NP- David Brooks, Joe Klein, and the Courtier Press

[rich]

anyone who gets most of their news from television is, well... living
in aaron sorkin land and boy is that a dangerous place to be
same goes for the rachel maddows and jon stewarts.



On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I say Rachel, no last name needed I bet, is worth watching, listening to.
>
> I had a dream about her last night, and No, not what you are thinking. Beats
> the plist dreams I've had.
>
> From: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
> To: rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com>
> Cc: Monte Davis <montedavis at verizon.net>; P-list <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 12:01 PM
> Subject: Re: NP- David Brooks, Joe Klein, and the Courtier Press
>
> The difference between pamphleteers and TV networks is vast.  TV and
> print journalism has never been pure, but some standards did exist.
> The real truthsayers these days are on the Internet.
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:38 AM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> all well and good but i dont think we need be surprised that there are
>> scribblers out there who support the powers that be in sycophantic
>> drollery whatever their political affiliations. I'm reading about the
>> view of the American Revolution from the British point of view and in
>> that era of burgeoning pamphleteers and coffee house banter, one can
>> easily point the David Brooks-like types supporting an incompetent
>> King, diffident Parliament and oblivious Whitehall machinations; there
>> were far few Edmund Burkes though a sizable number of people in
>> Britain were somewhat aghast if not bemused by the conduct of the war.
>>
>> how much muck does one come across in their daily diet of newspapery,
>> writings about our empire and political future, and how it resembles
>> so much douchebagary as written in the past
>> rich
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:33 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Everyone who loves Pierce's Brooks lambasts should know he's following
>>> Driftglass's lead.  Driftglass is an obscure blogger who's years of
>>> Brooks
>>> commentary has served as model for Pierce's new regular fun.  And Pierce
>>> would be 1st to admit so.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 17, 2012, Monte Davis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Charlie Pierce is on a tear this year, as much fun as Mencken at his
>>>> best.
>>>> He's been honing for months those Brooks-in-the-manor scenes with Moral
>>>> Hazard, the lugubrious Irish setter. Esquire as magazine/site never
>>>> mattered
>>>> much to me, but now his blog is my coffee companion every morning.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On
>>>> Behalf
>>>> Of David Morris
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:10 PM
>>>> To: P-list
>>>> Subject: NP- David Brooks, Joe Klein, and the Courtier Press
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/david-brooks-joe-klein-romney-10753130
>>>>
>>>> That we have, in the main, a courtier press bringing us our political
>>>> news
>>>> every day has been beyond question ever since Tim Crouse blew the
>>>> whistle
>>>> in
>>>> The Boys on the Bus back in 1973, only to have every problem he
>>>> identified
>>>> in that book get immeasurably worse after he published it. It is very
>>>> simple
>>>> these days. The primary job of an elite political reporter - Joe Klein
>>>> of
>>>> Time, say, or David Brooks of The New York Times - is to entertain and
>>>> to
>>>> comfort the real owners of the country and its politics, to assure them
>>>> from
>>>> time to time that they are really doing the right thing in their
>>>> stewardship
>>>> of what was supposed to be a fractious, unruly self-governing republic.
>>>> It
>>>> is the elite political reporter's job, upon request, to sing to the real
>>>> owners of the country a pleasant tune in a charming soprano voice. In
>>>> return, they become very important players in the increasingly worthless
>>>> puppet show that the real owners of the country are making out of the
>>>> politics of the country.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Both Klein and Brooks have taken to the public prints to reassure
>>>> Willard
>>>> Romney - and, by proxy, all of the country's Willard Romneys - that he
>>>> is
>>>> being treated so terribly unfairly, darling, by that man in the White
>>>> House
>>>> who plainly does not know his place. First, we have Brooks, who never
>>>> saw
>>>> a
>>>> plutocrat for whom he wouldn't happily serve as a footstool....
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------
>>>> Romney is going to have to define a vision of modern capitalism. He's
>>>> going
>>>> to have to separate his vision from the scandals and excesses we've seen
>>>> over the last few years. He needs to define the kind of capitalist he is
>>>> and
>>>> why the country needs his virtues. Let's face it, he's not a heroic
>>>> entrepreneur. He's an efficiency expert. It has been the business of his
>>>> life to take companies that were mediocre and sclerotic and try to make
>>>> them
>>>> efficient and dynamic. It has been his job to be the corporate version
>>>> of
>>>> a
>>>> personal trainer: take people who are puffy and self-indulgent and whip
>>>> them
>>>> into shape. That's his selling point: rigor and productivity. If he can
>>>> build a capitalist vision around that, he'll thrive. If not, he's a
>>>> punching
>>>> bag.
>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>
>>>> All those steelworkers, and the people at that paper company, they were
>>>> puffy and self-indulgent - and not hunks of iron-reinforced man-flesh
>>>> like,
>>>> you know, David Brooks - and that's why none of them have jobs anymore.
>>>> People at the business end of the "system" that so charms David Brooks
>>>> over
>>>> the canapes know the real score: The "scandals and excesses" are the
>>>> system.
>>>> Take them away, and Romney is clipping coupons back in Michigan.
>>>>
>>>
>
>