1. Journalists have been neutral and independent, not pimping for Democrats, maintaining “distance,” for the last two years? Who believes that? Does anyone believe that? Does even Brooks believe that? The news media, with a few pockets of conservative bias like Fox News, have been open, obvious and undeniable agents of the Democratic Party since before the dawn of the 21st Century, and the unethical lack of independence and objectivity has worsened every year since. What is Brooks talking about? How stupid does he think we are?
2. Oh, the complete ideological capture of what the Founders regarded as a bulwark of freedom and democracy is just a pet peeve to Brooks? You know, an annoyance, like people who say “statue of limitations” or “irregardless”? No big deal, but he thought he’d mention it!
3. “We play it straight. We do our job.” So according to Brooks, the news media’s constant, unvarying attacks on President Trump regardless of what his position or action is, even when those actions are indistinguishable from what recent Democratic Presidents have done without any criticism from the same reporters and pundits is “playing it straight.”
Got it. You’re a liar, Brooks. Ethics Alarms had a tag for how disgustingly the Axis media ignored conduct by President Biden that it would have flamed Trump for: “Imagine if President Trump did X that the news media is accepting from Biden,” or IIPTDXTTNMIAFB for short.
4. “We have got to reestablish some distance from the Democratic Party. These are people we cover. They’re not people we root for.”
Correction: they are people you root for. Almost all denizens of news rooms in all corners of the journalism “profession” are Democrats, liberals, progressives, wokeness addicts or socialists, as are the people in journalism organizations who do the hiring. You show that you root for them whenever you cover an issue, write a column or open your mouth. You’re doing it right now.
5. “They’re not people we’re spin doctors for.” Has Brooks read his own paper? Just one example disproves this lie. The New York Times didn’t investigate or write about Joe Biden’s obvious cognitive decline until after his disastrous debate with Donald Trump although this had been obvious to anyone paying attention for years. Neither did PBS, or CNN. MSNBC’s hosts were still swearing that Biden was “sharp as a tack.” When Biden paid liar Karine Jean Pierre stated that videos showing Biden freezing and staring at public functions were “cheap fakes,” only Fox News among the media sources challenged it. If that isn’t smoking gun evidence of “spin,” I don’t know what is.
6. “And I do think we have done a not ultimately excellent job at maintaining as much distance from the Democrats as we keep from the Republicans.”
KABOOM! There goes my head!
Equivocator! Weasel! Coward! I already used “asshole.” Brooks doesn’t have the guts or integrity to come right out and say “we’ve done a terrible/rotten/unethical/destructive job” of avoiding being shills for the Left. What is he afraid of? Oooh, will the progressive hacks at PBS get angry with him if he says what’s obviously true without super-sugarcoating it?
I need to update and edit the Rationalizations List, and when I do, I’m renaming #19B “David Brooks’ Equivocation. Right now, it is called The Insidious Confession, or “It wasn’t the best choice.”
To wit:
19A falsely changes an accusation of wrongful conduct into one of less than perfect or ideal conduct. The rationalization even rejects the proposition that the choice that was made was a mistake. “Mistake” implies error, which implies wrong. “No,” says the wielder of 19A. “I made no mistakes. It simply wasn’t the best choice. But isn’t it outrageous that I’m getting all this criticism because I made a perfectly reasonable choice that after the fact we realize could have been better?” is a framing trick, and a slick one. “It wasn’t the best choice” is also insidious, because using the guise of an admission of wrongdoing, it invites acceptance of the false premise that there was nothing wrong done. It slyly removes the possibility of wrongdoing, unlike #22, Comparative Virtue, which accepts it. Framing what was a wrongful act as simply an act that wasn’t a good as it could have been, the wrongdoer poses as imperfect but virtuous and sincere, doing the best she can. The misleading framing—not wrong, not bad, just imperfect—also permits the wrongdoer to avoid the indignity of an apology.
In a sentencing hearing, a defendant who describes his crime as “not the best choice” tells the judge that for him, a criminal act is always among the practical options. Since unethical conduct is an option, if it works, it was the best option. If it doesn’t work, and if the wrongdoer gets caught, well, it seemed like a good choice at the time, but it wasn’t the best thing to do.
Ethical people don’t think like that. Trustworthy people don’t think like that.
Interestingly, using the Insidious Confession is damning for the user whether it is sincere or not. If the user really thinks that an unethical act can be legitimately framed as “not the best.” that tells us that he or she believes an unethical act can be good. If the rationalization is verbalized as a cynical tactic to influence how a wrongful act is seen by others, that makes the wrongdoer a liar, and worse, an ethics corrupter.
Ethics Verdict: David Brooks is a liar, and an Ethics Corrupter.
____________
Pointer: Young Bill
