NYT's David Brooks and the first rule of holes

Appearances can sometimes be deceiving, and anything is possible in America. The New York Times superstar David Brooks, the author of “The Road to Character,” doesn’t appear to have much experience with shovels, and therefore might be unfamiliar with the first rule of holes. 

When the history of this epoch is written and the ultimate destination of the “Angry 20s” fully revealed, there will no doubt be volumes written about the rage that built up in American society over a generation. The opiod epidemic that killed a million Americans will be a dominant feature, but so too will be the high wattage smugness, sanctimony and dishonesty of the David Brooks archetype, who stands for a simple proposition, which is “you’re stupid.” It’s infuriating.

When finding one’s self in a deep hole, particularly of one’s own making, the first and most important thing to stop doing is digging. No doubt this is an overlooked skill amongst many multi-millionaires in the elite media. Did David Brooks really describe himself as “upper middle class?” LOL. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, “upper middle class” in America is defined as being between the 60th and 80th percentiles in income, which would be between $75,000 and $125,000 per year.

Writer Mark Harris hits the nail squarely on the head here:

Here is what Brooks had to say about the incident on “PBS News Hour:”

Again, here are the NYT’s published standards:

In addition to this handbook, we observe the Newsroom Integrity Statement, promulgated in 1999, which deals with such rudimentary professional practices as the importance of checking facts, the exactness of quotations, the integrity of photographs and our distaste for anonymous sourcing; and the Policy on Confidential Sources, issued in 2004. These documents are available from the standards editor or on the Newsroom home page under Policies.

Importantly, these are the NYT’s standards. They wrote them. They announced them. They made a public commitment to follow them, while making public declarations about their integrity.

Here is my question. What floor or secret space does Brooks go to in the NYT building to get his “double O” license to bullshit millions of people? How many others outside of the Trump desk have the “00” designation? Why does the “paper of record” believe it is okay to gaslight and gaslight some more when they do it, and not okay when Trump and Kellyanne Conway do it?

What David Brooks did was dishonest and stupid for sure, but it was mostly petty. It is the response to it that is making it a bigger deal. The deception is as plain as day for anyone who has the common sense to understand the first rule of hole digging intuitively. Even worse than David Brooks’ quibbling is the silence of the institution he works for. It creates cynicism.

There is a silver lining, I suppose. Brooks doesn’t appear to be the type of guy who’s ever had a nickname. Maybe something like “Skipper,” but probably not. Now and forever more, he can be known as “Double Scotch” or even just “Plain 78.” Both are cool enough, I suppose.

I’m working through a problem in my head. It’s a puzzle of sorts. Maybe The Warning community can help. I’ll try and lay it out:

What is the difference between Sean Spicer saying…

This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period … These attempts to lessen the enthusiasm for the inauguration are shameful and wrong.

…about this:

Trump’s inauguration (left) and Obama’s in 2009, viewed from the Washington Monument (Reuters)

…and David Brooks saying this:

…about this?

Aside from Spicer’s bunny suit, there is no difference except for one thing: Spicer works for NewsMax, and Brooks for The New York Times.

David Brooks, NYT columnist, has a “00” license to gaslight, because well… it’s The New York Times, and they’ll tell you the news with integrity — whether you like it or not.