Monday, February 09, 2004

Readers Respond to Coprophagiac of the Year 

A friend of dawkins' writes to Gail Collins at the New York Times Op-Ed page:
Subj: David Brooks
Date: 2/8/04
To: editorial@nytimes.com

Dear New York Times Op-Ed Page:

There's a pattern now in David Brooks' "work." For every sneering, sarcastic, tendentious hack job written on behalf of his blast-faxing friends at the RNC (see the recent "Kerry's Special Friends") Brooks puts forth two or three phony "reasoned" and "moderate" pieces of "analysis" to cover his hide.

The charade is transparent, and it's insulting to readers of the Times. Brooks clearly has no interest in his writing but to help re-elect George Bush, and his use of Ed Gillespie's talking points shows us so. (Just notice how the smear of John Kerry as being a "phony" is common to the recent "work" of both Gillespie and Brooks.)

Of course, the Times will be accused of "liberal bias" when it fires Brooks. But better now than before the Op-Ed page's credibility is irrevocably tarnished.

Thank you for your time.

[a reader]
New York, NY
Another friend of dawkins' writes to David Brooks today:
Subj: on Kerry
Date: 2/8/04
To: dabrooks@nytimes.com

Mr. Brooks,

Excellent work on John Kerry the other day. It's finally time someone called him out on being the "phony" that he is.

It's good to see that you and Ed Gillespie have your messages meshed like gears in a beautiful truth-manufacturing machine.

Onward to victory!

[A reader]
Tarrytown, NY
And Brooks responds thoughtfully:
Date:2/8/04 1:23:13 PM Eastern Standard Time

Dear friend,

Thanks very much for sending a response to my column, positive or negative. I'm afraid I can't respond to each message. My editors would wonder why I have no time to write for the paper. But I do read every e-mail, and I frequently learn from them.

So, again, thanks,

David Brooks


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?