The "apology" issued by David Brooks for his slander

[rumguy]

I complained to the NY Times about David Brooks and his recent column. This was the response I got...


"Thank you for your message. Because many readers have raised concerns about this column, I asked Mr. Brooks for his response. I reproduce it here:

For what its worth, that neo being short for Jewish was meant as a joke. Nothing more. Most of the people who get labeled as Neocons are Jewish, so I was just sort of playing off that.
As for me accusing anybody who accuses neocons of being anti-Semitic, there are a few issues here. First, I wasn't saying anything about people who criticize neocons' ideas. The column wasn't about that at all. It was about people who imagine there is a shadowy conspiracy behind Bush policy. Second, I explicitly say that only a subset of the people who talk about the shadow conspiracy find Jewishness a handy explanation for everything. I have no idea how large a subset that is, but judging from my e-mail it is out there.
So I was careful not to say that Bush or neocon critics are anti-Semitic. I was careful not to say that all conspiracy theorists are anti-Semitic.
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. --David Brooks

Speaking for myself, I'm grateful that you brought your concerns to my attention.

Yours sincerely,
Daniel Okrent
Public Editor"

[Nlighten1]

1. I got the same one and sent a reply back.

Stating that Mr. Brooks doesn't need a "learning curve".

[rumguy]

2. yeah "learning curve" - god give me a break

[jfxgillis]

3. Hmmmm. Not bad, actually ...

... not good, either, but it's more than I expected.

I personally wrote David Brooks what must've been one of the earliest complaints (barely an hour after it was web-posted about 11 pm). I was quite firm and critical, though civil, polite, logical and thoughtful until the very end, which ended. "Oh why bother. Just shut the fuck up."

He didn't reply.

:^{)

[spooky3]

4. Huh? "Most of the people who get labeled as Neocons are Jewish..."

What evidence does he have for that? Tom Delay, Bill O'Liely, Sean Hannity are all Jewish, are they? My perception is that is complete BS, yet that seems to be his primary justification. He should be called on this. Since Jewish people are fewer than 5% of the US population, it's incredible that he would claim this.

Anyone else see it that way?

[rumguy]

5. It's total BS

Bush and Cheney aren't Jewish. And how does Brooks explain Wellstone, Nadar, and many other liberal politicians...what a joke.

[agingdem]

6. Neonuts...

My sister, a paranoid schizophrenic, was convinced that everyone she came in contact with was an anti-Semite because she was a liberal Jew...David Brooks is convinced that everyone hates him because he a a neocon Jew...go figure!

[DemLikr]

7. Where is the fucking NY Whore Times Editorial page editor?

Good god, are we to believe that the hacks simply post whatever the hell they want without any vetting process?

Journalism in this country has gone to shit.