Philadelphia Mag’s Sasha Issenberg lays out New York Times columnist David Brooks in an article from the April issue of the magazine. Issenberg seems to have fact-checked Brooks to a t, down to seeing what markets are hot for QVC shoppers, where Doris Kearns Goodwin’s books sell the best, and which U.S. cities watch NASCAR the most. The most telling statement in the article was ” As I made my journey, it became increasingly hard to believe that Brooks ever left his home.”
Ouch.
The coup of the whole article was Issenberg’s confrontation of Brooks on the telephone. Brooks seemed a little upset by this, and said that the research was “totally unethical.” Unfortunately, if Brooks is in a position where he is actually being accepted as creating a “definition” for cultural aspects of our nation, then I think what he has to say might need to be based on reality, not just statements like “one goes by one’s life experiences.” Yes, one can write on life’s experiences, but when you write something like this - opinion column or not - you’re framing something like it’s real and true and tangible. But if the “red states” are more well read than the “blue states”, and some of NASCAR’s top markets are in “blue states”, and Spa Lady doesn’t exist in the region of the country where you’re representing it as such, then it’s not a “joke”, as he referred to the “Spa Lady” reference, it’s incorrect, and IMHO, misleading.
Obviously I’ve not spoken with Mr. Brooks and have just read this article at phillymag.com today. But I have seen Mr. Brooks’ work before - and if someone is writing something based off of their experience, then it would be nice to know if someone says they have a hard time spending x dollars in a market but s/he hasn’t tried or investigated all the opportunities or that generalizations and stereotypes are being translated into bigger stereotypes and classifications without actually looking into it (or so it seems), then I’m annoyed.
