David Brooks is full of it.

[Eric J in MN]

Brooks claims that critics of Lieberman are writing such terrible things about Lieberman that he can't even quote them, "because they are so laced with profanity and ugliness."

But he doesn't name any critics of Lieberman writing these terrible things.

Brooks also claims that critics of Lieberman are inspired by "one issue, the war."

But he doesn't name any critics of Lieberman who think his record on other issues is flawless.

Please tell the Public Editor of the NY Times that this isn't journalism.

Journalists tell readers WHO, WHAT, WHEN, and WHERE.

Public Editor email:
[e-mail]

[WCGreen]

1. Brooks writes opinion....

He can get away with that kind of crap...

Some say....

Other would have you believe...

There are a few....


That kind of SHIT!!!

[Eric J in MN]

2. Newspapers should have standards for both

people who write for the front-page, and people who write op-eds.

If someone wants to write an op-ed attacking people, as Brooks did, he should have to name those people.

[Clark2008]

12. They do.

Brooks can write his opinion all he wants, but the facts he cites to form his opinion should be accurate.

If you want to write a ltte, I would suggest making that point, for example:

"I realize that this is an opinion piece and Brooks is entitled to his, but shouldn't he form his opinions based on some factual documentation? For example, WHO are these critics saying the things Brooks cites? If we left it up to Brooks, we'd never know. WHAT exactly are these critics saying? Brooks doesn't exactly tell us, now, does he? If Brooks would like us to come around to his opinion, maybe he should provide a few more facts."

[WCGreen]

24. Well, consider the messanger....

HE'S A CONSERVATIVE!!!!

No one with half a wit should take his "musings" seriously.....

As for the less than half wits who are so inclined to take every word of Mr. Brooks seriously, well they are, more than likely, already convinced that Mr. Brooks is of the same calibur as that other right wing icon George Will, another wit that plays to the lesser half...

It's the bizarro world come to life...

"Him make big words...

Him must be smart....

Me no want to punch him any more..."

[King Coal]

25. Damn right, Clark.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[formactv]

6. Brooks is a habitual liar. It's him, right?

Watch his face and mannerisms- reminds me of Martin Short and his "I know that!What makes you thnk I don't know that?" act.

[thepurpose]

3. The strawman. Lazy journalism caters to a lazy public. Everyone let the

editor know we aren't all lazy.

[Nederland]

4. I don't know

I think that many of the posts I read here on DU would qualify as "laced with profanity and ugliness"...

[Eric J in MN]

7. If you were hired to write an op-ed

arguing that many posts at DU are "laced with profanity and ugliness" then you should have to quote them and provide screen-names.

[Nederland]

10. I think that's his point

They are so "laced with profanity" that he can't quote them. Fact is, Brooks is right. They ARE lots of negative Lieberman comments on the Internet that are laced with profanity and ugliness. All you have to do is search DU and you'll find numerous examples.

[Eric J in MN]

13. Even statements with profanities can be quoted in newspapers by...

...writing {dung} and {fornicate} in place of "shit" and "fuck."

For example: If Liberal99 wrote that Lieberman's claims during the debate were bullshit, a newspaper could write:
Liberal99 wrote "Lieberman's claims were bull{dung}."

I'd use brackets but DU uses brackets for HTML.

[Nederland]

15. Okay

Now I see your point. Your complaint is not that Brooks is lying or exaggerating about what is being said on the Internet regarding Joe Lieberman, but rather that he should have provided some examples.

[Eric J in MN]

16. I think he's lying, too.

Most criticism of Lieberman I've seen on the internet doesn't contain profanities and isn't too ugly for print.

[Gabi Hayes]

21. yep, and it's the EXACT same BS that creeps like Richard Cohen and

the WashPost online editor (or whoever it was) that tried to defend the lying ombudsperson when they got caught in their lying lies about the 'rabid,' unprintable criticism they received

how weak can they get?

SOME criticism might have been rude, so they refuse to print even ONE example?

what about all the other missives they got that were very negative, yet couched in "permissible" language. could it be that such responses would have shown Brooks and his ilk to be the bankrupt liars that they are?

[EFerrari]

5. David Brooks called Junior's invasion of Iraq an "epic gamble"..

Can you believe that?

[rosesaylavee]

9. I agree with using 'epic' to describe it...

and since when is 'gambling' ok with our troops? Tell that to the families of troops killed and maimed by this gamble.

Has there ever been a bigger group of idiots running our country and a more naive (hopefully just naive) group writing about their exploits?

[EFerrari]

11. The conservative elite can ignore the consequences to real

people of their horrible policy.

[rosesaylavee]

17. I forgot about that... their kids aren't over there so it

doesn't matter. Why can't I remember that? :sarcasm:

[Guaranteed]

20. LOL he was wrong there, too. It wasn't even a gamble.

It was a sure failure.

[kohodog]

8. To David Brooks: There you go again

It seems to me that he has ratcheted up his scorn for the netroots after KOS was on Meet the Press after YearlyKOS. The netroots made the mainstream which I think threatens him in his ivory tower,

There are some journalists and intrenched politicians who are trying to trivialize the netroots as they understand and are frightened by the power the net has to organize, expose and give power back the people.

Brooks is a spineless pontificating idiot. (There, I have laced my post with ugliness so he can't reproduce it.)

"I can't reproduce the typical assaults that have been directed at him over the Internet, because they are so laced with profanity and ugliness, but they are ginned up by ideological masseurs who salve their followers' psychic wounds by arousing their rage at objects of mutual hate."

Brooks doesn't get it. Lieberman doesn't represent many CT Dems anymore.

Alito
Roberts
Trade
Plan B
Bankruptcy Bill

Joe has lost contact with his constituents and there are many reasons besides Iraq to oppose him.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Brooks is an oped rightwing hack for the neocon times.

But I'd like to validate his assertion: Joe Lieberman is an asshole traitor to his party who has fucked over the people of Connecticut by refusing to represent their views on the bullshit fucked up war in Iraq, by claiming that anyone who opposes the war is essentially a traitor, and by announcing that he doesn't give a flying fuck who wins the primary, the important thing is that Joe runs for re-election. It seems that he thinks he owns that senate seat. Fuck him.

[Eric J in MN]

18. And I'm not offended by that.

Why should a grown man be like: Goodness Gracious! Profanities!

Contrary to Brook's implication, there is nothing wrong with using profanities during an internet discussion of politics.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Brooks has a hardon for the blogosphere.

See his pathetic attack on KOS two or three weeks ago. The punditocracy has finally realized that their monopoly on submissive media opining has been completely undermined by the free for all of the public discourse on the internet. They are very pissed off. Those trophy wives and vineyard vacations are all on the line.

[kohodog]

23. I think the netroots have struck a nerve

Oh the nerve of people saying what they think and having a forum to do so. We are supposed to listen to the pundits and bow down before them. But gee, KOS has us all in line now against the pundits!

I guess I'd better go now and check my email for today's talking points and action directives.

[WCGreen]

26. Brooks is like that other RW hack....

George Wills....

Two sissies in a pod...

[applegrove]

19. It is for sure Lieberman's decisions on backing the War President

that have people so angry at him. Really..that is all it is. And it is a big one.

[Eric J in MN]

27. I didn't like Lieberman's vote for Alberto Gonzales, either. NT

NT

[Hippo_Tron]

28. I find it best to just ignore David Brooks