SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The New York Times is a Dirty, Dirty Paper

JONATHAN CHAIT MAY 30, 2011

The New York Times is a Dirty, Dirty Paper

BY ISAAC CHOTINER

[Guest post by Isaac Chotiner]

In his seemingly endless quest to write about the most trivial and minor subjects imaginable, The New York Times' "public editor," Arthur Brisbane, penned a column yesterday on filth. According to Brisbane, 'The culture is headed for the curb, and The New York Times is on the story." What Brisbane means is that society is going to the dogs, and his beloved newspaper is following along. Now, you might say to yourself that of all the problems that ail this fine newspaper, a preponderance of sex-drenched, vulgar reporting is not near the top of the list. But according to Brisbane, who from the tone of his writing appears to be over 200 years of age, people these days are just plain uncultured and rude. 

It's a challenge for The Times to preserve its dignified brand as it undertakes to cover the world as we have come to know it: high, low and, at times, suffused with vulgarity.

After huffing and puffing about the salacious coverage of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Brisbane turns his attention to an article about a certain "unspeakable word" that was the subject of an essay in the New York Times Magazine (the word is four letters and starts with a C). Brisbane thinks this essay, which never used the word, violated the paper's standards. (His pompous phrase for the piece is that it represented "loitering at the edge of propriety.") Next on Brisbane's list is a memoir by Jon-Jon Goulian, which received reviews in both the Sunday edition and the daily paper. Brisbane's objection to this appears to boil down to the fact that Goulian wears women's clothes. Really, that's it. As Brisbane writes:

But the ubiquitous Jon-Jon is symbolic, I think, of the strong tug on The Times and other mainstream news media to follow society, sometimes eagerly, to its fringes.

Brisbane concludes with this:

My preference would be to see more restraint. True, other media are indulging in questionable journalism, and it is difficult to resist the downward revision of standards. But The Times could just as easily pull back, recognizing that its readers don’t need and aren’t relying on it to chronicle these badlands. Other news outlets are more than willing to go there.

That's right: the Times should ignore the "badlands" of cross-dressers, of words that make Brisbane sweat, and of stories about, say, the head of arguably the most important financial institution in the world possibly committing sexual assault. The real question is why Brisbane continues to write for the paper when he could be monitoring playground language at his local public school.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 14 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

14 comments

I was wondering why my web browser gave me an "untrusted connection" warning this morning when logging on to the NYT's site. Now I know, Firefox's filth filter saved the day.

- SarabandeG

May 30, 2011 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For someone so concerned about language, Brisbane seems unclear on the meaning of "symbolic"; he probably means "the ubiquitous Jon-Jon is emblematic, I think, of a strong tug on the Times . . ." And, worse, when I read that sentence I keep thinking of a strong tug on the Thames, but that's another story.

- ironyroad

May 30, 2011 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see this as yet another indication that our culture is becoming more and more perfectionistic. And less and less tolerant (or even aware) of distinctions. Thus talking about the 'c' word is THE SAME AS saying the 'c' word, which is THE SAME AS complete vulgarity. For me, these are serious distinctions, that we begin paving over at our own risk. Of COURSE the culture is going to the dogs, if you perceive the least step in that direction as a huge leap. But that's not a problem with the culture, that's a problem in your own head.

- AllanL5

May 30, 2011 at 7:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh God, maybe I'm just getting old - but I completely agree with the man.

- WandreyCer

May 30, 2011 at 7:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Happy Memorial Day, Isaac, and thanks for the holiday laughs. I didn't know that you were 200 or more, W. And A, remember, only nutters constantly write in caps.

- liberalref

May 30, 2011 at 9:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm with Wandrey. Publications and media outlets that delight in pushing the envelope, breaking the rules, joining popular culture in a race to the bottom, are two a penny. We might hope that the NY Times, the paper of record, would attempt to distinguish itself from the herd by exercising a modicum of restraint and good taste.

- robertgorton

May 30, 2011 at 10:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hilarious. But suggesting that Brisbane is "over 200 years of age" is unfair to our ancestors. The Elizabethans, to take one example, were a rowdy bunch and enjoyed their bawdy humor. Brisbane isn't behind the times. The pompous moralizer is a familiar type in all ages.

- stevedwight

May 30, 2011 at 10:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

libref: nothing wrong with using caps selectively for emphasis, when italics and bolding are unavailable R: I agree in principle--the problem is, none of the examples Brisbane comes up with are emblematic of a race to the bottom. Strauss-Kahn's apparent crime is a real story, and can't be ignored. I presume the NYT's coverage of it is not salacious. The so-called c-word and cross-dressing are both real phenomena, and frankly, and writing about them is fine, as long as the content is intelligent and in some way useful. ...Also, frankly, we're well past the point where there's anything much shocking about cross-dressing. Hell, Guliani (spelling?) allowed video of him to be shot in drag while in office as mayor of the relevant newspaper's home town.

- Curran1

May 30, 2011 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think that the Times' obsessive coverage of the Strauss-Kahn case is borderline tacky. As is its discussion of the whatever it is word. And for those who may ask, if you don't know what tacky is, there's no sense talkin' about it. I like many aspects of our adversarial criminal justice system, but one of its failings in application is that the notion of innocent until proven guilty frequently goes out the window because of pre-trial publicity. In this case, all that we know is that someone has accused S-K of attempted rape and forced oral sex, and that a possible defense is that even if DNA can prove that there was oral sex it was consensual. Once that is on the table, the noise should stop -- all journalistic judgment about S-K should be held in abeyance until the trial or other outcome of the case. One of the great aspects of our justice system is that the most humble person may accuse the rich and powerful and have a day in court. The other side of that is that even the rich and powerful are entitled to a fair trial and all that goes with it. If the Times really cares about justice, it would stop writing about S-K since it is busily creating an atmosphere in which it is impossible for S-K to get a fair trial.

- PeteBeck

May 31, 2011 at 2:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Curran - the problem with the "C" word and cross-dressing stories is that they were hackneyed and tired, they could have been lifted whole cloth from anything written about those topics in the 1970's. Perhaps there is a place for these topics to be re-visited. But that's an editorial decision I'm OK with disagreeing with. I prefer to read about topical issues. For example, the NYT coverage of the Arab Spring and how it plays out at a personal level is much more useful for readers that some hokey story about the C word. Perhaps I'm being pedantic. But I do look to the NYT for sophisticated analysis and up to date socio-cultural analysis that I simply can't find anywhere else.

- WandreyCer

May 31, 2011 at 8:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(Presently company excepted of course JC).

- WandreyCer

May 31, 2011 at 8:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pardon: Presently = present.

- WandreyCer

May 31, 2011 at 8:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Occasional caps, of course, C, but the constant use of caps revels a feverish, apocalyptic mind. In the cave days when typewriters were ubiquitous, I recall a column by James Jackson Kilpatrick about correspondents writing him, using all caps or typing using the red ribbon on the typewriter.

- liberalref

May 31, 2011 at 9:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would counter that he is well-suited for his position! Becuase who reads these "Public Editor" columns aside from those officious scolds who write in to complain about such nonsense...the nit-pickers and middle-aged English teachers... Perfect for someone whose writing has the dusty patina of a man 2 centuries old! Please, TNR, let them alone...allow them their corner of high dudgeon. They NEED it to feel complete.

- Tilghman79

May 31, 2011 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close