Most of the NYT columnists are not particularly smart, have no idea what's going on in the world, and are irresponsible shepherds of the power of their platforms & should turn their platforms over to people who are smart and do know what's going on in the world.
Most (not all) of the NYT columnists operate from a similar place of white supremacy as Trump does when—despite having access to so much information—they willfully remain ignorant. Just because they can. Because, white men.
Imagine being Donald Trump, David Brooks or Brett Stephens and actively rejecting all the the people willing to help you have access to so much knowledge & information and saying, "Naw, I'm good. I don't need to learn from or listen to anyone."
It is GROTESQUE how Brooks & Stephens could explore or read or learn about or report or investigate anything, and YET they choose not to use this privilege. Lazy, shiftless, white affirmative action hires given lifetime job security who use their days hating on tenure & students.
I've never had any editorial support on research as a journalist. But I've been blessed to work towards a doctorate the past few years. It's been hard, but I have deeply appreciated how much information I've had access to as an NYU PhD student. I can look up almost anything...
and I've gotten to spend time reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
and reading
And while I am not surprised, I am still mystified that there are people who DO have access to editorial research support—and who make much more money than mine—at outfits like the NYT OpEd desk, and yet who choose not to read, to learn, to engage new and difficult ideas...
Stephens and Brooks (and Bruni, and Chait, and Sullivan etc.) bark a lot about echo chambers and students being close minded. But these dudes have the keys to the fuckin' information kingdom + the ability to really learn & read & grow...and willfully don't.
A waste.
A waste.
THEN there are those of us who, for a variety of reasons—racism, sexism, imposter syndrome, intellectual curiosity, a feeling of duty, or some combination therein—have to keep learning and teaching ourselves, even after we are columnists/professors, etc.
I remember @familyunequal once saying something like the joy of being a sociologist is that you have a lifelong to keep learning about anything you want. I concur. It's great to keep learning when you're paid to, and it's a privilege.
BUT/AND...
BUT/AND...
It's dismaying seeing that many who get the most money and resources to do so just squandering their fortune!
And not just sharing with their readers and students.
And not maximizing their blessings the way many others of us would.
And not just sharing with their readers and students.
And not maximizing their blessings the way many others of us would.
