I've inveighed here before about David Brooks, the Times' new house conservative op/ed columnist. I've found him to be both shallow and knee-jerk predictable. I'd never really thought about the accuracy of his statements.
But now Philadelphia Magazine writer Sasha Issenberg
hfact-checks Brooks' articles an www.phillymag.com: Boo-Boos in Paradise and finds his facts to be made up. And then she confronts Brooks with his fictions. She compares him to Jayson Blair.
Brooks is correct that columnists are given more lee-way in their writing, hyperbole is a tool of the trade. But I read the Brooks' articles and there was no indication that he was writing satire (a lame claim). He presented the statements as fact, indeed asked us to believe his analyses based on those facts. Now we find out it was all a sham.
I've said before that the selection of Brooks will turn out to be a major error for the Times. I stand by that. Brooks will weather this mini-storm and will, I'm sure, have a long career with the Times. But he's going to have to get a whole lot better to walk in the same shoes as, say, Anthony Lewis, Tom Wicker, Russell Baker or even the conservative he will replace, William Safire.
I'm SO glad to see you taking Brooks to task. He drives me to distraction. But for me, his recent post trumpeting the 'new moderation & pragmatism' (HAH!) of Israel's Likud "Finally, Some Good Mideast News" was the last straw. It's full of either bogus, questionable or unintentionally misleading "facts" about Israel's security barrier & the impact it will have on Palestinians. I've written a rebuttal at David Brooks: Sharon Sycophant. Also, be sure to read Diane Mason's comment to this post in which she debunks and deciphers many of Brooks factual errors.
Posted by: Richard Silverstein | May 27, 2004 at 06:30 PM