The facts vs. David Brooks: Startling inaccuracies raise questions about his latest book

[swag]

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/15/the_facts_vs_david_brooks_startling_inaccuracies_raise_questions_about_his_latest_book/

by David Zweig

. . .

The question I keep wondering, and what I think perhaps is most relevant with Brooks, is why? Why would someone with this level of prestige and influence be so woefully sloppy in his reportage — or worse? Imagine yourself for a moment as an op-ed writer for the most influential newspaper in the world; you get paid huge sums of money for a string of bestselling books, you entertain and enlighten live crowds at your lectures, you get paid to spout your opinions on TV. I don’t know what it would do to my head if I had the level of influence that Brooks has as a writer and cultural commentator. Perhaps, as a friend of mine suggested, maybe Brooks is just glib.

Ultimately, maybe it doesn’t even matter whether the passage was fudged on purpose or not. Perhaps to be so careless shows the same degree of culpability, and condescension toward the reader that willful manipulation does.

As I was about to send the draft of this article to my editor I did a onquick review again of “The Road to Character” on Google Books. To Brooks’s publicist’s word, based on my email to her, future printings of the book, indeed, appear to be different. Now the passage reads:

“In 1948, psychologists asked more than 10,000 adolescents whether they considered themselves to be a very important person. At that point, 12 percent said yes. The same question was asked in 2003, and this time it wasn’t 12 percent who considered themselves very important, it was 80 percent.”

I was astonished. Even this “correction” isn’t correct! Where is 1954? Where’s the 1989? In the interest of fact-checking, and a humility I assume Brooks would approve of, I should note, it is possible that a study was done in 2003 that had 80 percent of all respondents saying, “Yes, it’s true, I am an important person.” I’m still trying to find out.

[underpants]

1. Facts schmacts - you just gotta BELIEVE!!

Brooks only stays at the Times because Russ Douthat makes him look smart.

[Person 2713]

2. This thought from the article probably hits it

"Ultimately, maybe it doesn’t even matter whether the passage was fudged on purpose or not. Perhaps to be so careless shows the same degree of culpability, and condescension toward the reader that willful manipulation does."

[bemildred]

3. Propaganda is not intended to inform you. nt

[shadowmayor]

4. What a turd!

Brooks writing about character and humility is like my cat telling me about wagging his tail like a dog. The man is a fraud, a NY Times voice of reason just like Friedman - cheerleaders for our slaughter of Iraqis who always scoffed and tut-tutted those who were outraged by our country's murderous, criminal policies.

May his toes find sharp object in the dark for the rest of his nights!

The Shadow Mayor

[appalachiablue]

5. Friedman, no please, I loathe the man, Mr. Global. Brooks is pathetic, pseudo

compassion and basically a conservative a*s.

[NJCher]

6. I'm pleased

to see this arrogant pr@#$#@k on the hot seat. His demeanor is that he's so authoritative, so serious, and such an expert. Yeah--in his own mind.

Zweig, the fact-checker and author of this piece, is merely the beginning. You can be sure there are a host of others, checking "facts" from his pieces. In fact, maybe I'll join the fun.



Cher