Brooks and Dumb

David Brooks is one of my favorite columnists. This might be because his fellow Republicans have become so predictable in recent years that his semi-contrarian stances are fascinating in comparison.

But read his column today. Basically what he does is take a study and describe it. You have to wait about twelve paragraphs to get even the faintest hint of an opinion or a new and different take on the study that he describes. And then when you do, it's fairly boring. The study says that CEOs aren't flamboyant. Rather, they are persistent, consistent, and dull. He talks about this for at least a dozen paragraphs. Then he says that since all politicians are showy, personable and gregarious drama queens (there's a reason C-SPAN gets those sky-high ratings!), business leaders will need to become just as wild and personable, because they will take on the values of Washington D.C.. So those sober business leaders who never sold anything to the public based on charm or savvy are going to be corrupted by the wild radicals of Washington who are so fashionable and cunning.

We've got at least twelve paragraphs that demonstrate nothing other than Brooks' reading comprehension. Then we have a few throwaway paragraphs that make a point that's sort of okay, but not great. In fact, it's probably wrong. It's the sort of point you might make in a college class, get a mercy nod of approval from the professor, and then have him move right along.

The point of all this is that I will probably read about five blog posts today that are more interesting than what Brooks has to say. There's not even a link to the study that Brooks is discussing. And we had to wait about four days since Brooks' last column to get his book report-like discussion of the traits of CEOs. And Brooks is actually one of the better opinion columnists at the NYT.

When newspapers are thinking about what they offer the public that cannot be obtained elsewhere, highly-paid opinion columnists should not be on their list of things to save.