Skip to main content

View Diary: Some Would Have You Believe David Brooks Is An Airhead (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Screw up at yer job and you forfeit the right (0+ / 0-)

    to comment about anything ever again? That's an unrealistic standard. But it's plenty angry!

    •  Screw up? (5+ / 0-)

      What a nice euphemism for theft.

      •  Glad you said that. Sets up a better parallel: (0+ / 0-)

        Theft is often a felony. Don't we agree that it's a bad thing to deny the vote to felons for the rest of their lives?

        Is plagiarism a serious offense? Yes. If a plagiarist can't get another job writing for a living, that's the breaks. But to say that they must be silenced everywhere is indefensible.

        •  Are you equating voting (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2, isis2

          with pontificating on the NewsHour?

          •  Are you capable of impersonal discussion? n/t (0+ / 0-)
            •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

              I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I  was referring to your comment. Should I a sk you why someone else wrote that comment?

              But have it your way, with YOU, I am capable of impersonal discussion -  which means no discussion.

              Enjoy your day.

              •  Goodwin's plagiarism doesn't condemn her in toto. (0+ / 0-)

                It ill becomes a self-proclaimed big-tent Democrat to insist that she be silenced for her crimes against literature.

                •  Literature? (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  3goldens, kaye, isis2, Big Tent Democrat

                  Goodwin is writing non-fiction, so accuracy is paramount.  However, for either fiction or non-fiction, plagiarism is unacceptable.

                  'Silenced' is another matter.  Having a spot on a nationally televised broadcast should be a priveledge for the most reliable and respected sources (OK let's not get into right-wing nut shows).  Using a plagiarist as a reliable source for commentary diminishes the quality of discussion.

                  •  Nonfiction is literature. n/t (0+ / 0-)
                  •  What does "reliable source for commentary" mean? (0+ / 0-)

                    It seems to conflate two very different concepts, fact and opinion.

                    •  Well, it seems to me that that's what pundits do. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      Pundits are folks who sit around and give their opinion of stuff.  So why the heck should we listen to them?  (As opposed to you or me, everyone should listen to us.)

                      Pundits or editorialists are paid to give their opinions based on their review of the issue - whatever the news of the day might be.  So if you are choosing a pundit, you want somebody with expertise in an area.  Whether that area is politics, science or history, you start out with the thought that the pundit's ideas will be valuable based on their experience.  So, to my thinking, if the pundit's expertise is suspect - and this is the reason they've been asked to comment - then their commentary will be less valuable.

                      In this case, we have a person who's veracity is in question.  We see that she's not told the truth in matters regarding book quotations.  Can we then also rely on her to be telling the truth about her knowledge of history at any given moment in her pundit commentary?  Maybe yes, maybe no.

                      Have you ever personally had a discussion with someone who just 'pulls a fact out of the air' to make a point?  Later then it turns out that the fact or story was complete fiction, invented to reinforce their argument.  We've sure seen this on say, Bill O'Reilly - he does this all the time.  But on the NewsHour, the impression you get is that they are trying to avoid having the kind of people who are there to make emotional arguments not based in facts or reality.  They seem to want experts, who may sometimes say 'I don't know' or who won't just make stuff up but be making arguments based on facts.

                      So the lack of professional credibility would directly impact a person's usefulness as a potential pundit guest.  That's how I see it.

                      •  "give their opinion of stuff" and "report stuff" (0+ / 0-)

                        are two completely different concepts. Despite what those pundits might have you believe. (We're liberals--we think for ourselves, right?)

                        None of the bad things that Doris Kearns Goodwin did (and yes, they were bad things) have any bearing on her ability to render and communicate informed opinions on topics she knows well.

                        For example, when the topic is the Iraq Study Group, I'd like to know what parallels Goodwin sees between it and the "Wise Men" who advised LBJ.

                        I'm a liberal. I reject the misguided and mean-spirited notion that the sentence for plagiarism involves duct tape applied to the mouth.

                        •  It's all about trust then (0+ / 0-)

                          You see the bad things she did as not having any bearing on her ability to be a pundit; but I do.  We disagree on this point.  I guess for me, it's hard for folks to win back my trust.  I think I'm a liberal, too, in spite of this.

                          The thing about the NewsHour is - they could choose someone else, without any cloud on their background.  I'm sure there are lots of qualified historians who would love to be invited.  For me, I think it would be good to give someone else the opportunity.  This doesn't imply silencing Goodwin - she can voice her opinions whereever;  it implies opening opportunity to someone else.

                          •  If she had stolen her opinions, then yes, (0+ / 0-)

                            she would be unqualified to give opinions. But that's not what she did.

                            She didn't even make things up, as Jayson Blair did. What she did, and all she did, was to pass off others' work as her own--a serious error she'll spend the rest of her career trying to atone for. I say that's appropriate, and anything beyond that inappropriate.

            •  Please explain what was personal about (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fairfax, Big Tent Democrat

              "Are you equating voting with pontificating on the NewsHour?"  I'm not able to follow your argument with this fat non sequitur squatting right in the middle of it.

              •  Here's the argument: OK, so she's committed (0+ / 0-)

                crimes against literature. Is it a reasonable sentence to insist that she STFU for all time, on all outlets, with regard to all subjects?

                I'm sure some would like for Doris Kearns Goodwin to be flipping pancakes at a Shoney's on the bypass for the rest of her life, but I am not that judgmental. I'm a liberal.

                If Goodwin has an informed opinion on a current issue, I hope there's an outlet that will bring it to me.

                •  Aye, there's the rub: (0+ / 0-)


                  David Brooks lacks an informed opinion.  Therefore yes, he should STFU for all time, on all outlets, except his own personal blog that nobody has to pay to visit, just like millions of other crappy writers have to do.  

                  That the New York Times pays for this kind of uninformed opinion, and therefore by extension that its readers are forced to pay a living to shit opinioneers like Brooks, is the problem.

                  That said, you response doesn't address my actual question, which was 'What is personal about "Are you equating voting with pontificating on the NewsHour?"'  Because you're avoiding the issue, I'm actually much more interested in that question than in your argument, at this point.

                  •  Doris Kearns Goodwin is a public intellectual (0+ / 0-)

                    who makes her living as an author. She damaged her career irreparably by stealing another writer's material.

                    Does that mean she should be disqualified for life as a public intellectual? I say no.

                    A convicted felon is a citizen--before, during and after. The felon's ability to participate in socity are severely curtailed as a result of his/her action. But after the terms of the sentence are satisfied, should the felon be denied the right to resume his/her position in society--including the right to vote? As a liberal and a Democrat, I say no.

            •  {echo} HUH? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              vcmvo2, Big Tent Democrat, TomP

              That was in no way personal, by any reasonable standard.  And, from BTD, it was virtually a kiss...

              -7.88, -6.72. I AM paying attention, and I am so fucking outraged I can't see straight. The W in Fascist is silent; unfortunately, W isn't....

              by caseynm on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:36:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site