My modest proposal: Since NYT columnist is apparently a SCOTUS-style cushy lifetime appointment, at the very least they should make their columnists do regular "real journalism" sabbaticals. Let's say, for every four years of bi-weekly column writing, you have to then work a year on the metro desk, the sports desk, the Mexico City bureau, something. For a year you are banned from writing about college campuses, or conflicts that you've only read about from the couch of your Upper West Side apartment, or some idea about geopolitics that occurred to you on your third glass of wine while watching the West Wing. You are not to set foot in Aspen, Davos, or any "ideas summit" where people wear lavalier mics. You have to cover the story you're assigned every day, and you have to go out in public and talk to people, getting primary source confirmation for anything you write. Realistically, I'm not sure how many of them would last a whole year. But for those who did, optimistically, maybe they would actually come back with different ideas, different interests, different perspectives? (Or at least new metaphors?) Maybe they'd be a little more scrupulous about facts, and more inclined to think "is this actually a story?" Maybe they'd go back to the conference circuit and think "what the fuck are these people even talking about? That's not how any of this actually works..."
Or, you know, they could just hire better columnists, from more interesting backgrounds, and get rid of them when they start to suck. But I'm trying to be realistic here.
I'd never heard of Pamela Paul was before reading this piece, as I've generally ignored the Times columnists since 2016, but the description sounds spot-on for the sinecure that is landing an NYT op-ed gig.
But that statement about Friedman. Oy. It was true back in the Aughts yet remains ever green. Is he still getting column ideas from the cabby who gave him a ride in from the airport?
"The ability to succeed in this work depends not on education or intelligence or good character, but on having a particular personality type that causes you to always be thinking about stuff, along with an accompanying personality deformation that causes you to want to share those thoughts with the world."
It was a long time coming (and Bret “Bedbug” Stephens’ column was actually the last straw) but I cancelled my NYT subscription last week after 22 years. Can’t abide sending any more of my money to support the weapons-grade stupidity of Pamela Paul et al. Plus I freed up like $25/month to spend on worker-owned publications. I already subscribe to Defector, Hellgate, 404 Media, and Flaming Hydra; any other recs?
I was amused by the fact that I didn't need to click on any of the examples of awful column-ing; read them all already, read them all. Read them evenings, mornings, afternoons, I have measured out those columns with coffee spoons. I have heard their voices with a dying fall...
Perfect descriptions. I don't know how to fully explain how unsettling it is to read columnists that should be mortified to publish their piddly thoughts in columns, but instead are proud--and then other people share them as if they're profound!
I saw this on LitHub, read it and said "Holy Shit! Someone actually writes like this.," Then I saw the Grind the Motherfucker [Trump] Down article. Then I subscribed. All in less than an hour.
I love it! As an ignored writer of books - not blogs, columns, newsletters or advertising - that start off shallow, but must wind up at getting out overlooked truths, your beautifully articulated column delighted me! I’ll buy your labor book, too! My 2011 masters thesis (USYD -Project Leadership” was “Collaboration, Coordination or Annihilation: Australian Volunteers Adapting to the 2009 Work Safety Act,” so it was about the Labour Party’s sweeping labor law to interrupt worker abuse under casual labor schemes.
My modest proposal: Since NYT columnist is apparently a SCOTUS-style cushy lifetime appointment, at the very least they should make their columnists do regular "real journalism" sabbaticals. Let's say, for every four years of bi-weekly column writing, you have to then work a year on the metro desk, the sports desk, the Mexico City bureau, something. For a year you are banned from writing about college campuses, or conflicts that you've only read about from the couch of your Upper West Side apartment, or some idea about geopolitics that occurred to you on your third glass of wine while watching the West Wing. You are not to set foot in Aspen, Davos, or any "ideas summit" where people wear lavalier mics. You have to cover the story you're assigned every day, and you have to go out in public and talk to people, getting primary source confirmation for anything you write. Realistically, I'm not sure how many of them would last a whole year. But for those who did, optimistically, maybe they would actually come back with different ideas, different interests, different perspectives? (Or at least new metaphors?) Maybe they'd be a little more scrupulous about facts, and more inclined to think "is this actually a story?" Maybe they'd go back to the conference circuit and think "what the fuck are these people even talking about? That's not how any of this actually works..."
Or, you know, they could just hire better columnists, from more interesting backgrounds, and get rid of them when they start to suck. But I'm trying to be realistic here.
That description of Friedman could not be more perfect and spot on.
I'd never heard of Pamela Paul was before reading this piece, as I've generally ignored the Times columnists since 2016, but the description sounds spot-on for the sinecure that is landing an NYT op-ed gig.
But that statement about Friedman. Oy. It was true back in the Aughts yet remains ever green. Is he still getting column ideas from the cabby who gave him a ride in from the airport?
Agree; it definitely gave me a good laugh!
"The ability to succeed in this work depends not on education or intelligence or good character, but on having a particular personality type that causes you to always be thinking about stuff, along with an accompanying personality deformation that causes you to want to share those thoughts with the world."
Goddammit ... I'm a columnist.
Me too. Why aren't I making money from this? I think I'd be just as good at podcasting as non-expert Molly Jong Fast.
I hate read David Brooks all the time. I love how his midlife crisis has given him a whole treasure trove of dumb new ideas to explore.
It was a long time coming (and Bret “Bedbug” Stephens’ column was actually the last straw) but I cancelled my NYT subscription last week after 22 years. Can’t abide sending any more of my money to support the weapons-grade stupidity of Pamela Paul et al. Plus I freed up like $25/month to spend on worker-owned publications. I already subscribe to Defector, Hellgate, 404 Media, and Flaming Hydra; any other recs?
How Things Work.
Proud subscriber (and book purchaser!)
Well, in that case, can I suggest Lever News, Popular Info and Zeteo?
You probably know this but they used to be married. Bret Stephens and Pamela Paul I mean.
I love it so much when you make fun of Thomas Friedman
Matt Taibbi's epic 2005 New York Press evisceration of Friedman's vapid writing is still online. https://tinyurl.com/3mvbjp6s
That was a classic. It's really sad that Taibbi has become an amoral and rightwing corporate shill after some strong work earlier in his career.
You couldn't be more wrong about Taibbi.
I just unsubscribed to Taibbi's Substack. I didn't even wait until my last 3 months were up. I should have done it a year ago.
I was amused by the fact that I didn't need to click on any of the examples of awful column-ing; read them all already, read them all. Read them evenings, mornings, afternoons, I have measured out those columns with coffee spoons. I have heard their voices with a dying fall...
How are your trousers doing?
Rolled all the way down. I've got Mike Royko feet.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2018/11/19/18484499/classic-royko-these-feet-are-made-for-nothing
Speaking of 1980s classics: When are we getting Doon 2 ?
Perfect descriptions. I don't know how to fully explain how unsettling it is to read columnists that should be mortified to publish their piddly thoughts in columns, but instead are proud--and then other people share them as if they're profound!
You are not a bad writer.
"There is no reason for there to be even one shitty New York Times columnist. They can hire anybody they want."
Spot on...The NYT should be TURNING AWAY some of the best writers in the country to get the VERY best...
Thank you for all the laughs, as true as they are, and the truth, as true as it is, but often not as funny.
I saw this on LitHub, read it and said "Holy Shit! Someone actually writes like this.," Then I saw the Grind the Motherfucker [Trump] Down article. Then I subscribed. All in less than an hour.
I love it! As an ignored writer of books - not blogs, columns, newsletters or advertising - that start off shallow, but must wind up at getting out overlooked truths, your beautifully articulated column delighted me! I’ll buy your labor book, too! My 2011 masters thesis (USYD -Project Leadership” was “Collaboration, Coordination or Annihilation: Australian Volunteers Adapting to the 2009 Work Safety Act,” so it was about the Labour Party’s sweeping labor law to interrupt worker abuse under casual labor schemes.
This brilliant piece was worth reading for the takedown of Friedman alone. But then the penultimate paragraph forced a resonant "hallelujah!" from me.
There's no need to feel guilty about this takedown of Pamela Paul. It needed doing, and it made my day. Touche and thank you.
You are an inspiration to the world, Hamilton.
Dude