Like (or Ambivalence) Is All You Need
It was surprising last Sunday to see a comment from Tom Bevan—co-founder and current publisher of the invaluable aggregator/original content website RealClearPolitics, which he and John McIntyre started in 2000—on Twitter that seemed, at least to me, uncharacteristic. Reacting to The New York Times’ predictable anti-J.D. Vance coverage about the Vice President’s unequivocal and bracing speech in Munich, Bevan wrote: “Good Lord. However much you hate the New York Times, it's probably not enough.”
I doubt the Lord cares one way or the other about the media, but I’d bet nickels to navy beans that Bevan, a smart entrepreneur, would read the Times and many other publications even if he retired tomorrow. And though Bevan’s was a personal comment—it’s an internet cliché from mindless posters that “You can’t hate the media enough”—RealClear, every day, has a non-partisan lineup of stories that includes the latest from the “hated” Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic and even the completely irrelevant New Republic, Nation and Slate. Bevan may not like the pro-DNC stink of the Times, but he doesn’t “hate” it.
(The New Republic, under nomad editor Michael Tomasky, still tries. I often receive emails begging for cash. Part of The President’s Day missive said: “This is more than a subscription. It’s a statement that you believe in a free press and the bold reporting that keeps democracy alive. Make a bold choice to deepen your engagement with the journalism you trust—with no compromises.” It never works: it’s a rare occasion that I’ll read a typically-Crazy World of Arthur Brown TNR article.)
As I was taught in Sunday school, “hate” is a strong wrong that ought to be employed sparingly, such as, in my case, “I hate snowstorms, power outages and the New York Yankees.”
My morning routine is at least a scan of the Times (after The Wall Street Journal) to get a sense, as noted in this space many times, of the spin that paper is putting on current events. I’ll shake my head, chuckle or roll my eyes, but the Times isn’t a “hate read,” but rather an attempt to attain a well-rounded picture of politics, pop culture and sports. Granted, this is the habit of an older American—one whose career is rooted in journalism—that I picked up from my parents and older brothers in the early-1960s. I doubt that’s common for people under 40, who, if consuming “news” and commentary at all, prefer “safe space” vehicles that confirm their prejudices, but Tom Bevan is a self-confessed “news junkie” and not a young man.
For example, I don’t “hate” Times columnist/author/self-ordained sociologist/TV presence David Brooks, and though I find his self-aggrandizing—and self-righteous—opinions almost always noxious and “playing to the crowd,” I’ll read his column every other week or so. His February 13th essay, “Can We Please Stop Calling These People Populists?” was a pip: Brooks claims that Donald Trump, Vance and Elon Musk (how long the attention-starved billionaire remains in the White House/Mar-a-Lago orbit is anyone’s guess) are screwing the millions who voted for Trump over Kamala Harris. It’s a tired argument, especially just a month into the new administration’s tenure, but I suppose new material is scarce for a Beltway pundit.
The following is the essence of Brooks’ complaint (no different from his contemporaries at other publications): “…Trump really seems not to give a crap about the working class. Trump is not a populist. He campaigns as a populist, but once he has power, he is the betrayer of populism [laying off federal government lifetime employees who don’t do much but collect a paycheck is part of the “betrayal.”] What’s going on here is not a working-class revolt against the elites. All I see is one section of the educated elite going after another section of the educated elite. This is like a civil war in a fancy prep school in which the sleazy kids are going after the pretentious kids.”
“What’s going on,” contrary to Brooks’ entitled view, is that a broader-than-expected coalition of Americans—educated, working-class, black, white, Hispanic, young, and old—didn’t like Joe Biden’s presidency and took a chance on another Trump term. Maybe they’ll regret it, maybe they’ll elect another Republican as president in 2028. I have no idea, and neither does Brooks.
The accompanying photo of my wife and me was taken by Jim Burger some years ago, and I can’t remember what the topic was while offering remarks at a newspaper reunion. My hunch is it wasn’t as loaded with the sort of blarney Brooks conveys to his world, but perhaps that’s just a self-pat on the head.
Take a look at the clues to figure out the year: Peggy Noonan wins “Commentary” Pulitzer Prize and The New York Times takes home “International Reporting trophy; Dylann Roof is sentenced to death; The Playboy Mansion is put up for sale; Kurt Busch wins the Daytona 500; Casey Affleck wins Best Actor Oscar; Bill O’Reilly is fired from Fox News; Wonder Woman is released; the first United States total solar eclipse of the 21st century takes place; the Boy Scouts announce they’ll admit girls; NBC’s Matt Lauer is cancelled; Nat Hentoff and James Rosenquist die; At the Drive-In release their first studio album in 17 years; and George Saunders’ Lincoln in the Bardo is published.
—Follow Russ Smith on Twitter: @MUGGER2023