It’s amazing how “columnist at NYT/WaPo” has become a sinecure. I mean, Brooks isn’t even trying, and yet he’ll have the job for life apparently. Maureen Dowd hasn’t had an original thought in decades.
This isn’t a matter of complaining about people I disagree with ideologically. Like, I think Ross Douthat is a regressive tool, but at least he brings something to the table, i.e. he does reading and research and writes a reasonable coherent defense of his regressive toolish viewpoints. And conversely, the nominally liberal Richard Cohen was a famous waste of space on the WaPo’s op-ed page for decades until his recent retirement. I don’t know where you want to characterize Tom Friedman ideologically, but he became a parody of himself some time ago.
Do these people really have such devoted followings that cancelling their columns and hiring fresh blood would really hurt revenues? I find that difficult to believe. And it’s not as though it’s impossible to find new columnists: the Times has done fairly well recently with hires like Michelle Goldberg.
I don’t get what the appeal of such a bland mediocrity ever was, let alone how it goes on being.
I have long suspected that is at least in part because most people see a bland mediocrity making it, and that helps them believe that nonsensical claim that “you can be literally anything you want to be”. If these mediocrities are successful, then maybe they can be too! So they watch for reinforcement.
Hey Brooks, McConnell would simply have never allowed such bills to see the light of day.
It’s amazing how “columnist at NYT/WaPo” has become a sinecure. I mean, Brooks isn’t even trying, and yet he’ll have the job for life apparently. Maureen Dowd hasn’t had an original thought in decades.
This isn’t a matter of complaining about people I disagree with ideologically. Like, I think Ross Douthat is a regressive tool, but at least he brings something to the table, i.e. he does reading and research and writes a reasonable coherent defense of his regressive toolish viewpoints. And conversely, the nominally liberal Richard Cohen was a famous waste of space on the WaPo’s op-ed page for decades until his recent retirement. I don’t know where you want to characterize Tom Friedman ideologically, but he became a parody of himself some time ago.
Do these people really have such devoted followings that cancelling their columns and hiring fresh blood would really hurt revenues? I find that difficult to believe. And it’s not as though it’s impossible to find new columnists: the Times has done fairly well recently with hires like Michelle Goldberg.
Oops, submitted a comment under the wrong handle (one from a different site, I’m not Wally Smith-ing it!) — it’s in the moderation queue.
Fixed.
To the comment itself – I know, I don’t get it. I don’t get what the appeal of such a bland mediocrity ever was, let alone how it goes on being.
I have long suspected that is at least in part because most people see a bland mediocrity making it, and that helps them believe that nonsensical claim that “you can be literally anything you want to be”. If these mediocrities are successful, then maybe they can be too! So they watch for reinforcement.