David Brooks: 'New York Times Readers More Liberal Than the Journalists'
David Brooks on Thursday said New York Times readers are more liberal than the journalists that write there.
During his videotaped interview with Time magazine, Brooks also explained how he tries to get this left-leaning crowd to read his articles (video follows with transcript and commentary):
GILBERT CRUZ, TIME MAGAZINE: So being a, you work for the New York Times. Being a conservative voice in what is typically considered to be a more liberal newspaper than not, how exactly does that frame affect what you write?
DAVID BROOKS, NEW YORK TIMES: It’s mostly the readers I think that are more liberal than the journalists. And they, you respect them. And so you're trying to reach them, and you’re trying to have a communication with our readers.
So I guess it makes you less want to write the column that says, “Look at us. Look at how right we are all the time,” and you want to write the column that will persuade people who may start off disagreeing with you, and you think, “How do I do that? How do I get it so they will read me and pay attention so they can see this point of view?”
So, I think it what it does is it makes you try to be more open and calm and not just think people who disagree with you are evil because if you think that, they’re not going to read you.
Frankly, none of this shocks me. When I interviewed him at the Republican National Convention in 2008, Brooks said he was never as conservative as the folks at the Weekly Standard - his previous employer - thought.
Quite the contrary, he told me he was far closer to the center than the right of the political spectrum. As such, when he strives to be moderate in his writing and appeal to the current audience, that's likely what he's been doing for years.
However, his claim concerning Times readers being more liberal than the writers there might be true for him, but across the aggregate of all the contributors and the editorial staff, the views of patrons and employees are likely far closer than Brooks intimated.
His reluctance to say so is probably borne of his desire to get along with his co-workers.
After all, the worst thing you can call a liberal media member is a liberal.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Replace the word liberal with
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 6:32pm.
Replace the word liberal with stupid.Which goes to show Brooks' arrogance
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 9:07pm.
"It’s mostly the readers I think that are more stupid than the journalists. " Of course David has a superior mind, doncha no?A Parody of an intellectual
Submitted by pilsener on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 1:54am.
David Brooks has no credibility for liberals EXCEPT when he attacks Conservatives, Republicans, Tea Partiers, Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachman.Brooks has no credibility AT ALL with Conservatives, Republicans, Tea Partiers, Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachman .
David Brooks is now just a parody of an intellectual. A man who is applauded by the media for his vapid commentaries on a plane of existence that only Brooks can discern. No one in the media thinks Brooks says anything of substance, but they find him much easier to listen to than an actual conservative, so he remains in constant demand..
That is not a little scary...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 6:41pm.
...given that there isn't much out there that is farther to the left than the NYT.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Lately Brooks sounds like
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 6:47pm.
Lately Brooks sounds like he's about ready to pack it in and move to France. I'd even help him pack and drive him to Laguardia if it would help speed things up.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
Readers more liberal?
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 7:41pm.
What? All 3 of them?Can you Venn diagram an empty set?
Submitted by JakeMo on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 8:42pm.
The readers are more liberal than the "journalists"?How is this possible? The only people who read the NYT are the journalists* who write for it and their friends they're writing about ... and they're only reading it to make sure their own names are spelled correctly.
* Use of the word "journalist" here is strictly facetious.
More liberal the the reader?
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:53am.
So how's that working out for you guys Brooks? Wont be long, and the reporters will out number the readers as well. Full steam ahead!
If True...
Submitted by John21 on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 3:23pm.
If the NY Time "Paper of no creditability" subscribers are really as far left as this liberal shill claims, they must all have be heavily medicated or tightly controlled and secured with collars or straightjackets “I love me coats” because of their rabid reaction to the real world. They all must live in that Unicorn and fairy dust world of academic, where everything is possible because all cost and assets are readily available.Moderation is not a political philosophy
Submitted by Granite Sentry on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 11:59am.
It is the lack of a political philosophy. www.granitesentry.com