David Brooks Apologies for his Neo-con = Jewish Comment

by

Poynter Online provides David Brook’s apology for equating “neocon” with “Jewish” in this column, and thereby implying that critics of neocons or their policies are antiSemitic. (Brooks was roundly criticized by, among others, Josh Marshall, as well as my “lefty” co-blogger Katherine and my “righty” co-blogger Moe Lane.) Brooks explains that his comment was intended as a joke, and states:

“I am still on the learning curve here, and I do realize that mixture of a crack with a serious accusation was incredibly stupid on my part. Please do pass along to readers that I’m aware of how foolish I was to write the column in the way I did.”

We should criticize stupidity, of course, but we should also forgive mistakes. David Brooks admits he made one here. This is how the story should end.

9 thoughts on “David Brooks Apologies for his Neo-con = Jewish Comment”

  1. This is how the story should end.
    Could we please have it end with Brooks apologizing in the paper? You know, where the stupid, insulting column ran in the first place?

  2. Could we please have it end with Brooks apologizing in the paper? You know, where the stupid, insulting column ran in the first place?
    That’s not an entirely invalid point, Mithras. It may yet be coming.

  3. I’ve thought for a while that Brooks’ “comic sociology” shtick was neither comedy nor sociology, but a cynical attempt to stereotype and caricature people who disagree with him so that their opinions can be more easily dismissed. More subtle than the Club for Growth’s latest ads, but basically the same idea.
    So I don’t really believe him when he says it was an innocent, poorly executed joke. But there’s not much point in discussing it further after he’s apologized (especially if he does it in his column).

  4. David Brooks has been writing opinion pieces for a national audience for some years now. It’s a bit rich for him to plead “inexperience”

  6. So I don’t really believe him when he says it was an innocent, poorly executed joke.
    I don’t buy it either–it has the flavor of those especially despicable people who behave in knowingly offensive and abrasive ways, and chide the people who call them on it for having no sense of humor.
    But as a defense, it’s pretty difficult to knock; it makes anyone who chooses to continue pursuing it look petty.

  8. Conason is appropriately unsympathetic over at Salon. And BTW, given that Brooks sent the memo to Dan Okrent, this could show up in the paper sometime soon.

Comments are closed.