “nappy-headed” before “black child”. Otherwise, it's hard to figure out what the fuss is about.
Now compare Brooks sentence about what McCain perceived above with: “He’s been offended by Democrats who laughed and celebrated during the passage of withdrawal legislation.” So Republicans acting abhorrently is perceived while Democrats wrongs (arguably) are factual?
So I ask again, why is David Brooks employed by the NY Times?
