Sometimes we who are not invited to C-Span panels on the "Future of the New York Times" with Dean Baquet and Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. wonder why in the world certain Very Bad Writers continue to enjoy the bounty and favor and institutional protection that comes with a job-for-life on the the New York Times op-ed page.
And then, sometimes in the middle of answering a discussion about "branding" (summary: Doesn't the NYT risk writers building their own brand while in the climate-controlled, fertilizer-rich Times' greenhouse and then taking their brand and moving on to better things once they're big enough to make it on their own?) they answer that question (audio only and not embeddable so I'm not sure who is saying what -- jump to the 1:26:30 mark):
Well and it also works both ways.Mmm-mmmIt is when a Tom Friedman writes a best-selling book it lends authority to his columns on the New York Times editorial page.Or David Brooks!Great. Right. First...number one on best-seller list.
Dean Baquet and Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. never wonder why certain Very Bad Writers continue to enjoy the bounty and favor and institutional protection of their newspaper, because very formation of such a question would be incomprehensible to them. To them, Brooks and Friedman are "authority cows", who consistently generate a positive flow of credibility into the Times in the same way a "cash cow" consistently generates profit.
Cocooned by money and privilege and a wholly self-referential system which tells them how righteous they are, our media overlords simply do not live in the same world as the rest of us.
And they never will.