Byron Calame, Public Editor
The New York Times

Dear Mr. Calame:

Regarding David Brooks’ column, “Multiple Reality Syndrome,” in the December 4, 2005, Times, I have a question: is there a point at which a writer’s fawning advocacy for an administration crosses the line from journalism to propaganda? I know this issue is much on the minds of editors and ombudsmen lately, with the Times’ Judith Miller and the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, as is the use of anonymous sources that spin a story favorable to the leaker’s interests.

Mr. Brooks today tries to assume the mantle of objectivity about the conduct of the war in Iraq, but soon slips into his accustomed role as the Bush administration’s unctuous Ganymede with this quote:

“…a bewildered newcomer to the Bush administration interrupted an interview to ask me why I thought there was such a big difference between the probing and realistic President Bush he would see in the Oval Office, and the pat and repetitive Bush he would see at press conferences and on TV.”

Well gosh!

I don’t believe the anonymous staffer’s posture of naiveté, nor do I swallow Mr. Brooks’ uncritical acceptance of it. Moreover, though it’s taken five years, we’ve now seen enough instances of President Bush forced off-message by substantive questions to know that his is not what you would call a nimble intellect. The GOP’s message, that the president is a closet genius with an Eisenhower’s grasp of the war, is now laughably at odds with Mr. Bush’s observed performance in the conduct of the war and his explanations of that performance to the American people. Valiantly as he may try, Mr. Brooks can no longer rescue the president’s reputation with a judiciously chosen blind quote.

Which leads me back to my original question. Is this Mr. Brooks’ way of holding the powerful accountable? Is this afflicting the comfortable? Is the role of a journalist–even an op-ed columnist–to blandly dispense administration talking points? To be sure the left has its partisans on the op-ed page of the Times, but it seems to me they hold Democrats’ feet to the fire with far more regularity than their right-wing counterparts do to Republican officials. No one was tougher on Bill Clinton than Maureen Dowd, to cite but one example. How much misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance does it take before Mr. Brooks’ dewy-eyed billets-doux to the GOP are moved from the op-ed page to a lonely hearts column?

Sincerely,

Robert J. Howe
Brooklyn, New York