the New York Times op-ed page—is given to those who flatter the powerfu
Even given the precipitous decline in both the circulation and the influence of all print media, the New York Times op-ed page remains the most prestigious perch in all of journalism. Its a mystery, therefore, that it is treated so casually by those in charge of its composition. The Times can hire almost anyone its editor and publisher want, and yetwith a few obvious exceptionsthey appear more comfortable settling for mediocre writers and thinkers who merely flatter the prejudices of the politically powerful.
I could make my case with a number of Times columnists, but todays exhibit is Frank Bruni, who is as clear an example of failing upward as can be found in the upper reaches of print journalism.
Bruni was named to the op-ed page in 2011 following the departure of Frank Rich, and he occasionally adopts a cultural approach to politics, though his default position is a Maureen Dowdlike obsession with the personal-as-political. He has been the papers restaurant critic and its Vatican correspondent, but he became best known to political readers for his coverage of the 2000 election and the Bush presidency, which often read as if written for Teen Vogue. He focused, laser-like, on the candidates personal mannerismsoften going to the trouble of inventing themto the near-complete exclusion of the policy implications of their potential presidencies. In his book on the 2000 campaign, he recorded precisely how many seconds George and Laura Bush danced at each of their inaugural balls, but next to nothing that might help the reader judge what Bush would do as president the following day. Typically, Bruni blamed the public for this choice, arguing, Modern politics wasnt just superficial because the politicians made it so. It was superficial because the voters let it be.
http://www.thenation.com/article/176236/frank-bruni-plutocrats-pundit#