nice
Neighbors are people we practice doing life with.” “I don’t fix people’s problems; I let them unfold. I respect the mystery of healing.”
1
That's all very well, David, but meanwhile there's that picture of the dying baby on the front page and the fact that Mnuchin's father has paid $91 million for a stainless steel rabbit. That picture of the baby will keep haunting me, while Mnuchin's rationale for purchasing that monstrosity is incomprehensible. I am no longer expecting anything to make sense. The worst thing that has happened in my life was that my daughter, who was very sick, took her own life. That keeps haunting me too, but I also feel that maybe it's better that she remained unaware of all this insanity.
29
What an assumption, Mr. Brooks! You claim that people who consume a lot of media tend to be depressed. First of all, you don't identify what media are being consumed. If you watch Fox News, that is most likely all you watch and, yes, it's depressing because it is false news. On the other end of the spectrum, readers of the NYT and other real outlets give one hope: they have identified that we are in a crisis, and continue to document the heinous misdeeds of this particular administration. That reporting give me hope and no way I am caving yet. The free press isn't supposed to be a palliative, it's supposed to deliver as much truth as can be sourced.
23
Mr. Brooks, I commend your desire -- and your efforts -- to weave together the rents in out nation's social fabric, but I think you err in wishing to commingle your two careers. As a journalist you ferret out what is disjunctive in the continuum of social behavior. Isn't that what is meant by "news"? As a communitarian, you identify and hope to strengthen the human instinct for empathy. To ask of yourself and your fellow journalists that this effort be treated as "news" would seem to characterize instances of social bonding as unusual. Placing human kindness under a headline in a news publication illuminates it as a bit of strangeness, a declaration that this sort of behavior is a newsworthy exception to the normal grifting, lying, selfish ethos of the human condition.
Newspeople need to keep ferreting out what is wrong. Others, poets perhaps, need to tell us what is wight.
15
I guess I find Brooks to be one of those people who are always weaving fairytales He seems to think there is one solution and it’s an easy one which always involve talking talking talking.
I am sure he once went on about using a cloth bag once and how wonderful that was but we mustn’t be too radical and insist on zero plastic. I’m sure he poohed poohed those hysterical radicals who said plastic would fill up the oceans and eventually kill the animals inhabiting the oceans. I am sure he felt himself to be very objective and very reasonable.
I am sure he will have some reasoning over why it’s okay for the oceans to be all plasticy with dead marine life or does he just laments over how it came to be, wringing his hands futilely? I’m sure the Weavers do great work but I’m pretty sure they won’t fix the great socioeconomic divide. Sorry, I should say political divide, so as not to offend David.
9
Thanks, Mr Brooks for bringing us a story about Americans leading by example.
4
I am absolutely certain that there were many thousands of “weavers”. in Germany in 1939. That, however, was not the big story.
22
journalists are supposed to report on facts, unbiased. I always read the opinion pieces for an analysis of events and stories not contained in the news. there are hundreds, if not thousands of think tanks and ngos which suggest policies and new ways of doing things.
I would like the newspapers to contain more of this type of content.
7
Sounds like Communism to me David! Or worse! A European! We are Americans. We live in desperate isolation programmed to be solely responsible for our own selves. If we don't make it, too bad. Social Darwinism Rules! It is the credo of the Republican party!
Really, come on.
13
The irony, conservative pundit Brooks lecturing to NYT readers about "local social repair and community-building."
Guess what, if governments- federal, state, and local- could raise more revenue by taxing corporations and the obscenely wealthy at more appropriate and historically normal rates, none of this bloviating would be necessary.
Just like we wouldn't need a Sackler wing at the Met, or homophobe David Koch's name appended to the home for the NYC Ballet (oh, the irony, because male dancers are never gay!).
I wonder just who the heck David Brooks' neighbors are, and just who prefers "baddy-baddy" to "goody-goody." I suspect the answer to the latter question is members of Brooks' tribe- those patriotic flag-waving conservative Republicans.
Brooks should listen to the folk music group The Weavers, really listen to the lyrics along with those from other folk musicians, along with the interviews where they talk about social issues and politics. Diametrically opposed to everything his party stand for . . .
11
Nice that Brooks has discovered altruism....
4
.
"Weave the people" ... and wordsmith as we go ...
1
David -- have you dropped by any fair-to-middlin newsroom recently? The reporting staff was decimated years ago, as was the ranks of editors. Journalists still around write online content, which places a premium on summary-style news, usually boiled down to "five takeaways" or "10 things you should know."
It's all about eyes on content, David. There is no market today for stories of liberation, or renaissance, or regeneration, or community. Right now, everything -- literally everything -- is reported through the prism of a meglo-narcissist who knows very little other than how to manipulate the news cycle.
Long ago, when I was a cub reporter, I won internal newsroom prizes for profiles I wrote about a Canadian war vet who donned his old uniform and killed himself on top of his wife's grave, and another about a young boy of five who drowned in a creek behind his house, and when his house painter dad found him, he held his boy's bluish body against his paint-smeared overalls and bawled uncontrollably.
My point was that newspapers used to provide room for such real life stories, the tragic and the hilarious, the brutal and the beautiful. Today, news is driven by events and tweets emanating from Washington. Readers are turned off, editors are jaded, reporters are bitter and looking to change professions.
Poignancy doesn't sell, David. Hate does.
14
Gee. I feel much better now.
3
Gosh, who'd'a thunk it? Black people - they're just like "us"!
You can do better, Mr. Brooks. You must do better. Start with a confession: that you voted for Trump.
8
Good on ya, Mr. Brooks.
3
Regarding this: "People who consume a lot of media of this sort sink into this toxic vortex — alienated from people they don’t know, fearful about the future. They are less mobilized to take action, not more." Actually, people who consume a lot of media know what's going on as opposed to the vast majority who no longer read or simply watch Fox and yes, they are rightly scared as hell about the future. Less mobilized? Explain the more than 5,000 Indivisible groups across the U.S. and record off-year turnout. Alienated from people they don't know? I have met countless numbers of people resisting our slide to fascism whom I would never have encountered otherwise. These "weavers" are doing good work, as good people always have, and should be applauded and covered for it. But this column is fundamentally absurd.
7
As others have observed, the attention paid to politics by the mainstream media is not the problem, Mr. Brooks: the problem (or better, many interwoven problems) has been created and/or amplified by the Republican Party in its utter disregard for the spirit of negotiation and compromise that animated the Founders, and is essential to representative government. There is a profound disconnect between the multiple crises facing the country, from presidential denial of climate change, to the calculated redistribution of wealth upward while tearing greater rents in the social safety net, and the admirable efforts of volunteers to piece together solutions. When you consider the more heinous actions directed at those seeking asylum, or the abandonment of any sense of responsibility for the less fortunate, including those who fell for the grifter's con, or the refusal to consider burdens being passed on to future generations, you're talking new forms of crimes against humanity. The power of a federal government run by aspiring oligarchs and grifters, with no consideration for constitutional values, is far greater than the power of local volunteers to counteract. That is why the responsible news entities focus their attention as they do, even if the impact on individuals is not immediately spelled out. That this apparently has to be pointed out to a veteran journalist, of whatever partisan inclination, is beyond words.
9
Brilliant and inspiring article, thank you. I hope you get heard. This story is among the most read in the NY Times today. I hope that is a sign of hope.
8
The thing is, journalists not only report the news, they also have to sell it. So do they report what people want to hear, or do people only hear what journalists want to report? Maybe part of the problem is bad news is considered news while good news is often treated as infotainment.
Personally I like being informed and use as many mainstream news outlets as I can find. I say mainstream because they're more likely to have to have multiple sources to back up what they report. And when they're all saying the same thing but only one is saying otherwise, I know who to trust.
I also consider it my responsibility to tune out for awhile when it becomes too much. In order to regain my perspective. But my favorite movies are fact based stories that celebrate the human spirit.
2
Yes, we should celebrate those who try to make a difference in life by helping others. But I would ask Mr. Brooks if he has learned anything from his experience with these Weavers which might have him reevaluate the role of government and not the role of journalism. As a result of many Republican practices over the past 30-40 years, many of which he has subscribed to in the past, more and more people are left out of established social networks. Many are feeling abandoned, and indeed, many are. So Mr. Brooks, perhaps it is not so much a revisiting of journalism that will make a difference, but a revisiting of governmental policies that greatly contribute to poverty, racism, and lack of health care.I am glad that you feel good about the Weavers but you might feel better if you began to work to affect change in your Republican party.
12
I agree with David's commentary and can associate it with the show "Sunday Morning". The topics feel like the "weavers" work and I would love to email and thank Mr. Brooks on this opinion piece. How can I do that?
Elise
1
Maybe the weavers should be Ambassadors to all the other countries that we seem to be paranoid about so that we stop spend $730 billion every 12 months on a military .
6
I think you nailed this one. Just today I was listening to public radio and hearing how both NPR and the BBC "lead" their interviewees with worst case scenerio questions, trying to tease out a doomsday prediction from them on almost every topic. When that fails, they revive old bugaboo stories like "dangerous levels of lead" in the soil of the public parks in NYC. Really? It's as if no editorial sanity or integrity governing the discipline of journalism. It's just find something to be horrified over and then thank the reporter for their tough investigation. So which is it: Should we (a) join the media in demonizing the government for lax lead monitoring, or (b)protest the builders of all the new housing units going up on old factory and industrial sites, or (c)demonize the urban gentry class for being able to afford the rents needed to live there and use the lead-tainted city parks? Rather than (d), "all of the above," perhaps we need to write more about what we we see working in our cities and pushback against the constant negativity.
2
A few private citizens attempting to do good cannot possibly overcome all the harm and suffering caused by the Republican party and their leader today. I cannot understand how those people can have no compassion for their fellow humans...unless they are part of the .1 percent.
That said, we should still hear about those good people and respect their efforts.
4
So, in a way, as the 'middle class' struggles more and more, and comes together in order to find ways to 'make ends meet' and cope... what with the stagnant paychecks, and the rising cost of living, and the "two-income household" being the new normal, just to get by; America should thank Republicans.
Republican policies over the last few decades, steering ever more of the economy's growth to the top 1% and above, and eviscerating unions, destroying safety-net programs where possible, limiting funding for public education, and all the other Republican 'pull yourself up by your own shoe laces' government policy decisions -- it has all been done to 'weave' our poor and middle class into new communities. All these Republican policies, while having the incidental side effect of stalling out economic prospects for poor and middle class people, while generating massive increases in wealth at the very top; all of them are -really- about building community! And it's working!
I feel so much better now. Thank you David, for enlightening me.
5
Amazing; a heartfelt commentary on 'weavers' from a champion of the Republican Party, the ultimate 'seam-ripping' force in modern America!
9
There is certainly more going on in the world than the circus in Washington. We have two non profits and if you are depressed about politics you can make something good happen in an area that you have some real control and it will completely outstrip the depression with the good vibes that come from being helpful and getting results that help your community. Cover a few non profits and let people see what can happen when people have the power to accomplish something positive.
1
What the people want from politics and what people get from politics are two very different things. This is why we need a referendum based political system. Instead we have a state of minority rule - thanks to both the Electoral College and the 2 reps per state structure of the Senate. Not to mention the way things are legislated in this country/special interests/corporate interests, and so on. Our country has been designed for the top 5% or so. That's it. The rest of us serve this crowd - it doesn't matter if you are red, purple or blue. Too bad it's not the other way around. When will the wealthy serve those most in need? Instead it is all about more, MORE!
4
Dear Mr. Brooks,
Please don't stop what you are doing. And, don't be discouraged by the criticism you are receiving from some of the comments. I believe it is crucial that we all do whatever we can to mend the social fabric of our nation. As for me, I am looking forward to a time when decency and civility return to Washington. Perhaps if we all hold a vision of that time, it won't be long in coming. Keep the faith.
7
David Brooks, thank you for a lovely and profound op-ed. Reading this piece was one of the best parts of my day, and the comment by the Vietnam Veteran, who was saved by a weaver, is to die for. I hope you can weave more of current events into your narratives: climate change, the sixth extinction, income inequality, and forecasts of a future diminished by overpopulation and pollution. You need to help preserve our environment, if you want to protect all the beautiful weavers.
David Lindsay Jr. is the author of “The Tay Son Rebellion, Historical Fiction of Eighteenth Century Vietnam” and blogs at TheTaySonRebellion.com and InconvenientNews.wordpress.com. He performs a folk concert of songs and stories about Climate Change and the Sixth Extinction.
3
Back in the 1960s, a long-time North Carolina journalist offered this assessment of how he covered the news: 5% of the people make 95% of the news; I cover the 95% of the people who make 5% of the news.
As a result, he produced stunning journalism.
8
bah. the exploration of remedies are the stuff of novels, or maybe elaborate constructions by new journalism.
Journalists fail, corporate media fails we the people but out handsomely for themselves to be part of 1% or 10%.
I only read this paper to find out what they don't report and how they exaggerate and misinform. Yes, they are considered liberal but that is a very far cry from reality. They/you are the 1% working for the 1 percenters.
2
Most of the people I know, Mr. Brooks, a religiously and ethnically and economically diverse group, just want to live decently and see their children do even better. They work hard, and don't really feel that their job market should be destroyed by people who are less qualified to do their job but had an awful home life. They oversee their childrens' schoolwork, work with their teachers, and aren't ready to see their kid lose out on a spot in the college of their choice while someone fresh out of an impossible home life and rehab gets ushered into that spot, complete with therapist and tutors. My grandparents suffered lectures at and after Ellis Island, but were grateful to have a chance to educate the kids and learn English and become citizens. How about we stop listening to interviews with yet another Muslim congresswoman complaining about YouTube videos of a little girl in New Jersey whose head scarf was tugged? And we listen to incomprehensible nonsense from the leaders of the Democratic party who think its just swell that the would be dumpster bomber from Pakistan had 60 plus relatives enter America in our system of family reunification? And we can't get the leadership of the Democratic party to support a merit based immigration system? Our problem is rapidly becoming not a lack of compassion, but a feeling by those who actually work and support their society that they are no longer appreciated. Despised, even. How long can America afford that?
6
I called my neighbor to affirm her as one of our town's weavers. She does so much to encourage us to get to know one another and to work together to address concerns. Affirmation is an important ingredient in the solution.
2
David, you are right... But still you are not highlighting those columnists that do point out the problem and then show solutions. Let me guide you over to Tom Friedman's recent column in the NYT. It does just what you are intending; show a problem, demonstrate one solution.
Another good read I recommend is the newsletter and column "The Interpreter", another NYT source. Rather than just giving opinions and policies, they delve into social science and learned analysis of difficulties in the world.
You are right, but in so stating you also need to highlight publications that go deeper into cause and solutions. Since losing the uniformity of the Big Three networks for news, sources are disparate and focus on more sensationalist articles. I think there are lots of alternatives that are fairly easy to rely upon. Oh, and don't forget the Newshour on PBS...
4
This is so heartwarming...I wonder if in other authoritarian states if they have groups like this, I bet they do. I bet there are grounds in Putin's Russia that get together and talk about how problems should be addressed. Supporters of that authoritarian regime, like Brooks in his support of our dictator, can just laugh at the powerless people that dream about a country where opponents of the regime are not killed or imprisoned. It must make authoritarian supporters like Brook happy to think that you can have the illusion of democracy and then still ram your brutal policies down the throats of the majority. OK, now that my heart is warmed I have to pack, Im moving to Asia to get healthcare that wont be taken away by Mr. Brooks friends.
6
The relationship between Mr. Brooks and weaving?
Mr. Brooks owns a sweater with an Aspen logo on it, and with heraldic figures representing his class, sponsors, oversight and control, and he has a nice Jeff Koons metal bunny pin on there to represent power so buying up and controlling what art should become according to its own taste that nothing else can get through except that ugliness, entire decline of imagination, but what gets Brooks attention at the moment is that the weave at the base of his sweater, below the navel, is becoming undone.
Of course the weave at the base of his sweater is representative of the commoners, those who must know their place, who if coming undone are not being undone in any sense by what comes from above them on the sweater but are undone from below or from some reason which has nothing to do with rest of sweater. And if they are to be woven back together it's according to dictate of over all and already in place sweater design, and they are to be woven together only amongst themselves, must never presume to confuse themselves with the weave of sweater above the navel.
I would wager, and from having read Brooks and knowing nothing of his weave party, that his weave meeting was thick with Christianity, and with all the little solutions to "hold the little people together" which are similarly found in the military, corporations, and that nothing much will come of it. "Oh, Jeff Koons, can you make me a sweater which looks good and fits?"
7
What if I said that commenters from California, NYC and DC trend to be "Danny Downers", almost always pointing out the--yes--big problems with Trump and company, but also ignoring the rest of life's possibilities. And, people in between the 2 coasts tend to live their lives viewing politics and scoundrels as only part of what the world has to offer. So, you "coasters" are up-to-date on the slime, scandals and sensations of the world. I am,too. But, those of us in The Middle recognize that seething over the mess in DC (NOT only by Republicans) should not over-shadow recognizing the people and activities that make life rewarding and, sometimes, even fun! Quit giving yourselves ulcers and heart attacks. Attack the problems, but add a big dose of "the rest of life" to your own lives. There is much more to living than stomping on the miscreant in the White House. That's a little preachy, but it's always how I feel when reading comments in the NYT.
3
CORRECTION: "ashamed"
Jill Mack, my Dad was born in Los Angeles in 1921, and I was born in the same city in 1947. You seem to be saying that I should be ashamed of my Angeleno heritage. Am I correct in this assessment of your post?
@jill mack, my Dad was born in Los Angeles in 1921. I was born in the same city in 1947. You seem to be saying that I should be ahamed of my Angeleno heritage. Am I correct in this assessment of your post?
All the comments impugning Brooks because he is a conservative are irrelevant to what he is doing with Weave. It is disheartening that we cannot put politics aside and agree that investing our time to create stronger communities is not a political endeavor. Rather, it is an investment in relationships. Conservative, liberal, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, democrat, republican--it's all the same. We are people helping people. People investing in relationships. Relationships bolstering communities. And in return, communities bolstering people. This is not a political issue. Give Brooks a break! And maybe even some encouragement...
6
George HW Bush had a term for these people. He called them "points of light." They are doing wonderful work. Yet somehow the image that comes to mind when I read David Brooks' thoughts on this subject is Kevin Bacon's character at the end of "Animal House," yelling "Remain calm, all is well!" even as a stampede of people flatten him.
We should always hold up the work of the weavers. But their good work shouldn't blind us to the change that's happening around us. The big story, David, is actually the one we HAVE been reading about. American society is balkanized, a situation that is both cultural and political. Trump didn't invent this situation; he exploited it. To Yeats' prophetic words, "the center cannot hold," we might add that the weavers cannot mend all the ripping seams. They are more like dike-pluggers trying to hold back a relentless, rising tide. We wish that weren't the big story, but it is, and we can't wish it away by pretending that the weavers are the real story.
129
@Katz
To perhaps extend Brooks' point, the weavers could be the big story, or at least a bigger story, if the media chose to make it so. Whether it's CNN, FOX or our dying local paper we see conscious choices made every day by the press to cover the negative, the titillating, the outrageous, almost the tabloid events, rather than seeking out the far more important events in the community that empower, connect and enlighten us. The choice is made daily and cynically and largely based on a perception of what will "sell". We need less less Sarah Sanders, less Ocasio-Cortez and a lot more weavers.
16
@Mike Z
Journalism is a business, so "what sells" is pretty important. There haven't been any successful publications that I'm aware of that only publish uplifting stories. I'm not saying that the mix of stories covered couldn't be improved, with more positive things being covered in greater depth, but human nature is what it is and the news sources we see are catering to that.
4
“We’re trying to do something that has never been done before. We’re trying to create the earth’s first mass, multicultural democratic republic.”
Hello? There's this place called India...
1
I have a mixed reaction to David Brooks’s recent pieces.
He’s sharing some honest awakenings, I can appreciate that. But his gee whiz, look what I’ve learned about how being generous is good for all of us, well, smacks of his privilege and just sounds dumb.
10
On occasion I read a comment I feel is worth reposting so that newer readers will see it. The following is by Concord63 from Oregon. It is a refreshing change from all those commenters who trash Brooks without regard to the substance of his current columns.
"When I came home from Viet Nam I was totally lost. I spent several years alone, depressed, well on my way to a welcomed early grave. That changed when I stumbled upon a weaver. He was a WWI veteran, sociology professor. He wrote a note to me on a test I had failed instructing me to meet him in his office for an "Office Hour" right after class. I did. I went to his office expecting the same old pep talk well intended people give to problem veterans. It wasn't.
It took hours. He shared his veterans story with me. He went deep. I couldn't hold back the tears. I had been discovered. There was no more hiding. He could identify with what I was feeling, or more like what I wasn't feeling. It turned out he had walked my path for many years after WWI. The only difference was he figured a way out. It was simple. Weave, and keep weaving by helping others and never stop.
During that office hour he developed a book list for me to read. A spiritualist for me to visit. And, a list of life goals. I read the books, twelve of them. Counseled with the spiritualist several times. And, completed the life goals list, within ten years. I still have the list.
I still weave. This is a great topic Mr. Brooks. Thank you. Keep weaving."
12
There are far too many people who believe with all their soul that government is the answer to all of society's problems.
The angry comments in response to Brook's piece mostly come from those people.
2
I have worked as a professional in the nonprofit sector for my entire career. The Aspen Institute website is a perfect example of the opacity by which this nonprofit "think tank"- (read playground and profit center for the glitterati and those tired of their former careers as journalists and CEO's, but not opposed to making a few more bucks) blatantly thumb their noses at the rest of us fools who merely want to make a living and do no harm to others. There is no accessible financial information whatsoever about this organization - budget, salaries, income, donations, all MIA. Why? I smell some deep doo-doo in the woo-woo.
Without such organizational transparency, I am not reserving any space in my personal hall of fame for any of their ilk, nor their silly, self-serving worldviews.
7
I would venture to say the bad news reported on - the destruction of our constitutional republic, for example - is also "what's really going on," and is arguably a bigger story than these points of light, uplifting as they are.
9
I am reading many comments against David Brooks here. True, he is a conservative commentator but, I have seen in the last 4 years his comments do NOT condone the antics of the Republican Party. He does not condone the Trump White Houses’s policies and has to my ear become much more centered, not right at all.
I think it is fair to blame the Republicans for many of the ongoing problems stated here but not because of David Brooks. It certainly looks like he wants to mend not tatter our fragile American values. .
3
It has struck me that this movement is akin to the recycling movement or other environmental movements. We are told constantly to recycle, use less electricity and use fewer fossil fuels, while major corporations are the ones destroying the planet and do little to help the planet. The Republicans are destroying America, yet we are the ones who are supposed to weave communities.
13
Thoughtful commentary, full of the idealism we should all try to emulate. Unfortunately, as I read Mr. Brooks' last question:
"How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics and 10 percent of our coverage on the 90 percent of our lives influenced by relationship, community and the places we live in every day?"
the first answer that popped into my head was the old media adage of, "If it bleeds, it leads." That over-reported 10% to which Mr. Brooks alludes sells more copy than the feel good stories that just cannot get any airtime in a country that can elect the likes of Donald Trump as its "leader."
3
Thoughtful commentary, full of the idealism we should all try to emulate. Unfortunately, as I read Mr. Brooks' last question:
"How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics and 10 percent of our coverage on the 90 percent of our lives influenced by relationship, community and the places we live in every day?"
the first answer that popped into my head was the old media adage of, "If it bleeds, it leads." That over-reported 10% to which Mr. Brooks alludes sells more copy than the feel good stories that just cannot get any airtime in a country that can elect the likes of Donald Trump as its "leader."
"Journalists don’t always cover what’s really going on."
During a Google search in 2005 on a 1956 essay in Encounter by Dwight Macdonald, I discovered the forty-year archive (1948-1988)
http://www.manasjournal.org/
of the one publication that, to my ongoing astonishment, comes closer than any other in my experience to fulfilling the desiderata outlined by Mr. Brooks above.
It was called MANAS (Sanskrit for "mind"), and over eight closely-printed pages 44 times yearly, it served as a sort of Whole Earth Catalog/Reader's Digest/Utne Reader to all manner of humanist, organic, and wholistic thinking, taking in its compass both high philosophy and copious reports of local community actions worldwide that made a practical. constructive difference in the lives of their participants. Among the hundreds of thinkers whose ideas found regular favor within were Hannah Arendt, William Blake, Wendell Berry, Erich Fromm, Mohandas Gandhi, Abraham Maslow, Jose Ortega y Gasset, Henry David Thoreau, Leo Tolstoy.
Fittingly, the editor, Henry Geiger (c. 1908-1989), a Los Angeles Indophile/Platonist/Theosophist commercial printer and WWII conscientious objector possessed of staggering nineteenth-centurylike bookish learning - he seemed to have read everything - never once mentioned his name or that of his collaborators, save when required annually - it was always the ideas and inspiration, and they alone, that mattered.
Those among you so inclined are in for a treat.
3
@Scott Lahti Sounds interesting. Will bookmark it.
A few days ago, the Times published a lengthy article about a longitudinal study of a thousand or so monkeys on an island, by biologists and neurologists. Supposedly, post mortem examination of the brains of a subset of those monkeys, combined with analyses of their behavior before and after hurricane Maria will reveal something worth knowing about the effects of traumatic events on humans. Supposedly.
With apologies to E.O. Wilson, I find that about as probable and worthy of investment as Mr. Brooks and the Weavers showing us the way to a kinder, gentler society. It seems that bread and circuses are not the only opiates being offered the masses these days. Although they might be more nourishing of our souls and less expensive than this nonsense.
1
David Brooks's ideas are rooted in some nostalgic spiritualistic universe. Humans live in a Darwinian biological universe. Our species is a couple hundred thousand years old. For 90% of the time, we lived in small hunting bands. During that time we evolved to form close bonds with a small group of people.
About 10,000 years ago we developed agriculture and herding. This allowed people to live in larger groups. Living in larger groups requires people to expand theirs in group. What we need is a government that facilitates that. That surely is not Mr. Brooks's Republican Party who do not want government to support its citizens.
Mr. Brooks should support governments that support all of our people so that they can live together. The Republican idea of rugged individualist fighting for superiority is dated in our modern society. Those wonderful people that David discusses our heroes but they need public support.
When David Brooks finally realizes that the Republican Party is against those people he will arrive at the conclusion that it's time to become a socialist for at least a democratic socialist so that all of us can live together
6
Journalism performs a critical function in democracy. Without a pool of inquisitive, dogged, bright and resourceful individuals to dig and report truthfully, completely and consistently to Americans there will be darkness. The “I” in journalism is investigative and requires an impeccable sense of morality. Does anyone know of a current Woodward and Bernstein?
3
@Marie Walsh It certainly isn't David Brooks. I stopped at "report truthfully."
1
I do wish readers, when commenting about or recommending a comment regarding a Brooks column actually commented on what Brooks says, rather than what he may (or may not) have said in the past or what they believe he may (or may not) have stood for in the past.
OK, I know, I'm doing you-know-what into the wind, as Brooks' columns, like much of life these days, is one big Rorschach blot.
4
Mr. Brooks, you ask, "How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics and 10 percent of our coverage on the 90 percent of our lives influenced by relationship, community and the places we live in every day?"
The answer is not hard. It is because people such as yourself engage in False Equivalence where you refuse to strongly condemn the politics that in fact influences in very negative ways more like 90 percent than 10 percent of the lives of people who are, unlike you, not privileged. Until you do, you are part of the problem, no matter how much fantasy you attempt to weave.
7
How did those in your business get to this spot? Because most of the people in your business have comfortable lives and don't have to deal with the things the weavers deal with. They have excess time to talk about things like politics. Being comfortable, "social change agents" aren't high on their list of concerns. The percentages you use may just reflect the percentages of those in your business who really, truly care about other people.
2
Mr. Brooks needs to read a few weekly newspapers from small town America. That's about all they report: weaving. How the community is operating. What is being done to improve citizen's lives. Why we love being "here" and what we are doing to keep it that way in a wholesome manner.
Our town has recently seen an influx of young folks; some attracted by marijuana grow operations. Tired of trimming they are becoming entrepreneurial so new businesses are springing up. Some have agitated for high speed internet and we are getting it. Some agitated for a raw water system for gardens and lawns; we got it. A couple of retirees, working with some younger folks, got us designated as a Dark Sky Community. We have new commercial bakeries born from interns working at a local organic farm.
Sure there are still problems but we have a lot of good stuff going on to balance it. Plenty of weavers, good food, good music and a place to dance. Couple that with an amazing landscape.......
And in our weekly, the back page is devoted to youth with some of the most endearing photos you'd ever want to see. It's my favorite page.
5
There is just such overwhelming rawness and rudeness dispensed with total disregard for the truth coming from heretofore the most powerful, respected and visible public office in the world, supported, corroborated and enabled by certain influential media outlets. It is hardly surprising those scrappy voices for positive change go mostly unheard and unreported. In spite of a handful of truly remarkable and resilient Americans fighting for positive change, no media is reporting that America is a kinder, gentler and more empathetic place because it has become quite the opposite. Donald Trump, congressional Republicans, conservative media and a Russian invasion of social media have succeeded in diminishing the factual media, while pushing an agenda of hate and a fear of creeping multiculturalism in white, Christian America. Trump and fringe hate groups stoke this fear.
7
This passage from your column is IT!
“People who consume a lot of media of this sort sink into this toxic vortex — alienated from people they don’t know, fearful about the future. They are less mobilized to take action, not more.”
It inspires me to do something..anything.. to turn my anxiety into hope.
2
People should look in the mirror before they complain about its adherence to the "if it bleeds, it leads" modus operandi. After all, if people didn't read or click on those articles, media wouldn't run them because the advertisers follow the eyeballs.
If you don't like the way any business runs, organize a boycott of it or, in the case of businesses such as Limbaugh's and Hannity's, organize boycotts of their advertisers. You need to speak in a language they understand, which is money, not Times comments.
2
"All politics is local."
--Tip O'Neil
What people do in their local communities to effect government, solve problems, and go about the business of supporting one another, is boring and not sensational when compared to the polarized drivel and manufactured drama of our national politics. Washington is now coddled by its full embrace of legalized bribery (top agenda item everyday: raise money, dark, light, clean, dirty), tyranny of the minority (Republicans with outsized, gerrymandered influence and new mafioso methods), and complete disregard for solving any problems of society, personhood, or state. The campaign of Pete Buttigieg notwithstanding, just about no one on the national scene gives a rats about breaking the growing national fever over division and morality. Republicans continue to ram through extreme everything, unrelated to any problem any citizen might see in society, while Democrats meekly try to go about solving percieved problems here and there, having not gotten big money's memo to stick to the polarizing drama.
3
I wanted to look up the financials on the Aspen Institute, but that knowledge on a tax-exempt organization, for many years available free of charge, now costs a taxpayer $125 to acquire.
And that, more than Mr. Brooks' article, tells you whither goes our country.
There is nobody at the wheel, we are in the back seat and the doors are firmly locked. But please enjoy the scenery.
5
I'm not sure that the 90% vs. the 10% is likely to change or even should change. There would be something decidedly wrong about minimizing the impact of what journalists cover that assaults us every day for its unprecedented threat to the core of who we are as people and as a nation. News in the Trump Era is daily bludgeoning of our VALUES, which define who we are, how we interact with our individual small worlds, and collectively as a nation. We've not had to deal with this personally or nationally on a daily - often hourly - basis in such a constant and unrelenting way. We're deliberately roiled about highly volatile issues; it's the bedrock of internet trolls, and it seems also to be work (with less finesse) of our government, tooled, tweaked, replenished, and propagated by infantile team picks to assure attention isn't paid to what the foxes are doing TO and IN our hen house.
THE most corrosive consequence to We The People who read and hear legitimate news is a sense of dread that our reaction to what journalists report is ridiculous! We argue with ourselves daily: 'This isn't the Third Reich, it's America! What happened there can't happen here!' Try as we do to dismiss our silliness, we know it's not silly. Were racing through Germany of the '20s, into the rise of tyranny in the '30s, and galloping to the horror of the '40s.
At least 60% of US adults feel overwhelmed by the news every day and don't speak of it. We're NOT imagining this gallop toward horror.
3
Thanks David. I read a piece about a fellow that wrote articles but who never read the comments. He felt as if reading the comments would be a distraction. Instead his wife read them and summarized what she thought they were saying. Her comments informed his future articles. So you may not read this. Either way, it seems like you are speaking of evolution. The humans that find solutions will be the humans that outcompete the humans that do not. Infighting is less likely to lead to evolution of our species than cooperation. Or so it appears to me.
Mr. Brooks has a larger platform than Tom Paine,lives in a world with greater stakes ,and always comes with the same solutions.Smaller government notions sans good judgement.
Mr. Brooks is thinking wishfully. There are outcomes and processes. Good outcomes are indeed reported, whether someone rescues someone from a fire or saves a drowning child or raises funds for a cause or wins an award. The process of getting there is usually the stuff of books or long magazine articles. No sense in reporting the process unless the outcome is known to be good: the justified skepticism of snake oil. Bad things must be reported not only after the outcomes but also before so we can do something about avoiding it. Human beings are risk averse and avoiding bad things is much more important than getting things exactly right. I want to know if there is a robbery in my neighborhood more than the fact that a kid rescued a dog. I want to know if a new rule endangers my stock holding more than a rule one that makes social security safe after the year 2030. That is just the information we seek, and we are willing to pay for.
While I applaud Brooks' effort to focus on positive ways people are making change, he is wrong when he writes, "A lot of what we do in our business is expose error, cover problems and identify conflict." To be correct, it ought to read, "A lot of what we should do in our business is expose error, cover problems and identify conflict in perspective."
Though not new, the phrase, "if it bleeds, it leads", in the age of 24/7 news is more apt than ever, as each "news" source, especially those online, compete for eyeballs and clicks. Yes, error, problems, and conflict are covered, but often exaggerated far out of proportion to their actual import. Worse, the media now often promotes conflict in order to get attention, to be the first with the most annoying.
The paradigm certainly isn't new. Just go back to the Hearst papers encouraging a Spanish-American War over a century ago. However, the immediacy of the internet has created expectations in most people that they actually NEED to know everything NOW. And, of course they don't. But, whereas a generation ago if someone killed their four children in Kansas, it might make page seventeen of a New York paper five days later, often not making the "evening news" at all, today all the most disgusting gore is immediately aggregated and immediately fed to the billions of online consumers, amplified by the echo-chamber effect of (anti-)social media.
Though I have often disagreed with him, Brooks is a thoughtful man worthy of engagement.
1
"How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics and 10 percent of our coverage on the 90 percent of our lives influenced by relationship, community and the places we live in every day?"
Because you are guided by the for profit motive!
1
@Kelly As a former reporter, I can tell you that the average newspaper worker does not think about the profit motive, really ever. Selling papers by writing good or catchy stories, sure, but not how that leads to profits.
Agreed: the decaying social fabric of the U.S.--and efforts to repair it--should be a major topic of the mainstream media. But it isn't. They are way to fixated on Trump, nearly 24-7. Major disappointment: PBS Frontline. In the past, they have done incisive documentaries on American life, but lately have been fixated on Trump, Mueller, foreign affairs. What is happening to the middle class, bedrock of social life in most communities, is ignored. It is this sort of elite blindness that led to the election of Donald Trump.
1
Well put David. Without human connection we shrivel up and die figuratively and literally.. Even introversion simply references an energy source NOT the desire to CONNECT with others. Additionally, when connecting, can't we get in a frame of mind that good news and serenity rather than bad news and anger are profitable?
3
True. And we do not read nor hear of the nation-wide efforts to overturn the 2010 SCOTUS ruling Citizens United - making corporations people and their money free speech - yet 19 states have passed resolutions from grass roots movements on up in Move to Amend to do just this. Without sustained efforts we will continue as a borderless nation when it comes to foreign money influencing our elections. Yes - one of the most important grass roots movements - I have been a part of - with a referendum of bipartisan support - and we hear nothing! If you want to find out where the true common ground is in America - talk about support for getting money out of our elections. Corporate America is keeping this silent. Yes - talk it up David!
7
Thanks David Brooks for another interesting column. It may not be “mad as hell” but comes to interesting points from a different perspective. I enjoy that. And, yes, I am royally pissed off and scared too.
1
"Journalists don’t always cover what’s really going on."
Indeed. David refuses to acknowledge that his party is doing irreparable damage to our democracy and the wellbeing of the nation. That has no bearing on us? David's Republican Senate has abandoned its Constitutional oversight duty. The Constitutional free press stands between America and the precipice. Some days Speaker Pelosi and the free press are the only thing we the American people have left that is still on our side.
For instance: Yesterday Alabama makes abortion illegal even after rape or incest (in their own words "god's miracle"). Texas calls abortion homicide and considers whether women who have abortions should be eligible for the death penalty. Those and other states make abortion illegal at 6 weeks when most women don't even know they are pregnant. 40% of American women will get an abortion at some point in their lives. That has no bearing on us? That isn't a big story?
7
Our anger at and frustration with national politics is at such a height that it blots out all of the successful organizations that communities are creating at the very local, daily level to help each other improve lives. Reminding people of the agency that they do have to create positive outcomes in their daily lives is so important. Change comes only through action at every level of our lives. Thank you for that reminder, David Brooks.
1
I like Mr. Brooks and continue to read his thoughtfully written columns. Now (of course) here is the criticism: he has "made" it: writing for NYT, appearing on NPR, writing books, etc. So now he has had an epiphany. All this success doesn't bring happiness. Now comes the touchy-feely, softer side. Now comes news of people who have turned lemons into lemonade. That's great! We need more uplifting news, but we also need the basics: healthcare for all, affordable traditional and trade education, just to start. America is falling behind because when you lack the basics no amount of lemonade will help you.
7
This is a country that destroys its men in family court. A country that severely handicaps the youth with onerous student loans. And a country that burdens families that need two wage earners with zero support for childcare. And where medical insurance costs more than most wage earners gross income. This is a country that eats you up and spits you out.
AMEN, Michael L!: "Brooks talks about “people who weave social fabric” but he won’t talk about how his cohort of conservatives has spent decades constructing a Machiavellian master plan to rip the social fabric to shreds. Brooks is either naïve or a tool of the Right who seeks to distrct from real causes of our social ills by talking up little success stories – efforts that are acts of desperation because his conservatives have gutted our cmmunitis in the 1stplace.
In other words Brooks will praise the efforts of survivors of a broken system – but he won’t talk about those who broke it.
“Weave the people” is just another conservative, bottom-up, anti-government chant, a wistful Brooksian plea to promote “indivdualism” as the panacea for our ills.
Weavers may provide some localized “healing” – but it’s a drop in the ocean.
Can ...weave a solution to climate chnge? Gun carnage? Healthcare? What can they weave to heal the vast income inequality that has cleaved the country in two?
The backbone of community exists in the basics: jobs, food, shelter, healthcare, and education. To “weave” these things we will have to remove the obstacles in their way like conservative free-market policies devoid of any sense of social contract, privileging the individual over the collective.
But Brooks won’t challenge those conservative staples. He wants to distract us from seeing those bigger obstacles - which is exactly what the conservative power brokers want.
That’s the big story."
10
Bravo, Brooks.
I've spent my working years in journalism and I couldn't agree more with his top two grafs--this is the dilemma of journalism, punched up to a new high by the internet. Pre-web, journalists were, to some extent, independent of any ability to accurately measure audience response--that ignorance gave reporters and editors greater latitude to explore.
Yes, there was arrogance: journos gave people what they SHOULD know, as opposed to what they wanted. But it was this impulse that opened the doors to reporting on the Vietnam debacle, the civil rights struggle, Watergate and any number of other stories that needed to be told. Those days are gone. Forever.
Pre-web newspapers moved fast (gotta roll those presses), but the triumph of morning papers gave editors much more time to actually think about what was going to be printed at midnight. Now journalism is locked into a wire-service model: deadlines every minute. File now, revise later.
Worst of all is the merging of the print mentality with the TV ethos; news becomes performance, little mini-dramas, something to get those neurons firing. Reporters, even for the NYT, now parade in pancake makeup on cable channels that are clearly pumping out opinion masquerading as "news." Print journos used to look down on the TV types as barbarians at the gate. Now they're in league with the bloviators.
Guess who loses in that dance with the devil?
3
I'd love to read more inspirational stories like these, if only to crowd out Trump's daily nastiness.
However, even within the confines of bad news, there are differences. The news feed on my phone shows negative stories about tariffs from NBC, CNN & WSJ. But Fox is different! Fox has a story about an actress whose bathing suit "failled." All bad news, but there's a difference between "what's really going on", and what enquiring minds want to know.
2
The industrial revoution and its consequence have been a disaster for the human race.
4
Gosh, David, tell us how your Big Oil, Big Money, and Big Tax Cuts help those community workers.
9
I appreciate David Brooks introducing me to the 'Weavers, who have responded to personal and systemic abuse and despair, and to those who recognize the ways our human story, and ways, can and must be changed and improved. As is usual, many commentators seize the opportunity to condemn Brooks as a 'conservative'. The true, and necessary goal of conservatism is to identify and protect those activities and actions which are contributing to the well-being of all members of a society, and the entire living family. Conservatism is not being served by partisan political parties, especially when driven by lust for power and wealth. 'Weavers' must be recognized and supported in the crucial task of recognizing what is not working and harmful, and by working together to repair both old and new problems. 'Weaver' may be a helpful alternative to 'liberal' or even progressive. Thanks to Brooks and the NYT for telling their story.
3
Why? Seriously, how you can ask that question with a straight face - here's a hint (it's about the money). We now have a 24 hour news cycle and advertising dollars are based on ratings, stupid people doing stupid things engender more eyeballs glued to a certain channel, which is tracked and therefore charge higher ad rates. Got it? If the media on the whole simply stopped covering Trump and his band of criminals the world would be a nicer happier place. Let me know when that happens, perhaps never?
2
David, if you want the Times to survive, you've got to buy into the fact that mayhem sells. It doesn't matter that the stories you want to see are substantive. It doesn't matter that the stories you want to see better reflect the real world in which we live. As nauseating as the fact is, Donald Trump has been a boon for the New York Times. Covering this train wreck of a creature sells. My wife was a network anchor. Just last week I said to her "I wish everyone would just stop covering Trump"...she quickly told me I was an idiot...that he's the gravy train that just keeps giving...ratings, more advertising and profits. The rest of the mayhem in the world lines up behind Trump. There's not much space left for existential human substance.
1
BRAVO!
How did journalism get here? The answer seems simple and obvious (and you alluded to it, as well): Money.
It's like fracking. (Bear with me.) When you break the structure apart, it's easier to suck out the product that the industry is after, whether it's oil or clicks/views/retweets. There's no perceived value in reporting on the work of building community because no one wants to read about it (or they don't think they do). Breaking communities into constituencies, marketing demographics, or political tribes makes it easier to attract and retain people's attention. This won't change until people want it to change.
In short, the sort of reporting you'd like to see is not where the money is.
1
"This was a gathering in which it was permissible to be an angry black person."
Oh GOOD JOB David, you finally created the permission.
3
Mr. Brooks: we wouldn't need efforts such as Weavers if your political party wasn't so hell-bent on amassing all of the wealth into the hands of a few, reducing government oversight to zilch (and thereby worker safety, healthcare, environmental protection, education, etc. to what it was during the industrial revolution). All of the efforts of the Weavers are largely what most Americans pay in taxes to get from our representatives. It should not be the job of ordinary people to sacrifice so deeply to pick up the slack as your beloved Republican party aggressively continues to rip it away.
267
@JK
Mr. Brooks hasn't been a Republican in some time. Oh, of course, I'm aware he plays one on TV and in the papers. But you have to understand that's simply about expediency on both sides. For his corporate media overlords, Mr. Brooks' pretending he is a Republican allows them to propagate the myth that they present both sides of the issue. For Mr. Brooks, self-identifying as a Republican gives him well-paid gigs he would never, ever have if they were distributed solely on the basis of writing talent and insight.
11
@JK You're right. These "weavers" are providing services that in many other developed countries are provided by national or local governments. They have to do it because the party Brooks championed for most of his career has either discouraged or dismantled such government programs here. Brooks didn't seem to have a problem with that until Trump took the party away from the folks Brooks prefers. Then he suddenly realized there were problems government could address but isn't. Welcome to the real world, Dave.
25
@DC Well said. I was actually surprised by your comment—because as I was reading it, I at first didn’t appreciate it: I found the tone to be "snarky" in the extreme.
And while one can say that a response to Brooks' column should somehow attempt an assessment of what he wrote, your comment shows that "subtext" is always there, and a writer’s political-economic orientation—or that of anyone advancing a position of one kind or another does matter.
In fact @ DC’s comment is relevant to Brooks’ subject - the assumptions journalists - and readers alike - make about journalistic content and relevance.
Mr. Brook’s “cultivated” identity matters –even if perceptions of it will vary.
Both parties in America have betrayed "the good" (in terms of best instincts and balance) they once proffered.
And Mr. Brooks' party affiliation does create a "disconnect" or logic-break from—and at the core of his argument for social progress through relationship. Why? Because the two-party system today epitomizes division, and is antithetical to unity—and this is a fact that is subversively (though perhaps unconsciously) present in every well-intentioned thought and word presented here by Mr. Brooks - giving each the lie.
9
What we really need is affordable health care, affordable child care, good quality neighborhoods schools in all our neighborhoods, clean air and water, solid retirement plans, affordable college. The government today leaves the individual to take care of everything. In Maryland, we even have to figure out on our own what electric company to use and what a good rate is. With a $1,400/month health care premium that has a $13,000 deductible as the lowest cost health insurance available to my family on an ACA plan, how are we to save for retirement, college for kids, and pay our health care premium? Our society has abandoned the family and the individual. People feel alienated and alone. Thank G*d for the weavers, but we are not enough to make up for the wrecked state Republicans have left our country in. If our country cared for its citizens as Western European countries did, we would have time to hang with our neighbors and friends and help them through their difficulties.
7
In order for journalists to publish, people must read what they write so as to generate subscriptions and ad revenue. People are much more interested in hearing about what is wrong than what is being done to repair it. Therefore, media organizations will spend more space on problems than on solutions.
Look at a bridge collapse, for example. The collapse gets lots of attention; but how many stories does the rebuilding process get?
We got into this spot because that is the spot the people want us in.
2
Thank you, David. We need the good news. The greatest and most powerful change begins in the hearts and courage and simple actions of the common people. No where do I have as much power as in my home, my neighborhood, my moment by moment interactions and relationships with the friends and strangers I see every day. To say that the small kindnesses we do are weak or ineffectual against the megolith of evil that consumes us, reveals a blindness to the truth. The strength of kindness and selflessness builds on itself and can change the world. In those choices lie the only true strength most of us have. Those choices and actions deflate the power of evil and the vitriolic anger and cynicism expressed in so many of these comments. You are right in this.
Every night the news puts on a feel good story at the end of the broadcast. It's good that we have strong, helpful people amongst us but for everyone of them there seem to be more Trumps and McConnells, people who have gained strength but are not interested in helping people only in gaining and using power to further their own authority.
5
Thank you David. I had become reluctant to read the NYT - or of any other media for that matter - because it always makes me feel like I have suddenly awoken in a dystopian parallel universe. Your piece makes me feel like there is a reason to go on fighting for what we think is right and just. If the people you describe can overcome their individual challenges and setbacks, so can we as a society.
2
Many of us do our community weaving through organized religion. After 40 years in nonprofit work I see more and more where multiple religion and secular nonprofits are partnering successfully. The evangelical extremists (Falwell, Franklin et al) get all of your media's coverage, but local places of worship are helping do the heavy lifting 24/7. We are running or supporting soup kitchens, food banks, shelters, housing, refugee programs, senior programs, youth development, tutoring, addiction recovery, healthcare outreach, etc. None of this work gets as much press as one outrageous statement from a nationally known and so-called "leader" of one narrow branch of the tree of faith.
4
Thanks David Brooks for this. This column so usual that I have to think about it.
Nobody who works in Aspen can afford to live there. The commute to inexpensive living quarters for the workers at day's end is something to see.
3
"The search for solutions is more exciting than the problems themselves."
the sparrow's story:
he fights for every crumb,
dancing all the time
Great article. Should be on the front page and not in opinion pages— which is the crux of Mr. Brooks point.
1
There's nothing bad, and a lot good, about Brooks' recent personal conversion, and these columns. Why do they make so many of us nuts? I figured it out.
It's like your daughter who has been (and still does, too often) leave your house in a complete shambles, and then wags a finger and starts telling you that Feng Shui is the answer to a better life for you. This, as you both stand amid the piles of clothes still on the floor in her bedroom.
7
Yeah, when I'm scared to death my female friends will be locked up or worse if they ever choose to have an abortion, you lost me at "community weaving".
5
The specific problem with the national media is its obsession with the Presidency. This obsession is not unique to the Trump era. Just a little more over the top. Way over the top. Especially at the Times. The national media has spent the last 30 or 40 years staring at the White House. And writing about the Presidency as if that is the only thing going on in the federal government or the country. There are thousands of journalists employed doing this. It is lazy journalism.
1
David Brooks has made a career not covering "what's really going on." Now he points to the speck in his brother journalists' eyes because he's found religion? You can't make this stuff up.
9
Is this the same Mr. Brooks who authored: 2019: The Year of the Wolves... now wondering why politics dominate the news?
1
People help one another, and good people can help change their communities. In other news, the Times didn't bother to cover Trump for decades despite his deep corruption in the Times' own back yard, and the Times' coverage helped tank Hillary Clinton's election chances. No wonder you'd rather we look somewhere else.
3
David Brooks fiddles while Rome burns.
8
David: This Weave project and these people sound wonderful. I am wondering what chance they have against the lawlessness, ruthlessness, hatred, violence, vindictiveness, greed, misogyny, racism and total lack of humanity of "Individual #1" in the White House, and Mitch Mc Connell's GOP?
5
So, how did you get where you are, David?
Money and erroneous "progressive" thinking and doing.
Look elsewhere. Report more. It might save us.
It’s an opinion piece. Not war reporting. Let the man have an opinion.
1
"How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics and 10 percent of our coverage on the 90 percent of our lives influenced by relationship, community and the places we live in every day?"
Twit. Middle-aged-crisis-struggler. Found your navel and think you're the only one, eh?
Cui Bono. It's that simple, Lord Brooks of the comfortable class.
The rest don't have cushy jobs like yours, and your profession.
Y'all have done it to yourselves. Sold yourself to corporate overlords, ever since the change after Nixon, where "Greed is Good!" became your mantra, and "all-the-rest-of-you-welfare-Cadillac-Queens" were the "burden" to humanity.
Thanks for nothing, David. Too little too late you've discovered what the rest of us knew all along.
3
Seems to me, we don't need journalists - we need the comments.
Commentarians, unite.
8
That’s a very good column, Mr. Brooks!
1
The notion that only 10% of our lives is influenced by politics is, I believe, a gross under statement. Witness the current wide-scale polarization of the country in this era of the "cult of Trump". Unless one lives with their head in the sand, how is it possible to get through a day without being impacted in some way by the never-ending deluge of lies, scandals, hypocrisy, war mongering, and revanchist policy emanating from D.C. and, increasingly, our state capitals? Yes, the weavers, the community problem solvers deserve more media coverage; but stop peddling the myth that the problems our elected representatives are daily creating in the lives of millions receive too much attention.
127
These poignant tales remind me of the old saw about the guy who killed his parents and begged the court for mercy because he was an orphan.
Charles Perry was incarcerated for decades and now tries to get community members health care. David doesn't mention why he was incarcerated or why community members don't have ready access to health care. Dylan Tete was an Army Ranger who suffered PTSD in a needless, immoral war, and builds communities in New Orleans, a city devastated by systemic racism and systematic neglect, post-Katrina. Sarah Adkins runs a free pharmacy because our health care system makes prescription drugs a luxury rather than a right. Pancho Arguelles radiates "almost a holiness" helping workers who suffered spinal cord injuries on the job because our society provides no care for such victims.
Brooks saccharine prose celebrates the "weavers" who try to mend the torn social fabric that the Republican Party has ripped to shreds for decades, with Brooks's soft complicity.
Write about that.
678
@Barking Doggerel I want to recommend your comment a thousand times. Thank you!
55
And to comment on the fact the journalism focuses on what's wrong, you ....focus on what's wrong with journalism.
To begin, you open with a claim that is surely designed to infuriate this paper's readership. High information news consumers who are simply exhausted and beaten by an administration and political party utterly devoted to undermining our cherished democratic traditions, and who are desperate for any shred of accountability. Might journalists be serving a critical need of the people?
68
"We’re trying to create the earth’s first mass, multicultural democratic republic.” Love this statement and your article. We MUST stay connected. The sad part is that in the era of social media, we are getting further away from the beautiful results of face-to-face connections! I am glad your article made the front page!! Thank you!!
2
Anyone who's recently scrolled the menu of movies available on the various entertainment outlets will have noticed, the number of horror, crime, bad people / bad ending, vividly violent and bleak titles have swelled. People are attracted to car wrecks and serial killers and vengeful superheroes, and fantasies like GOT. Maybe it's cathartic, maybe it's to steel ourselves against harsh reality, or maybe we just like the vicarious thrill. Obviously, it's addictively entertaining.
The news media and journalism are in the same business, because they need to attract viewers. Feel-good stories may be good for us, on every possible level, but they don't move the entertainment needle very much, and there's no profit in it.
Hopefully, responsible journalists and media outlets will seize the 'solutions journalism' approach, and at least offer glimpses of the unseen and unheralded people who get up every day and contribute something positive, something constructive, something hopeful.
Fear and hate may dominate the media, but that's not America. Never has been.
3
"Their defining feature is that they are geniuses at relationship."
I forget where I first read this, but I haven't forgotten it.
"There are only two types of geniuses: those characterized by eagles who fly above everything and see all deeply and clearly; and those characterized by hedge hogs who have only one brilliant idea."
I think we're mostly hedge hog geniuses, who have spent our lives struggling in the briar patch undergrowth, coming to learn that we are all the same person, the One Humanity.
3
Brooks talks about “people who weave social fabric” but he won’t talk about how his cohort of conservatives has spent decades constructing a Machiavellian master plan to rip the social fabric to shreds. Brooks is either naïve or a tool of the Right who seeks to distract from real causes of our social ills by talking up little success stories – efforts that are acts of desperation because his conservatives have gutted our communities in the first place.
In other words Brooks will praise the efforts of survivors of a broken system – but he won’t talk about those who broke it.
“Weave the people” is just another conservative, bottom-up, anti-government chant, a wistful Brooksian plea to promote “indivdualism” as the panacea for our ills.
Weavers may provide some localized “healing” – but it’s a drop in the ocean.
Can the weavers weave a solution to climate change? Gun carnage? Healthcare? What can they weave to heal the vast income inequality that has cleaved the country in two?
The backbone of community exists in the basics: jobs, food, shelter, healthcare, and education. To “weave” these things we will have to remove the obstacles in their way like conservative free-market policies devoid of any sense of social contract, and privileging the individual over the collective.
But Brooks won’t challenge those conservative staples. He wants to distract us from seeing those bigger obstacles - which is exactly what the conservative power brokers want.
That’s the big story.
16
@Michael
Greetings Michael,
Weren't we all adolescent selfish jerks before we became cooperative adults? Of course the collective's developmental path will mirror the individual's.
Cheers!
2
@Michael Always nice to have someone from what's left of the left whine about "privileging the individual over the collective." That concept is what led to a century of leftist murder, and continues to this day.
As with all mushy leftist thought, there are questions that beg for answers. Such as: who gets to define "the collective?" Who gets in; who gets left out--or excluded--or, conveniently, liquidated?
History is clear: when the collective grindstone turns, individuals get destroyed.
1
Sorry, but you commit one of the very worst crimes of the media, and of the Trump administration, which is to lie about "everybody else" so as to insert yourself. My local NPR and local TV stations on which I get news every evening almost always has a segment specifically on local people getting together and doing the right thing. Nowadays that often is helping seekers of asylum whom the Administration continues to torture. Even my Republican newspaper sometimes joins in, even though it is dominated by all of the typical Right Wing syndicated columnists. Okay, do continue to emphasize these efforts, but, please try to get over your ego--then you wouldn't have to lie so much.
5
So, David, is this a call for, and vindication of, community organizers—the epithet that the majority of the GOP used to denigrate Obama and others who attempt to do what you seem to be suggesting?
Maybe Democrats are community organizers and Republicans are Weavers.
3
These people and their stories are truly inspiring. Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for making them known to us. But these are just a handful of people amongst the millions living in the US, and around the world. There are millions who carry on with the day-in, day-out frustrations of everyday life doing for others over and over again without any thanks; quite often not even expecting a thank you. My mother and father were two such people. They grew up during the Great Depression, served their country during WWII; working their whole lives without complaining. I suspect they are not the exception to the rule just two people like many others living life the best they know how.
1
the answer to your last question is - ted turner and 24/7 "news".
At the end you ask, "How did we....?" Answer = Journalists like everyone else started focusing on the profit and not the substance.
3
Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdock, Ronald Reagan getting rid of the fairness doctrine, business schools taking over the University, the idea that the government needs to drowned in a bathtub, the nine words Americans hate, i’m From the government and i’m Here to help which is a denigration to the very concept of democracy, we have ‘too much Democracy’ from the Chamber of Commerce.
Wish you luck.
5
"But many of our colleagues don’t define local social repair and community-building as news. It seems too goody-goody, too “worthy,” too sincere. It won’t attract eyeballs"
Yeah -folks cry "what about the "good news?" Why are there no "Good news shows" yadaddaa
Because they get lousy ratings! -That's why!
People want Bread and Circus!
49% percent of American voters supported a mindless reality show star for president.
The final paragraph of this piece poses the most important question facing contemporary journalism.
1
I’ve been saying this for years. Yes, we need to know about the awful things that need fixing, otherwise they won’t be fixed. But we also need to know about things that are being fixed. The “good news”; I’m tired of cynics rolling their eyes at “good news”, it's also news. We need some balance in reporting.
1
The subtitle of this piece should read, "Why Brooks advocates bake sales as a solution to social problems rather than demanding more from government."
7
If Brooks is really interested in "building community" why does he support the Republican party, whose main strategy to win votes over the last 50+ years has been to divide people on racial and religious lines?
6
Rehabilitation is better morally than the alternative, though monsterous Ted
Bundy-ism gets the rating$.
Goodness is subordinate to the sensational bad.
If. it bleeds, it leads.
I presume these clichés are journalism 111, and most folks are aware of what
gossipy, perverse humankind interest is versus boring.
David is doing good work by discussing ,,, the marginal good.
And if I'm being super cynical, then I am.
1
Instead of getting angry with Mr. Brooks, we should essentially ignore him. In the past, he has been part of the problem. Now, he mostly seems to be increasingly irrelevant, with a distressingly tone-deaf lack of self-awareness.
6
Spreading good News? It happens every so often...but not often enough...as it doesn't pay what sensational or even conspirational fake news do. Somehow, people that live in the doldrums, and carry out a deadly daily routine, seem primed for entertainment, even conspirational theories, perhaps the reason they listen to clowns like Hannity and Trump...and read gossip papers like the National Enquire.
Following on the idea of "weavers" is this terrific show @moCaCleveland https://www.mocacleveland.org/exhibitions/lee-mingwei-you-are-not-stranger … See the Mending Project portion.
If we can figure out the differences between people who turn trauma into weaving, and people who turn trauma into a lifetime of victimhood, we'll be more than halfway home.
1
David Brooks is truly your most thoughtful, humane columnist covering today's social-political scene. That heart of his must get lonely in some of the political company he keeps.
1
One reason we don’t read these stories about solutions on the local level is because so many community newspapers have had to close-victims of the more compelling and always available social media.The local papers told stories about the “weavers” in their communities and invited others to join them.Social media is designed to attract views so the advertisers will be rewarded -they do not look for solutions.Is there an APP,that tells stories and offers solutions of “Weavers” -funding would be a problem.
Let me get this straight. After all the years you have spent being paid as a journalist, the conclusion you have come to is that the profession is not reporting on the important stuff, (absolutely true), and that the important stuff is community helpers? You might want to look into taking night classes at a theological seminary and switching professions.
4
Some people don't understand little and big intricacies of the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln was a fine statesman, he was challenged by Stephen A. Douglas, a rival. So many are just ill-informed or have already made up their puny little minds.
Yes. I've been wondering for months, since Trump took over the White House, why the NY Times keeps harping on the problems he brings, while ignoring the solutions. And to all the Democrats who are running for president, I say, bring me solutions.
1) so sad that folks commenting must bring politics into what should be (and is for the most part) a column about "kindness."
2) wishing that more people would understand how life can be very satisfactory if more of us would "indulge" in more acts of kindness.
These need not be giant efforts! Merely:
-- holding a door open for someone entering/leaving a store
-- letting someone ease into your traffic lane
-- waving at other drivers in your subdivision
-- saying thank you or appreciate to clerks and cashiers
-- retrieving a shopping cart blocking a parking space
-- smiling at a child or his/her mom while shopping
-- telling strangers to have a nice day or good morning or stay safe (when appropriate)
Many many more little kindnesses out there which can add up and prompt all of us to consider larger kindnesses like
-- adult reading assistance
-- neighborhood trash cleanup
-- food bank volunteer
-- nursing home visitation
-- meals on wheels
-- animal rescue shelters
If you must ask how to find these opportunities, check your local AARP or just type "how can I volunteer in my city" into Google.
We are all blessed with 168 hours of time per week. Take an hour to
"PAY IT FORWARD!"
You will feel good about it. I know I do.
1
@Pete in SA I perform your list every day but seldom see it returned. Seems like rudeness and entitlement have become pervasive. My parents raised me to have good manners, practice common courtesy and respect. I'll keep doing that whether I get it back or not. And as soon as I don't have to work full time to survive, I will happily volunteer.
2
@Pete in SA I do all that stuff out of habbit and believe me, it's not newsworthy.
1
Yes, lots of good people. Absolutely.
"How did we in our business get in the spot...?"
Because media does selection by way of world culture's dominant information processing mechanism or app: humans deploying a thousands-of-years-old cultural coding structure: monetary code.
The app's information processing specs, i.e., its computation abilities for processing complex relationship information lack sufficient Reach Speed Accuracy Power and Creativity.
Complexity increases weaken the efficacy of code—
whether genetic language religious legal monetary software, etc.
The dominant, emergent phenomenon of our era—exponentially accelerating complexity—increasingly weakens the efficacy of both our biological & cultural coding for relationship interface.
That's largely why the Sky & Ocean are being armed with weapons of mass extinction.
Another media problem: With an eye to monetary code, y'all do status-quo safe symptom surfing.
Why not get your pattern recognition from the far more fundamental and hence reliable, 4.54 billion year sample space of evolution rather than the latest folly.
This is really not a new phenomenon. Go through the checkout line at the grocery store "BABY BORN WITH THE HEAD OF A BEAR" greets you. Watch the evening news. First 15 minutes is the murders and all the bad stuff. And then at the end of the newscast: "And we would like to end the news tonight with a little good news for a change" . This has been going on for decades. When your life is not exciting and is mundane, you want to be able to elevate your situation by 'And you thought you had it bad' type of scenarios. I suspect 50 years from now someone will write a similar column. But then it will be an article describing the rainiest spring in a decade. And all the people who worked tirelessly to save the town and its residents from the flooding. It will lift the spirits of its readers by accompanying photographs showing Mar A Lago under 6 feet of seawater.
1
This essay illustrates why I left journalism and went into social work (although the rampant sex discrimination and harassment in journalism were also factors).
@Anne At age 56, I recently started wondering about becoming a social worker or LCSW, but don't know how I'd do at this stage of my life.
@Kimberly Brook Suggestion: look for jobs in nonprofit community organizations. You might start by volunteering if not already doing so. There are plenty of organizations where the pay is meager but the physic income of helping others is rich. You won't need a difficult credential like LCSW to get them.
@wts
"physic income" is not a thing. Did you mean "psychic" or "psychological", perhaps?
Reputable nonprofits do not hire amateurs or volunteers to do the jobs of licensed, certified social workers.
The Aspen Institute, however, feels that journalists and corporate capitalists are highly qualified to dabble and prognosticate in whatever realm they wish.
1
i appreciate david brooks who is looking for answers and making his search public and useful.
2
Nice column, David, although I’m disturbed by the amount of vitriol, off-topic responses and general misconstruals it’s inspired. Vent it out, people, let’s just all scream at the moon until our throats bleed. Maybe then we can get some sleep, wake up, and get back to real living.
2
David,
I applaud your efforts at discovering the good, the positive creativity in the face of personal horrors. Kudos. And thanks. Let's hear more. But that is is just one of your jobs.
As a highly respected columnist and researcher of the human condition, I ask you to stand up a bit taller.
I ask you you to resign from the party of hate, dsicrimination and fiscal irresponsiblity.
I ask you to recognize that we are on the verge of being Germany in the 1930's.
I ask you to contact every GOP legislator you have grown to know and demand that they call for the Liars impeachment.
I ask that you join the effort to save our country from the horrors that are unfolding. Climate change denial is a death sentence.
I ask you to join the fight against "shareholder primacy".
I don't know how much time there is in your day, but all the altruistic efforts you recognize will be for naught, if you do not join the cause of freedom and justice for all.
Start by asking about the Saudi madness - murder of journalists, political dissidents, innocent women and children. Why do we support them? Why?
Dig deeper, David. You could makes a bigger impact.
Best wishes from one who respects you but asks for more. You are ignoring your true power for change - during the most dangerous times of our lives.
3
Wouldn't it be great to have a President who was a "weaver" instead of one who unravels!?!? Look for that quality, and vote.
3
“How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics and 10 percent of our coverage on the 90 percent of our lives influenced by relationship, community and the places we live in every day?”
You and we exist in a market-driven, capitalistic society that focuses us only on what we don’t have, but “need or desire.” That, coupled with the modern means of communication has us viewing things negatively for all our waking hours. The only way to keep this economy’s engine running is to motivate people away from what they have.
We are constantly being told that everything we have is not good enough. In business, we are told that you should never be satisfied with what you have, but strive for more. The sales person that suggests that we focus on what we have soon finds that what he lacks is a job.
With nearly 100 years of advertising devoted to this, how can one possibly focus on what she has, and how it brings joy?
A good friend once told me that you “might win the rat race, but you’re still a rat.”
1
Had this been an article in the NYT Magazine, written by someone other than a NYT op-ed columnist, I'd say it had some worthwhile points to make.
But on a day when women's rights and healthcare are under savage attack by Mr. Brooks's own party; in a week when that same party is cynically ignoring valid subpoenas from a co-equal branch of government; at a time when that same party is eviscerating the rule of law, the separation of powers, any number of Constitutional amendments, and perhaps the entire American Experiment, maybe — just maybe — Mr. Brooks might want to weigh in on some of this.
I'm sure Mr. Brooks's newfound spirituality and optimism is of intense interest to several dozen Times readers, especially those who believe, as he does, that both sides of the political spectrum are somehow equally to blame for our current crisis. But I'm guessing there are many more who, like me, are gravely concerned that his particular side of that spectrum is burning essential norms and institutions to the ground on a daily basis, and that he has nothing at all to say about it.
3
@AndyE I agree with you on everything. I read Mr. Brook's columns and watch him on KPBS on Friday. I would also like to hear him denounce the cruelty and corruption of his party. Too many are too silent during this awful time in our history. I am horrified at the behaviors - most probably criminal - that the Republican party is willing to tolerate in this president and his despicable administration. David...do the right thing!
3
Brooks' citation of Bronstein's point that a lot of journalism is "expose error, cover problems and identify conflict" is accurate, but incomplete.
The basic thrust of the identification of these problems is to also identify a villain who causes pain to victims. This leads to hatred, and to a view of America where there are good people (victims) and bad people (perpetrators, usually white people).
Brooks is right. There really are a lot of fun and interesting people doing good work in our country. You never hear about them...unless they are fighting a villain.
Fox News, the NYT, they are both the same. They just identify different victims and different villains.
It has gotten to the point where my subscription to the NYT is depressing. Thankfully, I can still play SET every day, so the subscription is worth it I guess.
2
Democracy can yield good decisions based on "wisdom of the crowd", but only if not exploited by well-known scams and lies. We are now almost completely reliant on a "free press" to expose these scams and lies. Maybe if the incidence of scams and lies could be reduced somehow, there would be more time to devote to the kind of information mentioned by Mr. Brooks in this article.
1
Hope and Change. The latter is inevitable and the former makes the change better and easier, the benefits more evenly spread.
The national media is not very good at spreading Hope. They tend to focus on problems, and never tell us about the solutions that people come up with. I have always found it annoying when I read about some crisis and then the story disappears and we never find out what happened next. The media has just moved on to the next crisis.
Perhaps the stories are a bit more hopeful at the local level?
We can solve our difficulties when we really see "the other" as extensions of ourselves. We humans share the same emotional needs and express them in different ways. We have more in common than most in our fragmented world see.
4
There are no shortage of experts worldwide, in academia, NGOs and non-profits, in government and foundations, who do serious work regarding finding solutions to the worlds myriad problems. Anyone truly interested in these solutions would do better seeking out experts in these fields, in these places, rather than relying on MM reporters (or op-ed writers) for solutions to the problems they report.
It is good to see people trying to tackle these problems within our society but certainly it's not new or revolutionary. What seems to be new is Mr. Brooks' discovery of this world through a personal crisis which he has documented through his new book and his MM publicizing of it. He reminds me, more than anything, of a person who has had his first experience with marijuana or LSD and can't get over all he saw and all he's been missing up till now.
His writing, based on his awakening, strikes me as very intense and sincere but also fairly superficial, gushing and slapdash. Sociology 1.01. Further his awakening, by his own account, seems to come from a life spent mostly in achieving success at any price, surrounded by people (his weekday friends) who were trying to do the same thing. It is a revelation to him that there are many people in the world who operate with a different, perhaps more enlightened ethos.
I wish Mr. Brooks good luck on his journey. Whether I want to hear about it in a NYT op-ed every week is another story.
7
@Eliot
This is perfect.
1
Politics has an impact on at least 90% of our lives. If you consider that the environment that we're trashing for future generations is a political issue, make that 100%.
David should just spend more time on FB if he wants to empathize w/ people.
1
These stories rightly inspire, as they should. There is a bitter counterpoint, however. We are living under a national administration that motivates human social behavior and the exact opposite direction from kindness, grace, generosity, healing, forgiveness and compassion.
To allay any doubt about this, read Nicholas Kristof's current column about the Good Samaritan in Texas who committed the "crime" of helping a migrant family near the border that was clearly in extreme distress. Not only were the migrants taken into custody, but the Good Samaritan herself was also arrested, jailed, and charged with the prospect of fines and extended jail time now facing her.
Only in today's America, driven as it is from the very top by paranoia, fear, hatred and gratuitous cruelty could such obscenely absurd miscreance occur. We are fond of saying "this is not us" but until we prove otherwise, sadly it is.
13
The defining feature of David Brooks' brand of "Compassionate Conservatism" is that all his panaceas for our social ills won't cost the wealthy and corporations one penny in taxes. He conspicuously looks for ways to "do good" everywhere but there. It's good reason to doubt that any of the wondrous, heart-touching things he finds will prove particularly efficacious at any scale. The efficacy part is pretty much consumed in steering us clear of economic justice issues.
9
There is a perception that "weaving the people" is not an entertaining story. The media focuses too much time on feeding consumers entertainment and not on offering a responsible, honest, deep, and sometimes "boring" analysis of our society as individuals, families, and communities. It does not bring power, money, or perceived prestige. In a society with a high percent of narcissists (and growing), topics that are not associated with power, money, or perceived prestige have a limited space.
1
People roll their eyes at stories about local "social repair and community-building" because they not only seem too goody-goody, they are. "Social weavers", would be slightly more interesting if they actually did weave something.
Mr. Brooks seems fascinated by noble people at the local level doing meetings in which they "come together" to talk about their past pain and find solutions to problems.
Brooks acts as anthropologist with pith helmet and clip board, describing mythic creatures solving their own problems.
He's in the deepest, darkest of places: America, where people are on their own. There are no social programs to would lift them from poverty, help provide housing, health care and education.
It's a place where the roads are terrible, public transportation is a disgrace, and many places are food deserts. Where the leader demeans and lies to the people, where racism is rampant in all levels of government.
The media doesn't cover these stories because people aren't interested in others' illnesses, travels or dreams. Not interested in airy-fairy nebulous notions that people can actually heal themselves, by themselves, because usually they can't. And so what if they can?
Somebody once wrote a book about communities and helping called "It Takes a Village." People rolled their eyes at that, too.
9
Re: “We’re trying to do something that has never been done before. We’re trying to create the earth’s first mass, multicultural democratic republic.”
That is the FIRST time I've seen those words written in a mainstream publication. It is a very big statement and worth considering. Throughout history all multicultural territories of any scale have required strong authoritarian rule. When that strong authority has weakened, the result has always been conflict, killing, and mass migration.
In modern times it happened in Europe - Yugoslavia. And that was *after* decades of living under an ideology that demanded communal values and required one's historical creed, ethnicity, and religion be placed firmly beneath the values of the community.
Until recently, the dominant liberal ideal in the U.S. recognized this via the "melting pot" notion. Wisdom demanded it. Now, liberal values are under assault and being pushed aside from the right and, most troublingly, from the rapidly rising illiberal faction on the left. Committed to hard multiculturalism, they promote a grave risk to our democratic republic.
3
By the way, since we're speaking about life sciences and the work-life-balance , Angela Merkel will be speaking at Harvard.
3
Good for you David Brooks for sharing your own journey on the way and now to the WEAVERS. We need to attach a plan and hope to our protests, to our resistance to what is going on, gluing us to all things Trump in our emotional need to escape his cruelty. Your work reminds me of an effort Scott Peck started following his book The Road Less Traveled and People of the Lie. Community and reaching out to each other, together. Keep telling us of this effort, it is incentive as life worsens around us.
1
So many in society today the barest of superficial uninformed understanding of what is going on right under their noses. They scan the headlines and barely little else. As for journalists; I am amazed at the "herd mentality" of so many that simply run from one Big Story to the next; and never follow up in the long run. Woodward and Bernstein showed what can be done in the early 1970`s simply by sticking to a story until they uncovered a massive cover up that most chose to ignore. Many journalists wait for the story to come to them by covering the "movers and shakers" every day; as if they would reveal some truth that no one was aware of. Not Likely. Meanwhile the world is full of stories by everyday men and women who live in the real world; and could tell you a thing or two about reality that you would never get from some stinking politician. But that would mean actually working hard for a story that no one else bothers with. In other words; breaking away from the herd and following the path less traveled. Far to little of that these days.
1
Q: “How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics...”
A: By making journalism a business rather than an agent of public good, which means it will apply most of its energy to the things that can be most readily monetized.
Brooks has figured out how to monetize this “weaver” space — presumably some of that Aspen Institute money winds up in his pocket, and of course he writes pontifical books and articles like this one — but most people who do the actual “weaving” can't work that angle; they have to fit their community betterment activities around real jobs of the sort that presumably are only an unpleasant memory for self-established public intellectuals such as Our Author.
When societal support starts flowing to people who are actually doing what needs to be done, then media attention will follow.
5
A fine effort. And a badly needed one. Alas, much that's significant doesn't "attract eyeballs" so it often gets short shrift. But we each have eyeballs and we have some control over where we look. Perhaps we should focus more on what we wish to encourage.
1
"We co-regulate with others and need connection with others to keep from spinning out of control."
This is probably the most significant statement in your column. I can tell you where many people with the stories that you record in the Weaver movement go to tell them: to publications like Guideposts, the magazine created by Norman Vincent Peale and his wife many decades ago. It survives because people find solace and connectedness in reading the stories of others who have overcome difficulties perhaps similar to their own.
1
Weave, weave, weave me the sunshine
Out of the falling rain
Weave me the hope of a new tomorrow
Fill my cup again!
- P P & M
4
Thank you for this story. Yes, we need more coverage of this type. When I read this I breathed a deep sigh of relief to realize that there is "good news" out there too.
3
“How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics...”
False premise.
We’re faced with certain problems that threaten 100% of our lives, or at least the lives of the next generation. The environmental emergency, including climate change, creates the very real possibility that there won’t any communities, woven or otherwise. In particular, people whose lives revolve around family and young children have to be concerned that bad political decisions will rob them of their future.
It may be that Times readers. and particularly we who comment, spend too much time on politics. But most people don't spend enough.
21
I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Brooks. Thank you for sharing these stories and doing this work. I have become so exhausted by the news coverage that I have nearly quit reading it. It does make me feel hopeless and despondent.
This, on the other hand, makes me happy and hopeful. I hope to see more of this type of reporting in the NYT.
6
It's the love and selflessness of the folks David has revealed here who are keep civilization knitted together.
In answer to David's last question, sadly, we got there because it's cost effective to cover politics. It's about news organizations' priority being making a buck, especially television. It's lazy for sure and a recipe for ruining our civilization. How can we support a campaign system that makes our political leaders have to raise inordinate amounts of money and spend years away from their elected duties? We have to eradicate recent campaign finance laws that are tilted towards the wealthy! The window for the campaign for the presidency needs to be 6 months. And television must be required again to provide all candidates with free forums to air their perspectives.
6
"We co-regulate with others and need connection with others to keep from spinning out of control."
This point cannot be overemphasized. The faux connection offered via 'social' media combined with the one-way communication of cable news that reinforces our biases and beliefs rob our society of the opportunities to share space and develop relationships of deeper meaning. The anger and frustration that lead to radicalization and hatred can be preempted if people are in healthy relationships of all sorts--acquaintanceship, friendships, intimate pairings and groups. Without those 'in real life' relationships we are left alone, fueled by the fear driven by media and unchecked by those who would express care and concern about our emotional state and hostile orientation toward others.
7
A lot of American journalism is based on a mistaken theory that what government actors "leak" to them is not carefully curated propaganda.
3
"The world will get better when we show where things have gone wrong." The classic example of this position comes from the 19th century, a preacher's kid, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and her novel about the horrors of slavery, "Uncle Tom's Cabin". Response to her novel varied according primarily to geography. Ralph Waldo Emerson founded "The Atlantic Monthly" which began as an abolitionist journal. Harriet's father, Lyman Beecher participated in a network of churches and homes that provided sanctuary for migrant slaves seeking freedom from oppression, the Underground Railroad. Other Abolitionists like John Brown sought to start an insurrection by capturing an arsenal in "Slave Country". Harper's Ferry occupation did not work as planned; there was no insurrection, John Brown was captured, and the later response was an attack on Fort Sumter. A story that is missing is the work of Quaker Abolitionists who visited Quakers who owned slaves and counseled them to free their slaves. They did. When the Civil War began, Quakers in America had no slaves. The congregation did not split as the political nation split North and South, like the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians. Weavers are woven into the fabric of America and American history.
7
YES! While I appreciate that Democracy Now covers important issues mainstream media ignores, years ago I complained to them that simply railing about problems with no coverage of people and communities making progress was demoralizing and directly contributes to depression and apathy in our democracy, one that only works if it's participatory. Apathy is the biggest killer in our politics.
6
@elotrolado
I tune in now and again and always get the impression that they communicate a siege mentality, regardless of the current state of the world. For those of us who are not hook, line, and sinker committed to their quasi-worldview, it becomes like the kid who cried wolf. For their followers, it probably is indeed anxiety-inducing and perpetually distressing. In some it probably motivates agitation and some form of action, in others unhappiness. In all, distrust of "the other".
"How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics and 10 percent of our coverage on the 90 percent of our lives influenced by relationship, community and the places we live in every day?"
David Brooks was shocked and dismayed as I was with the election of Trump. It shook his conservative roots and may have contributed to him beginning to address deeper questions. This op-ed, aligned with the message in his recent book, carries this forward.
However, 10% of our lives are not influenced by politics. 100% is. Whether it is health care, the climate, basic freedoms, the right to vote and more. When authoritarianism comes to America- and it has- this is not the time to retreat into the truth of spiritual teachings or the lives of those who chose to avert their eyes from the reality of politics.
It is time instead to fight.
10
It is unfortunate that the GOOD news does not get covered. I wonder whether there is a place in the world of journalism that could add this news of positive developments. I am fearful that some of the good news will not be seen as good by the Conservatives who seem - to me - to want people to suffer for their 'sins' or color. But I would like to be proven wrong.
2
“How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics”...
That’s a glib phrase that sounds good but means nothing. Politics has a 10 percent influence on our lives? Tell that to a an 11-year-old in Alabama who’s gotten pregnant by a family member and who will be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if the state law prevails.
12
Spend an hour watching ANY cable news, right or left, and you need medication for depression.
We have real issues in Puerto Rico, California fire victims, Houston flood victims, sick kids, adults not able to afford cancer meds...Seriously long list of real people dealing with real problems that cannot all be named here.
Instead we get 24/7 coverage of Trump and weakling politicians who do little but talk a lot...Hair and make-up consumes a lot more time to be camera ready than working for solutions. Being responsive to voters comes in much lower on the list than fundraising or TV spots.
See, our enemies brilliantly figured out our deep feelings of the sheer lonely of a non-functioning government. And uses our media to continue making that a deeply profound problem we have yet to face. They continue to daily help them make us feel more marginalized by their obsessive coverage of issues we can deal with in a voting booth. And neglect the issues we deal with daily.
And real coverage of issues is for our newspapers to handle... Sound bite "headline" stories try to compete with social media and fail.. Talking TV "pundits" prove there is work to be had after losing elections.
We have allowed our media to become lazy, and spending time behind desks than out on the streets talking to people. And yet they claim to understand what news we want to see covered. They don't.
We have to face these failures, both media and political , before we can fix them.....SOON.
9
I have reluctantly listened to you over the years, mostly with annoyance at your cluelessness at what I perceived as obvious in your political observations. However, I very much respect your ability to change and grow before our eyes and then admit it. Wonderful article. My respect for you grows. My family will continue to listen and read.
6
@Pat
When listening to someone (who is smart and honest) talking about things that are obvious to me, I find it helpful to remember that there must be many things that I don't know or that I think are novel and new, which are old hat to someone else.
I may be wrong, but, I do believe the communal instinct will return in 2020. I sense with the rise of Joe Biden that the public in generally is sick and tired of Trump's daily storm and drang. They will rather weave than tear apart the fabric of this society. I would add, we just need more women in the political arena--they are natural weavers where our male dominated governmental entities are centered around confrontation and ideology.
7
I have felt this frustration and despair for a very long time - that journalists are very good at pointing fingers at problems and trying to lay blame, but are very bad at digging for solutions, or suggesting where they can be found.
There is a good parallel here with that of parenting. If you raise your children by teaching them how to solve problems, they will be much more productive and emotionally well-balanced, than if you only criticize and point out their flaws.
4
David misses the point as usual. The point of being a citizen in a democratic polity is to participate in politics. And politics has to do with the way power and wealth are distributed in that polity. Hence the focus on the rot that underlies what's left of our democratic system, and on he disastrous maldistribution of wealth and power produced by capitalism.
The other stuff is nice, but unless it is clearly tied into politics, it becomes just another version of "feel-good journalism." "Up with people" as the Vietnam-era version of this approach would frame it.
Don't waste my time.
8
@Cassandra
Politics in not only about wealth and power. We all bring to the table our own values and priorities. The distribution of wealth and of power are the central concern to some, but of limited interest to others.
Then they are not doing politics. Maybe a form of community group therapy?
The media has always been where it is. It's a byproduct of capitalism - advertising dollars rule the day. Editors and publishers know this very well and cater to what sells. The media slices and dices people into categories - such as liberal v. conservative - that are out of touch with reality. It is no wonder most people do not watch the news or vote.
3
@LH
We agree that today's NYTimes editorial standards have fallen to a sickening level, as evidenced by Brooks' bizarrely childish predilection for PC Happy Talk. However, media has not always been so.
While today's media is obviously increasingly corrupted by the proliferation of bad business models pay-per-eyeball technology allows, there are still a few war correspondents, investigative journalists, talented writers/photographers/editors/publishers involved in seeking and telling the truths they find to the rest of us, sometimes at great personal/professional risk/sacrifice. Many have died in the effort. They deserve our respect.
One only hopes that such actual journalists continue to find employment and maintain their perch amidst the overwhelming morass of useless media stupidity/superficial sentimentality epitomized by Brooks' breathless fascination with the Aspen Institute's neobaloney.
If he had spent even a couple dozen words of his allotted space describing who/how the Weavers participants were selected, his article might have at least had some shred of interest/value/credibility. As it stands, it's just a flyleaf to advertise his book. He should have paid NYTimes for the space.
I can't believe people buy into this delusional garbage. The decline of media standards and public discourse mainly involved with enforcing conformity to a very low level of critical thought processes is a cause for concern. But clearly not the only one we need attend to!
1
Thank you, David Brooks, for this and many of your previous comments. I have observed your spiritual evolution over the years watching The PBS Newshour every Friday. I don’t always share your political perspective, but I have come to deeply respect your personal ideology. I live a relationship driven life and believe in the possibility of repair and renewal. I am a 1960’s activist that still believes in the good fight.
5
As I was reading, and I finally had to stop, I was struck by the horror that turned these people into wonderful neighbors, helpers, researchers, whatever their lives blossomed into. Apparently, it didn't always get rid of the pain and anger, but it made a difference and it made them part of something bigger than what happened to them. And yes, that's wonderful and we need to hear about it more.
Except that while Americans love their horror, that horror is fiction. While it's nice to believe that no matter what happens, you can survive it and thrive and help others do that too, few believe they can do it. Even when provided with hundreds of stories of others who did. Few want to believe that things that they think only happen on TV can happen to them or next door or even nearby. Life may be boring and unproductive and filled with politics and anger, but at least we all understand taxes and abortion or think we do.
I'm not saying don't do it, report on things like this these for sure, and good luck with that since similar words have been spoken before and here we are doing it again. While it's great that someone can take personal tragedy and turn it into magnificent beneficence, I'd rather prefer to believe that you don't need to have a horrific experience to turn your life towards doing good for others. Anyone can do it. Perhaps that's what we need to encourage most of all.
3
Covering positive stories about people investing into their communities by putting connections and empathy above extracting mercantile value is great.
Helping connecting the dots of our shared experiences, humanity and aspirations showing we are stronger together is even better.
So thanks for this story of people coming together to share their experience of trying to make this world a better place and encouraging us to do the same.
Now, the media fascination with concentrated political or economic power makes a lot of sense since the actions of a few people can have a tremendous impact on the lives of millions.
The news there is, unfortunately, more about taking than giving with a winner take all economic calculous that say destroying $1B of other people value so I can make a few $M is ok...
I think our job is to change the culture enough that the politics reflect our need for vibrant and safe community better. That will take sharing power in different ways and putting more guard rails around commerce and finance activities.
Democracy was supposed to be the solution for representing these needs, it is not working to well when fear and greed is the top motivation of a majority of people voting.
5
I'm more than sympathetic to the notion of journalists focusing less on the minute-to-minute trivia -- "important" as it is -- of politics, the world-in-decline, and in the case of local news, fires, rapes, murders, and one cat-in-the-tree-saved-by-a-passing-cop.
We in the audience out here feed this mania, however. Our emotional brains lust after intensity and conflict, even if we get depressed and angry in the process, blaming CNN for breaking news that broke a week ago.
Stories, 'weavers,' connections, communities, relationships -- it's not "good news" we need more of, but authenticity, representation of humans being human, life ongoing, journalists who can present complexity instead of brief one-paragraph summations of world events or Trump's latest Mad Hatter escapade.
So, thank you for alternatives, without forgetting that we are indeed in a time of angst, unpredictability, and truly down-lifting emotion. All is not lost -- unless we give up on each other.
4
David asks: "How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced...?"
Answer: Because David's activities are base upon profit. This is capitalism.
3
@tbs The cause is not capitalism i assure you. In my youth, working as a newspaperman, I found the stories of crime, corruption and tragedy to be far more interesting than stories of found dogs and neighborhood grandmas. So that's what I chased. I was paid poorly either way!
2
@hank roden
Compare your last sentence with your first....
@hank roden: So you decided what stories to cover? The publisher didn't make those decisions? The paper's bottom line was not relevant? Interesting workplace!
"The easy problems have been solved." is normally said of technology, but applies social and political issues as well. Describing a situation in difficult terms makes dramatic press without improving, and possibly worsening it. Consider the new uses of "segregation" and "immigration". Real political skill is expressing situations we'd like to improved in terms that lead to workable solutions.
My spouse and I often comment and yell at the screen,"Yeah, but what about a solution?" after reading one expose after another concerning the ills that befall our society, our planet, and our dysfunctional politics. Reporters would do us and themselves a favor if suggestions on possible fixes were included along with their dismal prognostications.
8
Thanks for making this important point, David Brooks. Relegating Trump to the back pages and showing some stories of hope and constructive progress in the front pages would help reknit my tattered relationship with the news. Trump's success in protecting himself while he destroys our Democracy and our nation is not a story or reality I can deal with without a little hope mixed in.
15
While I certainly don't agree with the Christian Science religion (or any other, for that matter), the Christian Science Monitor weekly news magazine does a wonderful job of following "good news" stories. It also covers many international stories that are ignored by the mainstream press. It by no means covers "all the news that's fit to print," but covers many not so good news stories as well, and is a good add-on to the more traditional press.
6
We are where the dollar takes us. The media has evolved into two distinct camps, left and right. It is more profitable for news organizations to choose a political side rather than be arbiters of news and opinion. It is unfortunate that people today can choose the news they wish to consume which only alienates us from each other. Fox news is a poor model yet honored by imitation from the left. The news is not the enemy of the people but it makes us enemies of each other.
4
What I can't get past is the fact that the Republican party, whose virtues Brooks often supports, is for less government (spending) to reduce the tax burden on citizens. Less government whose services are theoretically replaced by people who will do the work at no cost. The cynic in me tells me that it is all too convenient for a Republican to extol the virtues of volunteerism no matter how well intentioned the effort may be.
17
@USS Johnston Please read Josie below you and compare to your own, to show what Brooks was talking about
If I were in your shoes, I would google "employers who hire older employees." Then I would google "older people trying to find jobs." I read (in the NYT) about a company in New Hampshire that hires mostly older people. See if you can find others like it in your area. The second idea might create a new online community with the imagination and power emanating from groups rather than single individuals trying to come up with answers. I'm now 79 and faced the same challenge at 62 that you are. Google wasn't as developed as it is now, so I delivered my resume to every org that might find my experience in their field valuable and especially targeted every individual I knew in my field. I wish I had an easy answer but it takes a lot of elbow grease given the times we live in. I wish you my heartfelt success!
3
It's a fair question and one that I don't have he answer to, but if I can make an analogy it may come close. The query, "How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics and 10 percent of our coverage on the 90 percent of our lives influenced by relationship, community and the places we live in every day?" Politics is the news and now the readers version of, "click bait" given our political climate we are seeking to see "what will happen next" in this seemingly endless game of political gotcha and brinkmanship and this newsy click bait is almost irresistible.
4
Very interesting column. I am reminded of the comments sections of both the NYTimes and the Washington Post following stories about such things as people doing good things, or animals that have made a difference, or maybe just a spotlight on an unusually insightful and humane person - and invariably those comments thank the writer for seeing that subject and writing about it in terms that helped us all to somehow feel that the world was not coming to an end, that there was hope. "I needed this today," is the most common comment.
While we certainly cannot ignore the awful mess we find ourselves in today, we also certainly cannot ignore the genuinely good stories of the life around us. We all need hope.
9
i infer from this article that "weave the people" was less than a success.
a dictionary is sufficient to confirm that "observations about" are not "solutions of", in the same way that our opinions about a bad marriage don't help fix it. being "seared" by accounts of injustice does nothing to fix the enforcement or the laws.
journalists report on problems because they can, in most cases, be objectively defined. they don't as often report on solutions because, very often, this smacks of partisanship. they can report on failures of solutions because these hold the solutions to their announced goals; they don't report the successes of solutions because this is called marketing.
setting aside the travails of journalism, "acute observations" are not solutions, any more than this comment is a solution. you're still at ground zero when it comes to formulating policy, getting policy into law, getting law into enforcement.
isn't the real problem misinformation, "fake news," vaccine scares and conspiracy theories? the lack of consensual "facts"? is anything less likely to uncover facts than happyface, emoticons and sentimentality? perhaps only lying is more effective.
"we're trying to create the earth's first multicultural democratic republic." well, utopianism breeds long in american history. journalism will report that it has admirable goals. history will report that, without a factual basis, utopianism has always failed.
2
Thank you, David Brooks, for being a master Weaver in our frayed and fragile national environment. This is so true. What matters doesn’t get covered. . .
7
Have to say, I'm liking the David brooks that is today. Never was a fan before. It is so true. Have always been a news junky but lately, not so much. In fact, disconnecting is something that is happening more and more. Everything is just too negative to take in all the time. A quiet day in the garden, a good book, helping a neighbor, going to church again. These are all things that are better time spent. Thank You, Mr. Brooks. Never imagined that I would say that.
11
@Patricia
Me too, Patricia. When he is not spouting old retro conservative republican babble, Brooks often has something worth hearing, unlike the Times’ other conservative pundits. Now if Brooks would only adopt his own line today as a rule.
David, thank you for sharing about your experience with The Weavers. You are so right on and are a blessing. America is SO mixed up right now. We can not successfully navigate without each other.
4
There are many, many people out there actively moving towards solutions to the seemingly insurmountable problems we are currently facing. Always remember that change mostly happens slowly, so never let the perfect become the enemy of the better. Remember, it has only been 100 years that women have been allowed to vote, and many years less that African Americans have not been completely demonized. Progress does occur! When a setback like Trump appears, it is easy to feel like giving up, but just remember that many of us have not!
14
You might hold Reality TV responsible for some of the decline.
Instead of watching art, in the form of riveting dramas that exposed our humanity, we watch other, frail, humans being manipulated and exploited for entertainment, or, we watch the real horror's of our existence on Earth via the 24 hour news cycle.
Trumpism is the consequence of of our desires.
5
“a lot of American journalism is based on a mistaken theory of change. That theory is: The world will get better when we show where things have gone wrong.”
Sorry Mr. Brooks, but that is exactly the formula, invented during the Enlightenment, that has brought the greatest improvements in lives of people in history. Sweeping statements like this do not illuminate.
6
“Evaluation, or analysis, is feedback for growth.” In education, I learned early on reporting on a problem to parents needed simultaneously addressing what we were going to do about it. When analysis, or evaluation is seen as the beginning of a healthy learning cycle, not the end point, we build a connection in the community community of solvers, not labellers.
10
EXCELLENT piece! Bravo. I'm a former journalist and ideas for solutions stories in our editorial meetings were not often entertained. I applaud the work David Bornstein is doing with the Solutions Journalism Network. I am now personally working to elevate the voices of those who are working on solutions.
9
David Brooks's recent writings reflect a most valued new view of the world around us that, as he points out, is far too often neglected in our national conversations. This one is particularly impactful. I HOPE the editors and news decision-makers at the Times and elsewhere are listening. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
7
On my fridge is a quote from the Talmud "Do not be daunted by the enormity of the worlds grief. Do Justly now. Love Mercy now. Walk Humbly now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it" These are the words I live by, when my volunteering feels as if it'll never help, nor fix anything, these words keep me going.
We are all in this together, one way or another.
30
What a beautifully stated intention. Will post on my fridge ASAP. You made my day!
2
Few columns make an impact to change my point of view. This one does. I am one who is steeped in the present failing of our nation, demonstrated in the choice of this administration and the feeble Senate reaction to them. It is lazy of me to see the problems and not attempt a solution, however small my effort may be. It is important that I try. I would indeed benefit from a "here is the problem and there are solutions in progress" reporting so that I know others are seeing and acting on this too.
6
The most important social change agent of my lifetime was Martin Luther King, and how did the news media cover him? He was reviled, in large part, and targeted by our government as a radical troublemaker. Why? Not because of his attempt to build a community of justice but because of his direct challenge to the political and economic structure which keeps keeps people oppressed and divided. It's good to establish personal relationships which help us heal as individuals, but without a fundamental restructuring of our economic relationships we will continue to produce damaged people.
12
@J. Free Interesting piece in Huffington Post, regarding Former President Obama's utilization of a quote Martin Luther King Jr. utilized about a moral universe.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-smith-obama-king_n_5a5903e0e4b04f3c55a252a4?guccounter=1
While this project seems well-intentioned, and we will definitely need people to help each other more as the economy gets worse and climate change tears up our world, we also need voters to understand how to vote. We need politicians that care about people and not their post-politics lobbying job. We need a president that cares about people and not "winning." We need justices that care about humans. The weaver's project is a bandaid across the economic wounds in America. How do we get rid of the electoral college? How do we stop the military industrial complex? How do we overturn Citizens United? How do we stop voter suppression? These are the questions that must be answered in order to make the US a better place.
7
This is an important story to tell, and I'm glad that so many people are finding a path toward connection, instead of disconnection. But wouldn't it be useful if David Brooks tied this story to the simple fact that his political party has become the loudest and main vehicle for disconnection in our country? And wouldn't it be illustrative if Brooks showed how our so called president is the most disconnected anti weaver of them all? Brooks always goes off into some sideshow when his conservative brethren go off the reservation. He never calls them out on their horrid attitudes.
33
100% of our lives is affected by politics, as the woman whose returning vet husband who killed himself and their children —seems to prove. That war was the result of a choice people made in a Presidential election.
The incarceration of one in ten African American men was a choice driven by the politics to which David Brooks says we ought not pay so much attention.
So i find his column today somewhat troubling, given the new law just passed in Alabama, by people who were voted in by enough people who were paying attention to politics.
15
@John C
"...given the new law just passed in Alabama, by people who were voted in by enough people who were paying attention to politics."
I would suggest that electing people who run on outlawing abortion is the epitome of what Brooks is talking about. It's distinctly NOT paying attention to politics. Or perhaps only politics and no policy, which, again, seems to be the point of the piece.
Harvey Milk pointed out that the vast majority of people who have a problem with homosexuality think they don't know a homosexual and once people know someone they like is gay, they are significantly more likely to support equal rights, or just human rights, for homosexuals. Ironically, he ended this statement by asking supporters to come out to their parents, although he had apparently not done so himself. But his numbers weren't wrong.
My point is, it's hard for people in rural areas to put themselves in other's shoes when they have problems of their own. Meeting people not like them gives a new voice to both set of problems. Then maybe we can move forward to fix both? Maybe.
A late, great friend of mine used to say, "sunshine is the best disinfectant." It fits with just about everything, but in this context it's opposite of how he normally used it. Exposing ourselves to each other is the best chance for forward movement.
4
@Kate The quote is from Justice Louis Brandeis.
2
I would have stated, "...that our emotional health is dependent on healthy connections with others." ( It is healthy to have healthy boundaries.) Therefore, I somewhat agree with Martha Welch.
If you're not physically able to observer physical locations it's difficult to agree with positive thinking. I think positive thinking entails acknowledging there is something very wrong with our forests and rural areas, be they in the Chautauqua Buffalo area or the Erie Central Pennsylvania area.
I think my local city looks great. I can not say the same thing for our rural areas. They look depleted.
1
Stories of weavers and the like have a place in the Features section of newspapers and more should be done, but the news is the news. The public needs to know how our water is poisoning us (Flint, MI), how taxpayer farm subsidies are being funneled to crooked Brazilians by the millions, how medical research is underfunded, how foreign governments are hacking our election equipment an undermining American democracy, how our air is becoming hazardous to breathe, etc. Problem is too few Americans bother to avail themselves of the information and our public schools are too afraid to open the eyes of the next generation for fear of denigration and retribution. America will continue to fall further into the hands of the oligarchs if something isn't changed soon. 2020. Vote. Your life depends on it.
20
@Karen K
I think that misses the point? Without knowing how the Flint crises happened and how to fix it, we aren't accomplishing anything other than breeding mistrust. Your water is poisoned. No one cares. The path to Flint is more complicated than that with checks that should have been made along the way. How are other cities avoiding tainted water from inherently poisonous pipes? Let's talk about it.
Medical research is underfunded. What could we be doing? Why does it matter? Not a one shot about how we're dying of cancer and the government doesn't care. To care about funding, people have to know what that entails. Instead we get a one-off piece about "wasted" study money on some rat nonsense. Was it though? I dunno. Let's talk about it.
2020. Vote. But actually look at who has the best shot at fixing problems, rather than pointing at a fire and screaming, "FIRE!" Yeah. Thanks. I'm already scorched. Of course I know that person is a Democratic candidate. :) But still, can we talk about it? At the very least, talk about what is being done and can be continued, instead of assuming everything is awful and there's no way out, so why bother. Let's talk about it.
1
A most welcome article! Yes we are often driven into despair about the future by endless stories of the failures of leaders etc and not enough attention is given to the many other things happening in our communities that are contributors to more positive outcomes.
This reminds me of the approach of an engineer professor at McGill University who advanced the term Environmental Solutions for his research group rather than emphasize our failures as a society to tackle environmental issues. This simple change in terminology changes perspectives from defeatist to constructive.
4
What is crucial is not just spotlighting good things going on, but finding those who are really solving problems and figuring out how that works so others can learn from it. That's what makes the Fixes column so unique and so valuable. But even better than that is figuring out the forces that keep producing the problems and changing those social/economic patterns to produce better outcomes for everyone.
2
Yes to more reporting about solutions! But GK Chesterton's observation about the intrinsic distortions of journalism seems relevant here. He wrote:
"It is the one great weakness of journalism as a picture of our modern existence, that it must be a picture made up entirely of exceptions. We announce on flaring posters that a man has fallen off a scaffolding. We do not announce on flaring posters that a man has not fallen off a scaffolding. Yet this latter fact is fundamentally more exciting, as indicating that that moving tower of terror and mystery, a man, is still abroad upon the earth. That the man has not fallen off a scaffolding is really more sensational; and it is also some thousand times more common. But journalism cannot reasonably be expected thus to insist upon the permanent miracles. Busy editors cannot be expected to put on their posters, “Mr. Wilkinson Still Safe,” or “Mr. Jones, of Worthing, Not Dead Yet.” They cannot announce the happiness of mankind at all. They cannot describe all the forks that are not stolen, or all the marriages that are not judiciously dissolved. Hence the complex picture they give of life is of necessity fallacious; they can only represent what is unusual. However democratic they may be, they are only concerned with the minority."
6
We live in a time that has acknowledged many problems at a growing rate. PTSD is high on that list: its recognition alone has greatly enlarged the numbers of those suffering. Addictions, both drugs and alcohol are included.
When we include wars and the many political problems we are forced to confront, is it any wonder that our mental states are in such disarray?
We (humans) will continue to need groups who recognize our many problems and are willing to chip in and help and I thank them for their efforts.
1
Thank you for this story. Yes, I would like to see more examples of community, caring, and positive acts. Although I believe we need to know what threatens our democracy, a little balance with examples of what lifts it up would be most welcome.
2
Our local paper long ago stopped publishing stories about what was going on in the neighborhoods; a new park, neighborhood parade, school news, things that show it’s not all bad. The local TV news spends most of its time telling us about bad news or the weather or when they’re going to tell us about the weather. But one station does take a few minutes on Friday to mention 5 good things that happened in the city this week. I agree that we need more ways to connect and I guess for younger people that’s social media? That leaves a lot of us older newspaper readers out of luck. David, thanks for your always thought provoking words.
5
Dear Mr. Brooks -- I have enjoyed your transition from a finger-waving conservative to an almost ministerial philosopher. The Weavers that you have highlighted are inspiring, and tragedy can be a powerful change agent if you can channel it. My experience with having experienced the "academic hat trick" of tenure, a divorce, and a heart attack led to my my realization that the 1st Mountain is not all it is cracked up to be. But putting yourself in a position of success can be a powerful platform. I used this moment in my life to simultaneously continue my scholarship while also leading the engineering school to open its doors more widely to minority students. This led later to starting a program between my university and Makerere University in Kampala to bring students here to study in order to build their biomedical engineering faculty. Many of my colleagues joined both efforts when shown a fruitful path that they could follow.
4
I would like to see a David Brooks mea culpa column in which he confesses to cold-hearted Republicaness, repents for worshipping Mammon, expresses regret for changing partners halfway through life, wishes he had never bought that big house and pleads for mercy, perhaps salted with a little slack. Then maybe we could all read and discuss the merits of his thoughts and ideas absent all the self righteous fury. I say this as a life-long disciple of FDR, as one of six reared by a single mother whose $164 a month ADC welfare check and the surplus commodities program were all that stood between us and starvation for a few years and as someone who spent his entire 45 year legal career fighting for economic justice. But just as my life was shaped by the accident of where, when and to whom I was born, so it was, I suspect, with David Brooks. Thus it is no surprise that my experience led me to revile Reagan’s policies while David’s background led him to admire them. As for this specific column, I’m on board with volunteerism as a shaper of healthy attitudes via the saving starfish model. But I don’t see it as in conflict with government assistance. And I don’t think, or at least hope, that David does, either.
12
@Dale Irwin
Sir, I believe Mr. Brooks repents for his sins in his new book.
@Gloria
I wasn’t aware of that. His new book has been sitting on the shelf waiting for me to finish News of the World, a fine little piece of fiction. I’ll get right to reading it. But as his more vocal critics probably won’t read his book, I stand by my call for him to do a short column hitting on those points.
1
Asiaha Butler, Darius Barringer: WOW. Thank you each for what you do. Thank you David for leading me to Weave the Social Fabric Initiatve's website (which profiles these jaw-droppingly amazing people and their work).
David, reading your column I also felt that these people brought out the best in *you*. I'm so glad you found your way to them.
5
I am old enough to appreciate and welcome the moderate voice you add to the chorus, but I am also concerned about your new song. While I do not share many of your conservative inclinations, you have always presented your views in a way that invites engagement, discussion and (yes) perhaps compromise. In short, I am a fan.
I began reading your latest book, grateful you are inviting readers to distinguish between happiness and joy, and to seek "a moral life." The #WeaveThePeople initiative, however, brings to mind the myriad such programs in which I participated - both faith based and secular - that deluded the participants into believing that they were a force that would change the world. And here we are. Not much has changed.
Perhaps the constructive criticism that I offer is like the resistance Moses and Christ encountered by their contemporaries, or like the scorn felt my Dr. Martin Luther King during the early days of his quest for justice. But, my criticism is not intended to extinguish the fire of your convictions: rather I urge you to recognize your great gift as a journalist, writer and teacher, to expose the forces that tear at our social and spiritual fabric. Expose the excesses of unregulated capitalism. Expose the sophistry that undermines democracy. Expose how concepts such as meritocracy and unhealthy competition (at the expense of cooperation) tear at our souls, especially among our children. In other words, I thank you for what you do best.
8
Yes, our political life is dysfunctional, and we have some very serious problems, from climate change to racism to increasing wealth and income inequality. Let's not forget the ongoing wars and threats of new wars. So let's shift our attention to the happy stories of progress? Maybe, if these problems were not growing worse and more threatening. Maybe, if there were ample time. But we all know better. Except Mr Brooks, as usual.
7
Nice column. Problems are opportunities in disguise. That approach should be a tenet of journalism. Just to point out the problems is not enough, need to see where we can create solutions .
Reader can take away that we are a nation of doers and problem solvers.
Not a bad premise to build a newspaper on.
4
David,
Thanks for writing this. I have long felt that most news has focused on crime, dirty politics, and disasters-- almost exclusively. Listening to the evening news is more like listening to a police report. This can be depressing. It's not that these topic should be ignored. But they should be balanced with stories of those who are doing something about it. Most of us are very aware of the problems. We need more stories about what people are doing about them.
4
David, just what role, if any, does the federal government play in creating a "nation of weavers?" How is your thesis different from Bush I's failed "thousand points of light" approach to providing social supports across America?
While I sincerely cheer on the extraordinary efforts of the folks in today's column and your efforts to bring their good works to light, I think it's naive to suggest good works and stronger communities will fill the role that government could play in providing a stronger social safety net.
21
David,
Every editoral article you write, seems to start with a false premise.
Today, that false premise is: ..."The world will get better when we show where things have gone wrong."
The implication of your friends statement is flat out wrong.
And of course, David, you conveniently leave out the terrible damage the character assassination and slander of fox "news" prime-time, and Hate radio; that the Limbaughs and Bannons reside in.
Truth David. The Facts. That is what News is about. Its not a Disney movie.
Cheering the "good" is easy David; how about more "standing up to hate" David. That, takes a spine.
We want our Country back. Stop the lying.
75
@Fred Armstrong
I think that Mr. Brooks was pointing out that "The world will get better when we show where things have gone wrong" is the misguided professional habit of the media, true on both the right and the left. So, by saying it was misguided, wasn't he saying it was false?
3
The weavers, unfortunately, are in a futile struggle against the downstream results of major forces that create their charges. Journalism is right to cover these major forces.
The dissolution of community can be traced to unfettered capitalism and the "ethic" of current corporate America that anything goes to satisfy shareholders:
Invest in things that promote profit, not people as individuals.
Deregulate business to the extent that screwing the customer/individual is expect and tolerated and shrugged off as "it's business don't take it personally."
Create a social climate where individuals who depend on corporations for their livelihood, products and services come to expect that they will be cheated and swindled with the blessings of our right wing government, with little recourse. How then to promote trust among individuals and teach civic trust to our children?
Starve the tax base of municipalities who then must prostrate themselves in the way of tax breaks in order for corporations to come to town, who in turn devastate small local businesses. Citizens who once interacted with neighbors, who shared their interest in the community, to secure the necessities of life, people they could actually talk to, now must deal with a corporate monolith, who's customer service rep is at phone bank in India.
Well and good to celebrate the weavers, but don't create a side show to divert our attention from the first order forces that create their need.
13
@Anthony
Sir, with all due respect! Your comments are so negative. You will never get rid of capitalism in the USA. You'll never get rid of people who distrust the Federal Government with their money. It's impossible. Progressives (air quotes) would have to dominate and overpower what comes naturally to Americans. That's why Moderates hold the answers. There the only ones who don't believe in force and domination. . . .
1
Well, Dave, y’all got there by sticking up for republicans for far, far too long.
Please stop contact-papering your massive errors over ours.
8
@Robert that was brilliant. I can’t help but remember when I pulled away the contact paper that someone long ago thought would work as a back splash for the sink in our very old rent stabilized apartment. The layers of cockroaches that had lived and died under the contact paper was grotesque.
There is a name — #ourtopstory — for “The Big Story You Don’t Read,” and I make the case for its economic benefit — now with your help — in an education fantasy. You are urging us to tell the story of those of us who are contributing on the front lines to the well-being of others. In my story, The New York Times and other top tier news organizations profit from covering “The Big Story You Don’t Read.” It leads to the building of an inspiration system on the inspiring truth of achievement reported by the best news organizations which is why The New York Times has long been a part of the education fantasy. Thank you for your thought and a phrase that becomes iconic in this tale I tell my son each year.
When I came home from Viet Nam I was totally lost. I spent several years alone, depressed, well on my way to a welcomed early grave. That changed when I stumbled upon a weaver. He was a WWI veteran, sociology professor. He wrote a note to me on a test I had failed instructing me to meet him in his office for an "Office Hour" right after class. I did. I went to his office expecting the same old pep talk well intended people give to problem veterans. It wasn't.
It took hours. He shared his veterans story with me. He went deep. I couldn't hold back the tears. I had been discovered. There was no more hiding. He could identify with what I was feeling, or more like what I wasn't feeling. It turned out he had walked my path for many years after WWI. The only difference was he figged a way out. It was simple. Weave, and keep weaving by helping others and never stop.
During that office hour he developed a book list for me to read. A spiritualist for me to visit. And, a list of life goals. I read the books, twelve of them. Counseled with the spiritualist several times. And, completed the life goals list, within ten years. I still have the list.
I still weave. This is a great topic Mr. Brooks. Thank you. Keep weaving.
490
@concord63 - thank you. Would you share your book list?
33
@Ted McKnight
A very moving story, I thank you. I do have a negative, and I hope a correct comment. The professor was a Democrat.
8
@concord63 - Having read David's column and now your lovely, inspiring comment, I'm not going to read another thing in today's paper. I'm so sorry for your years of suffering and thankful that you're at peace. I wish this for all veterans, who are mainly left to their own devices after serving. Thank you for sharing this.
17
Interesting that Mr Brooks is so keen to promote the Weavers. I suspect that were these people to be featured on Fox "News" they would be labelled Socialists and "do-gooders". I suspect that many of the Weavers have a political philosophy well to the left of Mr Brooks
However, I hope Mr Brooks's network of Weavers can be expanded quickly enough so that they might take up the slack in the social safety nets being torn apart by Mr Brooks and his GOP faithful friends. Is that the hope he speaks of?
The truth is there are always good people doing this kind of altruistic service - it will never be a substitute for effective professional social services - but it is a nice adjunct.
5
@MrC When I grew up in the 50s/60s, they were called nuns. Going about doing good works and educating youngsters with no expectation of reward or recognition.
1
@MrC Do you think it is possible to look at some matters outside of the filter of political association or the cynicism that seems to have invaded all our discourse?
1
This is obviously an article about community organizers trying to help others but calling themselves 'Weavers'.
How about the fact that President Obama was constantly belittled by Republicans as having been a lowly community organizer who should never have been elected for a public office?
His predecessor is a man who is tearing up the fabric of communities around our country by sowing hat and fear of all the "Others".
The sudden piousness of Brooks about the importance of people's need to be helped by others quite surprising. Maybe so many people wouldn't suffer from trauma if the US not only had a solid healthcare system for all - akin to all other advanced nations - but would also regulate 'weapons of mass destruction' - oops, unfettered access to guns.
Where is the story of traumatized mothers or fathers hearing their kids will never come home from school after yet another shooting? Do they have their own 'weavers' community?
8
"The Big Story You Don’t Read About
Journalists don’t always cover what’s really going on."
is hardly stop-the-press-news.
2
"If it bleeds, it leads."
That's where the journalism money is.
1
You are all working for the penny. Not for people, but for what pays the bills, WE ALL ARE. Stop asking why you only spend 10% on things that matter and 90% on loser rich people who lie to our faces. The corporate overlords are happy to keep us indentured and thus fully under control so they can underpay us and give us our opinions and otherwise control us to their will.
6
That The New York Times publishes a column including the phrase "the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics" after what's been happening in state legislatures over the past two days is journalistic atrocity.
8
What Brooks calls Weavers, I call communitarians: people who are involved with the community we make, who work to build a better community, who see all sorts of people as part of our community.
On the volunteer level, these people are everywhere, even if you don't spot them. That guy in the pickup, with the Trump sticker? He is a volunteer fire fighter and the first to arrive at your house when the carbon monoxide monitor is going off.
And that guy in the suit? He volunteers to do taxes, while the guy next to him volunteers for your parish. The woman next to that coaches soccer. And the woman next to her? She runs the food bank.
The problem is that we cannot survive with our weaving, our communitarian work being all volunteer. Our resources are spread so that the supply doesn't match the where the demand is located, and the demand outstrips the supply. That is why people turn to government to help. I am willing to use my tax dollars to educate, to help house, to help find jobs, to help feed, to help take care of when sick. I am willing because I can't do it myself.
The Weavers Brooks has met are extraordinary. We need more ordinary approaches too, big resources, big solutions. Brooks writes of the people we need to be - involved committed and caring. But he needs to help us remember that that may not be enough.
180
@Cathy
Try the social gospel. Catholic charities. The Red Cross.
Social Security cares for wido(er)s, orphans and the disabled, and is the safety net, if not the loom for all that weaving. Add Medicare, Medicaid and the VA.
Behind the scenes, the Republican party is working to undermine it.
36
@Cathy
I have never posted like this before, but I found your comment so eloquent and on point, that I wanted to tell you so.
12
@Cathy
Precisely so - great comment. Mr. Brooks' approach here made me think of when the austerity budgets were introduced in the UK, with the proviso from the politician (Cameron?) that it was "important that we all help each other" - code for "because we are going to take the government help away".
16
So Rome is burning, but cheer up because a couple of people have found a bucket with some water in it.
204
@Sgt Schulz
Was that the point, cheer up, Sarge? Or maybe was there a little hope that this story could move some people to get up and do something? David probably believes he 'does something', both career wise and personally. Fish or cut bait, but ask yourself why you need to poison the waters.
1
@Sgt Schulz My version - So Rome is burning but you only have one bucket of water ................ POUR It ! ! !
Even if you see it's hopeless.
8
@Sgt Schulz nicely done. . .
4
How many more columns will David Brooks be allowed to use for promoting interests untied to the book he has just released? It is an unacceptable use of such a vital platform. One was enough.
2
Hey, we’re reading it now! Please keep the success stories coming.
3
I am waiting for Brooks to write an essay called "A Few More Drumlins: The Moral Failure of the GOP in America."
3
Neil Postman. Robert D. Putnam.
Oh, Dear Poor David,
Like Peggy Noonan and Glenn Beck, like children with kerosene and a match, their paper and quill, watch aghast at the raging wild fires they have set as all burns down and now reach for paltry sources to extinguish.
Thanks, Dave. We The People will take it from here but thanks for your uplifting attempt to save your Soul.
5
Journalists may not cover the stories that Mr. Brooks wants to be covered, but what do opinion columnists cover? Today, Right Wing Conservative columnist mostly seem to be writing about anything except the sad corruption of Conservatism.
2
"How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics and 10 percent of our coverage on the 90 percent of our lives influenced by relationship, community and the places we live in every day?"
David, the answer would be obvious: Money.
You rose to fame and fortune based on what? Helping the people at "Weave" do some great things that nobody reads about?
OR, writing and commenting about inflammatory stuff that gets the old Republicans ranting and spitting at the TV?
When Ronnie began the process of destroying the working class, were you out there talking to GE employees that were being nuked by the worst Republican incantation manager in American History: Jack Welch? Were you showing how incompetent that true incompetent was?
OR, were you writing about what a visionary Neutron Jack was as he became one of the first incompetent managers to used firings and layoffs to cloak his incompetence?
Where were you, David, before you became financially wealthy and could start trying to live a life that matters to others, not to your bank account?
4
Come on folks get happy! Let's follow David as he guides us down the rabbit hole.
It's the same GOP wine in the same old cheap, chipped bottle.
If only the mean "media' would cover the local heroes/volunteers making all our lives so much better.
Time too to believe in the Tooth Fairy.
4
Wasn't there a president who listed "community organizer" as one of his accomplishments? Was he lauded by David Brookes for having rightly identified "community" as the foundation of a good society before it was sexy? Its too bad he wasn't because the right wing media absolutely skewered Obama for being a community organizer. In fact its still a mark of derision for anyone who so identifies.
23
That’s great for the people in your examples. I wish them well.
Not so great, when they get used as a stick to beat others. See, they succeeded so anyone under any circumstance can, and if they don’t they are lazy and stupid.
I want a debate between Brooks and Barbara Ehrenreich.
2
To day learn that Florida Govern sign nondisclosure agreement FBI that 2 Counties was hack by Russia. WOW. Who FBI working for America People or Russia this is disgrace to America People FBI hold back blueprint for 2020 Election to be hack again . This is total Unacceptable.
I added a subscription to the Christian Science Monitor for exactly this reason. Even though I still value the NYT as my main source of news, I have been finding its focus on negatives depressing, alienating, and demotivating.
1
I urge Mr. Brooks and Mr. Bornstein to continue putting their pens where their mouths are, as well as all other journalists inclined to write positive news stories. I weary of the constant bombardment of negative news, particularly political, to the point that I no longer watch any TV, and other than the NYT, rarely consult US-based news outlets.
May the weavers of the social fabric continue to go forth, multiply, and be encouraged to walk and work their magic among us.
1
A network doing 24/7 media coverage of good people doing good and uplifting things would be wonderful and inspiring and, sadly, would be a surefire ratings loser.
Human nature is that people would rather watch police cars and helicopters chase a white Ford Bronco with a suspected murderer ex-football star driving at 45 mph, for hours on end.
And that's what today's journalists cover. That, and Donald Trump's misspelled, misguided and moronic Tweets.
Ugh.
59
@Jack Sonville Very successful magazines such as Parade and People often have covered happy stories.
3
@Jack Sonville
What a good idea, and I'm having the strong feeling it would be hugely successful. (I hope they include examples of good parenting.)
@DeirdreG, I agree I am looking for good news constantly. Some of us are doing things right and we aren’t acknowledged. I volunteer with the League of Woman Voters and they could profile women for a year who are making a difference.
2
I must admit, I get a laugh from reading these late-in-life realization columns from Brooks. He asks: "How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics and 10 percent of our coverage on the 90 percent of our lives influenced by relationship, community and the places we live in every day?" Well, David, it's amazing that you can ask that question. You spent 90 percent of your life making a very wealthy career covering the 10 percent influenced by politics. Also, because we have an ad-driven system to pay for journalism, the only things that get covered are sensational stories that attract readers/viewers, who are then used to attract advertisers.
There you go, David...I think that answers your question.
3
We desperately need more listeners and more good writers and newspeople who merit our attention. I am a product of the Civil Rights and Vietnam War protest era and only remember the reasoned voices of Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy. If I learned anything, it was that once the heartstrings were touched, we became better people.
Wonderful essay, useful advice.
5
Woke up this morning, read this article and remembered this line in JFK's inaugural speech that said,
'Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.' What's happened since then? How far have we fallen? Has our naive idealism shriveled to hopeless cynicism?
Of course. While our society is broken, it's still fixable. Through its holes, the light of individuals from all walks of life still shines.
Yet for how long? What's demanded, now more than ever, is moral leadership from the ground up, the top down, through and through. Regardless of whether you believe Brooks, believe in yourself.
Vote.
4
Politics is about the authoritative allocation of values and because so many wrong-headed individuals (IMO) are periodically able to gain control and force things down our throats, we focus on getting to authoritatively allocate our own values. We are indeed fortunate that there are so many "weavers" in our polity, but they will toil in obscurity while people like Trump supporters try to bash our heads in.
2
"My colleague David Bornstein points out that a lot of American journalism is based on a mistaken theory of change. That theory is: The world will get better when we show where things have gone wrong. A lot of what we do in our business is expose error, cover problems and identify conflict."
Journalism anywhere is based on "selling newspapers" (magazines, subscriptions etc.) or selling advertisements in fora that sell newspapers etc. Usually that implies that the journalism be "interesting" and not "boring".
"But many of our colleagues don’t define local social repair and community-building as news. It seems too goody-goody, too “worthy,” too sincere. It won’t attract eyeballs."
Mr. Brooks, you are an established journalist given a good deal of leeway by your employer as to what is interesting journalism. Not everybody in the field is given that amount of leeway.
Can you honestly tell me that if you were starting and trying to sell yourself that this is what you would have written about?
I don't disagree with what you write, but if you were not David Brooks would this type of feature op-ed get published in a mainstream newspaper? In my view, unlikely.
3
So what's the point Mr. Brooks that there are terrific people in this country? Gee I had no idea. It doesn't surprise me but it may surprise someone like you that remains so faithful to that most cynical of all institutions — the Republican party. The idea that someone would do something just because its the right thing to do has no place there. They only believe, like their president, that life is just a scam and the best scammers win.
The press has been more than great reporting all the things we can do to prevent the impending doom of climate change. The right's response? That all those scientists that form the consensus are somehow tainted and lying to some untamable benefit to themselves. How do you ever come to any agreement with a group of people that will NEVER believe anything that's true? That is the source of dismay, not the reporting of the facts but the dismissal of them by those that have power over us.
6
"Martha Welch, a professor and researcher at Columbia, pointed out that our emotional health is dependent on connection with others. We don’t just regulate emotions ourselves."
Ok, so that's Martha Welch.
"Most of life's problems are caused by people who don't know how to be in a room alone." (And that's Blaise Pascal).
"We simply are alone." (And that's Rainer Maria Rilke). And...
I started thinking seriously "about life" more than 40 years ago as a philosophy major. I like to think I still do "think" about life seriously. Quoting "authorities" on what we, as people, are "all about", or "need", really doesn't help much, unless what we expect of life is the freedom to choose among "experts'" views on what life is all about. That parlor game can go on forever.
We are often alone. (For some, that's heaven on earth; for others a nightmare). We are sometimes together with others. (For some, that's heaven on earth; for others a nightmare).
We sometimes laugh, and cry; we suffer, we work, we are joyous and miserable. We injure and are injured; we sometimes neglect and are neglected. No thinking person would deny that there are wrongs to be righted, and injustices to be set straight. And Mr Brooks' Weavers have clearly found some answer... to some question; and good on them.
Is life, then, "all about" an unending series of problems in need of solving; conflict in search of resolution and transformation. Is life itself, in other words, a problem?
And if it is... ???
2
I sit in in silence at HIV clinics with people who cling to their oxygen tanks. AIDS is far from over. Americans pay $2K for Truvada which costs $8 in Australia. The depression and hopelessness you write about is real. I thank you for your voice.
Local AIDS orgs and charities look like they are doing something. But when you get inside these local groups you see a lot of effort is spent on the status quo. People clinging to their jobs. This is where the money really goes. We are still having runs and AIDS walks. Nothing new. All the old paradigms win out over any innovation regarding fundraising.
The media covers one tiny, tiny, tiny tip of the melting ice berg.
No eyeballs. It is not in vogue to cover desperation.
I know you see hope. I just can't find any. I teach adolescent boys with HIV. We call them the At-Risk. Their suicide rates are sky high. The term "teaching" is disingenuous. What we really do is explore ways to stay alive.
There are very few.
Journalism burned out on us a long time ago. Today, it's indifference that has its hands around our throats. Public Health prescribes drugs no one can afford, and at times, the shelves are bare. The drugs are not available.
This is not a cure.
This is a revenge by a power structure of old white men bent on profit. This is control over bodies who broke the rules in a culture war journalism perpetuates by the pretense it is a passing symptom. The problems in any culture war are systematic. Local groups are ephemeral.
7
David.
I’m a fan of your writing and thinking and this is a good example however flawed at the end.
That you have to ask essentially “...how did we get ( here) is bothersome.
The media is off mission, on both sides because there should be only one side you’re on...the people.
Media should be, as intended, informing us and helping us hold government (not party’s) accountable.
You should collect some colleagues and start your own outlet.
Investigate, inform with no fear or favor.
People will flock to this.
And we’d may be able return politicians to “public servant”.
1
We are bombarded 24/7 with things that make no sense to any sensible person. This incurious amateur president has made it his priority to destroy the country, our values, and our Constitution while his cowardly republican enablers do nothing to educate or rein him in. And this has to be by design.
So while I agree with you David, and I admire those with the heart and courage to find positive solutions, I just feel overwhelmed and defeated. Madness and ugliness have taken over this once great nation. And every minute of every day I see the country inching closer and closer to making this ignorant arrogant cheat of a president a dictator.
5
These are deeply moving stories.
However, the Big Story, the one about Trump, corruption, Barr, McConnell, Graham, the Russians, the stonewalling, the brazen lies, the constant lies, the endless lies, the greed, the destroying of around 1 million species within decades, the constant school shootings, the Russians, the North Koreans, the unethical behavior of an entire political party and its utter disregard of any moral compass, the rise of a sharia-law type of attitude towards women, the opioid addictions and deaths, how can these things not dominate the world we live in, Mr. Brooks.
How can we not face these issues head on?
My parents were children when WWII began. I remember asking them what it was like, whether they were aware that something terrible was happening, before it happened.
I can feel it in my very soul that something terrible is happening to our country.
There is a rot at the very core of this country and the only way it will be defeated is not at he Aspen Institute, but in everyday America, in not averting our eyes, in picking ourselves up and attacking that rot head on.
6
A barrage of bad news that one can do nothing to change is positively unhealthy.
I was so glad you were in the room with mad black people. Thank you for feeling uncomfortable and sticking to it. In your past columns I never got a sense you listened to people outside of your class.
I am such a fan of weaving behavior — I even like the word. It has a sneaky spirituality. When you work together with your neighbors for the common good, you are mostly talking strategy — but then you get overwhelmed by thankfulness. Thank you for those wonderful, ordinary people.
2
Oh my! how inspiring to read of weavers. Weavers who suffered terribly, rising from the ashes to overcome the dreadful handicaps and adversities imposed upon them by the Revolt of the Rich. A fifty year war that has now been won.
80-90% stagnated while the 0.01% soared!
Taxes halved!
Wealth flowing upwards!
Unlimited Koch money runs state legislatures!
All legislation must be authored by (Koch-funded) ALEC!
And to make sure it stays this way--or gets even more so--ultra-right wing judges are in place for the next 20 or 30 years!
Brooks grows teary-eyed at the noble efforts of weavers while lustily cheering on the dystopian policies which made "weaverism" necessary.
6
Brooks ends his column with a philosophical question:
"How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics and 10 percent of our coverage on the 90 percent of our lives influenced by relationship, community and the places we live in every day?"
Two answers:
1. Stories on human relationships don't sell papers any more than new about dog biting a man will. But stories on the political intrigue sell papers just like stories on man biting a dog. That is on the demand side of the equation.
2. Pundits like Brooks, Dowd and others are responsible for breathlessly covering every silly thing uttered by our silly President of the even sillier leader of Senate majority. And that is on the supply side.
It is a mere matter of supply and demand.
Let me close with this rhetorical question: How many people watch the PBS News Hour? How many more watch Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity?
3
I attend many churches. In them, many good people do many good things in our community. Many of them also voted for Trump. That is inexcusable. It isn't enough to do good at the local level. Every decision we make - from what we eat, to what we drive, to how we interact with others, to our vote -- must be for the greater good. And, I'm sorry, a do-gooder who votes for Trump nullifies everything else that person has done.
316
@Didier
That's a simplistic view of human struggles. Perhaps, some of those people regret their vote, were misinformed or struggled with their decision between two polarizing presidential nominees in 2016. So, not everyone who voted for Trump is deplorable. And no, I don't believe it nullifies everything else that person has done.
PS: I voted for Clinton.
7
@Didier
I don't agree that all people who voted for Trump support him now. and therefore we should ignore their do good works There were so many who would not vote for Hilary that voted for him. So a lot of Trump voters are no longer supportive of Trump. I do not think we should denigrate all Trump voters.
6
@Didier
What you say is provocative and correct. Every decision has impact and thus should be made for the greater good. I would give the Trump voters a tiny (OK, infinitesimal) bit of slack in 2016 because of the erroneous notion that perhaps once in office, Trump might grow-up... there was that unfortunate thought at the time. I would edit your comment to read "who would still even consider voting for Trump."
24
Mr. Brooks, you have come to be a valuable voice for Humanizing, and I, for one, appreciate your metamorphosis.
More attention must be paid to the living condition we all share, and more people will find a reason to relate in ways that transcend politics.
Life goes on in the spaces we call home, uninfluenced by the media circus of elections, though that is all the media focus on.
Thanks. I look forward to seeing you on the PBS News Hour tonight, always.
You in your business got in to this spot because algorithms codified a bean counter mentality that moves all the shocking stuff to the top. You and your employers make money. And we get crazy people going on shooting sprees to get attention.
4
A welcomed eye-opener. Thank you, David Brooks, for shining the light on these very admirable and inspiring “weavers.”
Far too little coverage of this type of dedicated solution-building in our fraught world.
1
"A lot of what we do in our business is expose error, cover problems and identify conflict."
And a big Thank You for that. Otherwise, the people would really be powerless. At least with the media keeping tabs on things, they can hope that corporate fraud will be exposed (Monsanto rings a bell), that government malfeasance will get plenty of light (Trump rings a bell), and man's inhumanity to man will not be always lie hidden behind platitudes and sophistry.
5
Sins of commission and sins of omission.
I remember this paper and most of the press ignoring huge rallies for Bernie Sanders even in the Red South but they covered every utterance of Trump. CNN and MSNBC would interrupt other coverage to show his rallies, including an empty podium.
I hold our horse race obsessed media partly responsible for Donald J Trump as President. They are already declaring Joe Biden the "front runner" despite the fact nobody has voted, few are paying much attention and not one debate has been held. This is destructive to the democratic process. Let the process go on and cover policy- not gossip about who is ahead or behind.
18
@David Gregory ... Thanks! And do you see much coverage of income inequality and solutions for it?
It threatens the ultra rich and big corporations and banks. So, it's not truly covered and hardly covered.
When was the last time you read, heard or found it on cable and network news, even in this run-up to an election year?
3
Why does the media not cover positive stories such as that of the #Weavers? Simple. Money drives everything and positivity doesn't sell. Why does positivity not sell? A little more complicated. We have been conditioned by the media who sells negativity to prefer, expect and react emotionally to the negative horrors in the world. We have been divided by the GOP political machine, taught to hate and/or resist tolerance for one another.
Mr. Brooks have you considered working toward repairing the damage your party has doen to this country? That would be Weaver- worthy work and could go a long way toward healing problems instead of merely describing them.
8
WE THE PEOPLE...in order to form a more perfect union must help others as you would want to be helped.
Before I read this article I assumed it was about local government action on issues since the Federal government is polarized, then along came Alabama abortion law. Thank you Mr Brooks. I now realize change is further down the social chain ...one person at a time.
2
As neuroscientists say, negativity sticks to the brain like velcro; positivity slips off like teflon. This is how humans evolved - the ones who remembered where danger is were most likely to survive. But negativity releases stress hormones, and the barrage of bad news we intake on a daily basis is bad for our health and bad for our sense of connectivity with others. We need to take in 10x more positive than negative, and that can be done by simply noticing what is good in our daily lives.
The massive leap in understanding that's occurring in neuroscience is the best hope for humankind. For the first time in history, we actually know how to heal trauma, not just medicate its symptoms. That healing power has the potential to end generations-long conflicts and get us together to save the planet.
Most of that healing potential is rooted in relationship. Eye-to-eye, skin-to-skin relationship.
3
Beautiful. Spot on. More, please. I’ve often pondered why articles about the human experience often appear in the “Style” section. (Not in this case, but a bit of what David references.) A throwback, perhaps? Big welcome to inviting our human experience and relationships front and center. Above the fold. Because they really are. Thanks for this, David. Truly.
5
I'm glad David said it. I suggest you subscribe to the CJR. It's free from Columbia U.
Then too there are stories people believe are covered but I haven't heard a word about income inequality on cable news stations or the major networks...and does the NYT and WP cover this great threat to democracy regularly?
No, for some reason it's not even covered by another name since income inequality is a term the establishment will not cover much. It threatens their rule over the bottom 90 percent.
Another story we Americans do not see much if at all is our Denial, in a Preference to blame Mexico, Canada and China for all most of our problems - that's a whopping threat to our failing democracy.
4
Thank you! Great article!
Everyone knows that 'conflict sells'& 'disaster news' holds people's interest. We humans are drawn to 'bad news' focused on violence, corruption, evil and threats.
Most people can't help but look at the ambulance or fire truck at the scene of a terrible accident and try to find out 'what is going on.' When there is threat or tragedy most of us 'want to know' what happened. This is instinctual, as relationships with other humans matter. We are communal creatures by nature.
News of national and world events, especially targeting politics, injustice and environmental tragedies does bias readers towards a view that everything in our society and world is massively 'wrong,' & full of massive, unending and dire problems.
People watching or reading news often get obsessed and 'vent' on social media/work/home about this. Some get 'news fatigued,' depressed and just stop taking it in.
Journalism that reports on 'what is going on' in the world does need to paint with a realistic brushstroke current issues in a way that is informative & instructive to expose serious social problems, yet does need to 'weave in' ever story threads of hope and inspiration, highlighting people who are making a positive difference in relation to these matters and instructing readers on positive actions that we can take.
1
I agree with Brooks that reading the news too much is emotionally toxic because it largely serves up problems but no solutions. It increases people's sense of frustration and alienation, and is basically just depressing. Yet we all find ourselves addicted to it to varying degrees, perhaps for the sheer joy of being horrified and outraged. Ultimately this joy leads back to depression, so I think it's wise to take a news fast periodically, and I do my best to do this. Another toxic effect of the news is that it creates a sense of the futility of government, and increases our sense of anger and disappointment in government because of its well reported failures. This serves as a distraction from the weavers and social entrepreneurs who are busy fixing the problems that are too difficult for government to solve and which we shouldn't expect them to solve. It also distracts us from our own human potential as problem solvers, weavers, and entrepreneurs, which would be better employed in creative problem-solving than in lamenting the failures of others.
6
These are great stories and the point really has the most to do with direct human contact. This has been lacking since we have gotten our "personal communicators", "news feeds" etc. We hav" IPO geniuses " who make millions by purely looking at data but don't talk to people. People contact is the most important contact we can make. Thanks for this article.
2
Mr. Brooks,
I appreciate your undertakings. They are somewhat helpful o an individual basis.
I suppose you cannot bring yourself to recognize that Republican policies have brought us to this point where ordinary Americans do not have a secure economic life.
To increase the number of weavers and simultaneously decrease the need for them, adopt policies that allow ordinary Americans to have a job with a reasonable salary and hours, medical and retirement benefits, and reasonably priced access to higher education.
But Republicans would rather, in the name of increasing economic liberty (read: lining their pockets) reduce people to regrettable states and then praise those who try to help people in crisis.
88
The longterm probable answer to David's concluding question is no doubt related to, if not a direct result of, the decline of independent local journalism due to corporate consolidation in the news industry. The short-term answer is without question tied to the new technologies that enable us to get our news digitally from sources that funnel us into narrow silos of information and opinion. I'm sorry to say that most people I know "discover" what to read through social media posts via others who already think like them and read similar things, and they then participate in the same funneling by passing on news stories on a narrow set of topics and opinion pieces with theses they are likely to agree with.
2
Mr. Brooks, thank you for your column and here's the story of another neglected phenomenon from another domain. I'm a clinical psychologist and a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. For years I studied my fellow survivors and contributed to the social science literature. Now in my 60's, I returned, partly, to my earlier roots in journalism. I began a project, Bristlecone, in which I write the stories and take the portraits of men who suffered sexual violence. As I interviewed more and more men, I realized I was hearing many descriptions of transformative, spiritual experiences that were central to the men's healing. As a psychologist, I had no schema with which to understand or even listen to these transformative experiences. As a journalist, I realized that I was being given a window into a very important story, about a crucial aspect of healing from severe trauma. But it is one that is almost never discussed or recognized.
11
@David Lisak
Yes, when news coverage focuses primarily on 'what is wrong' with our society & our world this mirrors therapy settings where a client's focus is on 'the problem/s' and doesn't ever move into exploring, learning and living transformative and healing 'solutions.'
This "Big Story" article is a call for journalists to consciously become instigators of a paradigm shift in how to think about the purpose of journalism. What if each and every article's primary intent was to not only report on dismal situations but also to provide templates that would instruct people in a variety of ways they could become active participants in transforming, healing and effectively creating solutions to these problems.
Creating this new formula and embedding this in each and every journalistic article could positively revolutionize society.
1
I'm not entirely convinced, Mr. Brooks. It seems to me we do see these stories but just not on the front page. As a citizen, I want to know when they open more offshore drilling, when an administration goes to court to do away with the law that protects people with preexisting conditions and if and when we are going to bankrupt another generation with a another pointless war in the Middle East. And other little thinks like, I don't know, if impeachment hearings will begin against this criminal president.
10
@Paul Nichols I think it might be a good idea to distinguish between the kinds of stories you mention which, I agree, we need to know about as citizens of the polis, from the very personal stories Mr. Brooks writes about. While we are citizens of the polis and need to know what elected officials are up to, we are also individuals whose ability to affect the big events is limited by the election cycle and the candidates who run for office.
It is as individuals that we can effect change in ourselves and perhaps also in our immediate communities (we all live and move in more than one community). However, the multitude of stories which deal with situations and events we can't really do anything about, especially when the point of view taken by the journalist emphasizes our helplessness vis a vis those situations and events, can lead not just to a kind of lassitude on the part of citizens but also to a kind of despair and defeatism: what's the point of trying when there's no way we can make a difference.
Stories that show the powerful effects of individuals in their own communities are the best antidote to that kind of defeatism: if he/she can do that, then maybe I can do XYZ.
5
Change isn’t exactly wrong but we deny the cyclicality of life, in part because the cycles are longer than lifetimes, or at least working lives. So we don’t see the beginning to end effects. Also, most of us don’t study history. For example, an economic K-wave lasts 50-60 years, much longer than a work life and as long as many whole lives. It moves from disruptive innovation, like the silicon chip, through boom and bust. Each of these phases has profound effects on society that we ignore, yet they explain a lot about where we are. How different are we socially and politically from the people of Edwardian England? Not much.
1
We live, very much, in a reactive media environment, which is trying to give us the story du jour. Donald Trump says something outrageous, so it is covered. The word "socialism" is mentioned in the context of a Democrat, and so that is news for several days. Someone throws out "Medicare for All" and that becomes the ball that is batted around. The problem is there is very little depth, and few national forums in which to forward the national dialogue.
It would be nice if the society in which we live focused on the stories Brooks mentions here, in order to shift the emphasis to a "different-than-sensationalism" mindset.
But we can't seem to help ourselves. We are apparently attracted to the shiny object. Or, the press makes a bet that this is the safest thing to cover. And life goes on...no meaningful dialogues among the people to solve problems, live better lives, or launch compelling initiatives.
7
Instead of trying desperately to change his image and shirk his responsibility, Mr. Brooks should just own up to his role in the conservative movement that, ultimately, led to Trump and all the wonderful things we are currently experiencing - up to and including abortion bans and climate catastrophe. It would be easier for him and much, much less painful for the rest of us if he would merely admit his guilt and move on.
28
@thebigmancat
you'd rather an apology than a transformation?
1
Mr. Brooks, You asked the key question.
How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics and 10 percent of our coverage on the 90 percent of our lives influenced by relationship, community and the places we live in every day?
Because it is not journalism. You and many other "journalists" are in the self-serving entertainment business promoting hypnotic and addictive "breaking news" specifically to create a spectacle that people attend.
Trump is a very selfish and heartless man by any apparent measures. But, he is certainly not entirely wrong about the Press. The press is not serving the people, it is serving its corporate masters.
9
@BB
Cable TV.
@BB
But we have personal responsibility in that. Our addiction, our choices are what generate $. Journalists didn't get there without readers. Resist the click-bait.
1
@BB - "You and many other "journalists" are in the self-serving entertainment business promoting hypnotic and addictive "breaking news" specifically to create a spectacle that people attend."
Perfect, simply perfect.
Perhaps the nub of the problem lies in the distinction between the public sphere and the private sphere, and their interaction. The public sphere is perforce a land of universals, inhabited by policies affecting millions of people because of either action or inaction by governments and large institutions. The private sphere is the realm of the individual, the family, the “lodge” fellows, the congregation, the local fan, the fellow worker, the neighbor and the misfit, etc. The private sphere commands the attention of Mr. Brooks because the erosion of its boundaries and the weakening of its sinews has undermined the public sphere. The phenomenon of ignoble, coarse and undignified conduct of the public sphere is the result and could even topple the freedoms we’ve always cherished in our public world. Good luck if we must rely on journalism to stem these developments.
3
@Robert Clarke
The issue is that most of the time journalism is still primarily focused on creating 'stories' that people 'ingest' and 'react to' rather than catalyzing readers to personally act and respond to these described situations, as involved, dynamic participants that create positive solutions.
Journalists could intentionally create a 'new norm' for their news articles to be written as informative 'launching pads' that will inspired readers to do constructive work related to the problem area mentioned whever possible.
This could involve providing links to related persons & organizations who are making a positive difference regarding that specific situation or related issue.
As a former journalist, agreed. As a fellow citizen, amen.
5
The media these days doesn't even carry out the dismal task David has tarred it with, ferreting out injustice. Watching the nightly news is to mainly witness a parade of disaster footage from around the country, collected by the ubiquitous cheap camera, and relayed to New York, where their reporter can stand on the street corner and pretend they're real journalists. Then, cut to the weatherman for more bloviation. The common denominator for all stories is how cheaply they than be covered, which goes hand in hand with the skeleton crew most networks now employ. Every reporter is expected to perform double or triple duty, so their legal "expert" is also their airline safety "expert", and their travel "expert". There's also usually one chump whose job it is to fly everywhere in the country to cover the latest mass shooting - just so they can deliver a thirty second story.
7
@stan continople
Please watch the PBS NewsHour. The staff are well-informed, professional journalists and subject specialists who interview experts on the day's issues. There are no chumps there. And on most Friday nights, David gives his analysis of the week's most important stories. There is a vast difference between commercial network new and the NewsHour.
9
When the "big news" is that some wealthy parasite has purchased a metal rabbit for $91 million, you know that history is definitely written about and for the winners. The rest of us are only an afterthought to the media.
26
@mrfreeze6 A bigger problem is that we are less than an afterthought to the politicians pledged to represent us.
4
Mary Baker Eddy, who founded The Christian Science Monitor 110 years ago, was aware of the distorted picture the media presented in her day and its discouraging effect on the public. She dedicated her newspaper to reporting on solutions, as well as basing it on principles of fairness and accuracy in reporting--something unusual in a period of yellow journalism.
The model worked, since the paper was successful--it won numerous Pulitzer prizes and other awards--and it raised the standard of modern journalism.
It's interesting that we seem to be back in a similar period of yellow journalism now, and people are crying for change. They want solutions more than sensationalism. They want to see fairness and decency and a moral order in the world around them, so I can't help but think that we are all waiting for the kind of reporting Brooks is talking about.
2
No study of US journalism has ever found that 90% of news coverage is about politics. In fact, every study of the newspaper industry shows that 20-25% of all space goes for sports news, which gets the most space, and which is about double what all coverage of local, state, national and international government and politics gets (assuming the US is not in a war and/or you don't count war as politics coverage). Brooks needs to look at content analysis numbers to find out what US news media really spend 10% of their time or space on. They don't spend 90% of their time or space on just one topic or type of news.
DSC, Editor, Newspaper Research Journal
9
Thanks so much! It’s easy to sit in your house seeing awful news on a screen. When you step outside with your neighbors and people in your community you see the cooperation that keeps our communities together.
4
Actually, readers are not missing some kind of hidden bastion of weavers that are miraculously improving America, unbeknownst to the rest of us. Staying informed and politically involved for me and others is positively associated with many things, from civic activism to general life satisfaction (as an NYT research analysis reported several days ago).
I’m glad to read about people that are civically involved but not widely recognized, and admire their dedication. But you lose me when you suggest that the other 10% (aka many of your readers) are ignoring some kind of alternative “real” story.
I'm personally going to keep my own laser beam focused on the main story, which is a constitutional crisis now occurring in DC.
And I'm going to work on genuine, systemic change in 2020, not on a diversionary Thousands Points of Light redux.
Vote in 2020!
19
The last paragraph begins with the phrase "How did we in our business..."
Business is the operative word. Brutality sells. News outlets are raking in cash hand over fist covering the systematic dismantling of our Republic. What used to be boring is now exciting and profitable because it plays to our anxieties and amplifies them. People are actually reading news articles about tariffs! Before Trump, there was no subject in the world more boring than tariffs. Most people had no concept of what a tariff actually is (much like Trump today, it seems) because their cognitive functions would shut down from boredom from the very mention of the word. Now tariffs are front-page headlines drawing tens of millions of clicks. In a world where people no longer buy newspapers, clicks are everything.
Some news outlets have gone so far as to simply manufacture inflammatory content from scratch. As America's most successful news outlet Fox News has demonstrated, lies and fiction are far more profitable than journalism. Journalism itself is most profitable when it is used to dress fantasy as fact. "Associational life" and community-oriented fact-based journalism are dinosaurs on a bullet train to extinction.
1
Mr. Brooks, how many Republicans are Weavers? They're the ones who leave us "feeling disempowered and depressed." Are you suggesting that we ignore this story of the dissolution of our nation and the people responsible for it?
Did it ever occur to you to invite Charles Perry and Dylan Tête and Sarah Adkins and Pancho Argüelles and the others whom you mention (but not by name) to a larger, national discussion of the moral rot in America, one that finds its breath and being in the Republican Party of whom, be it said, that you are still extolling for its adherence to the mortal combat of "unfettered capitalism" and the abandonment of the moral choices upon which our lives are measured?
If "our emotional health is dependent on connection with others," why are we a country that's poor by any worthwhile measure except money and fame and power?
"How is this not a story? Why don’t we cover these people more?" Perhaps the answer to your questions is that we are weary of a life that hasn't meant very much to us, either individually or collectively. Sure, some people find temporary, fulfilling nurture, but for most, life is not a journey, it's a mere existence. But perhaps the worst that we know is that we can't do very much about the political forces that control us.
Finally, you write often about your Weavers and readers are deeply moved by your seeming compassion and wisdom. Then you'll write a column that displays your true allegiance to the forces that make life lousy.
10
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18 Thank you Red. Can always guarantee you will cut to the chase.
1
Good effort, but I think you could do more.
Making us wholly owned subsidiaries of marketing and sales, toxic consumerism has distorted our view of ourselves and each other.
Imagine a long-term power outage, as we fail to face accelerating global warming/climate change, decaying infrastructure, and deregulation of toxic waste and peoples' protections (these are becoming more common). We might have to actually - gasp - work together and help each other, and entertain ourselves and each other without passive entertainment.
The weaver story is very nice, but our culture is set up so far too many people can remain in ignorance of the plight of working stiffs whose incomes stagnate or go down while the wealthy and powerful gift themselves from the plunder.
We cannot go on exploiting a finite planet, all too often only for the "scream track" of infotainment, and expect things not to go downhill. It's time to notice the vast numbers of people supporting billionaires by earning less than a living wage.
Helping each other is the best of being human. Victim blaming, hatred, violence, and greed (pride) are the worst.
8
Doing half the job is always easier than finishing the whole job.
Describing a problem is half the job.
Describing how to fix it, how it is being fixed, is the other half.
This column notes that people get really depressed and alienated reading constantly just the first half of the story, the second part not even written for them.
4
we got there Mr. Brooks because the government, lead by conservatives, talk about taking care of people and then never do. It is left to under resourced agencies to do what the government should be doing. Like blocking abortions but not helping take care of the kids that will then be born into poverty. There would be no need for such organizations if we took care of the poor, the orphan etc.
7
I suggest people read George Lakoff's "The All New Don't Think of an Elephant" to understand had modern conservatism's moral basis makes it hard for its adherents to function in the way Brooks lauds.
7
Excellent! I know so many people who work hard every day to make this world a better place. Perhaps hearing more about the positives will lift everyone up.
6
While it is the duty of the media (or should be) to keep a close eye on the shenanigans of govenment, policians in general and of wealth movers (wheelers and dealers), I agree that positive news gives us a less depressing picture of the world.
Reading about the efforts of the two main US political parties to stymy each other's attempts to change things (or to avoid change) one gets the impression that their main aim is to block and parry, with an occasional thrust now and then.
One is almost tempted to modify the old saying: "Good news is no news" often seems to be a sub-editor's motto.
2
I appreciate this piece, it is true that reading the papers can get you down, if you don't see the kind people trying to hold the world together. Of course that can't be the focus of the NYT, I guess there are other outlets for that. Newspapers cover the big picture, the stuff we can't predict and/or that has broad repercussions, the big trends and disruptions, the individuals with the power to influence on a grand scale.
On a related note, good politicians are able to understand clearly and speak eloquently about both our little everyday concerns and large-scale transformational trends. Perhaps what is depressing is that such people seem rather rare.
6
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the political party you belong to and have championed for years, Mr. Brooks, is the one that has identified itself with "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps," "God helps those who help themselves," and like slogans, while promoting those cherished myths:
a.) the self-made millionaires and billionaires -- those supernaturally gifted beings who somehow create successful businesses and amass wealth without any lesser beings doing the work for them and without using any of the roads, railroads, airports, water, electrical, communications and other systems and utilities built by lesser beings; and
b.) the Randian rugged individualist who exists on a cloistered island of independence while scorning the assistance of government.
Do I sound cynical if I suspect that this is yet another attempt to validate the core Republican idea that government should have nothing to do with the needs of the taxpaying public and all attempts to serve their needs ought to come from private groups that don't cost the Trumps, Kochs, Du Ponts, Waltons, and other wealthy elitists any tax dollars or threaten to increase their tax burden?
279
@MisterE
You do realize that the majority of the top one percent are progressive Democrats, right? Which side funds its politicians the best? Democrats.
1
@The Observer
"... majority of the top one percent are progressive Democrats …"
You do realize that claims made without evidence or data to back up the claim will be summarily dismissed, yes?
51
@The Observer My favorite characteristic of a rightie; is their need to label themselves for the rest of us..."the observer"?
Really.
Democrats are independent minded. We each speak for ourselves.
The repeat-acon party however, relish same-ness; and speak in "talking points".
Which side "funds" best? Are you referring to legitimate political funding; or the dark money political action-cons, posing as evangelical church groups.
Corrupt money, slander and character assassination...that is being republican.
39
If you say how bad things are, with no idea of solution, the result is morality replaces politics. People moralizing when there is a problem lacking a solution, and think it will go away if those guilty stop. This is negative thinking that results from seeing good as absence of evil; if we obey the laws and don't do what we should not, life (perfect to begin with) will be good. In negative models of ethical thought, good is either absence of evil or war against it: a republic of innocence or one of terror and policing. All this is implicit in describing how bad things are, if that is all. Thus, Prophetic progressivism has something in common with the social order vs. crime model that bad news media often engage in.
Political authoritarianism, such as we have so much of, is doubtless encouraged thereby.
So what is to be done? Brooks preaches a faith in community and people loving their neighbors. Perhaps he thinks that news itself, and maybe works of elaborated thought, is insufficient because distanced (as written language). But if people come together, touching and being affected, sharing and feeling, move and motivate.
But so can ideas. Soemtimes they change the world, more than one person at a time. Opinion columns like Brooks's can change things via minds. Interpretations rule facts, and theories are real and matter. The biggest problem today may be the need for a clear theory picturing the shift to a better society.
3
The big story you don't read about nearly enough is about how, day to day, Americans are growing evermore unequal. How a top tax rate of 70% is not high enough. How the Reagan Tax Cut Voodoo economics was adopted by both parties and has nearly destroyed the once great United States middle class.
64
News consumers determined to have their personal prejudices reaffirmed will eschew news like what Weave the People covers, but in time, this sort of information will build society up.
I remember a businessman from decades ago telling his crew to push people up, or encourage and empower them.
If anyone needs encouragement, it is fully half the country at any given time while we are stuck in a culture war.
2
In fact, others, such as Deb and James Fallows are researching and writing about many similar "forgotten" Americans who are helping to build deep and durable communities across this country. However, many of us don't have the time to search out these stories because we're living our own lives and our current headlines are just so shocking, like driving by an endless carwreck. It doesn't mean those stories about local heroes aren't important, however David Brooks would prefer we look away from the tawdry, but nation-shaping, drama in Washington because of what it has finally revealed about the sick political party he has aways championed. Too bad, Mr. Brooks. Our attention will not diminish until we toss all Republicans to the curb in 2020. It's the least we can do to honor the "forgotten" Americans who represent the common good that the GOP has always disdained in its policies.
21
Your anger at the long-unfolding GOP disaster is understandable. But I disagree with your characterization of David Brooks as their champion; on the contrary I think he has generally been a voice of sanity and decency from the center-right. He has now been pushed to the edges, if not de facto pushed out of a thoroughly corrupt party.
1
@ColoradoGuy
QED
While I applaud Brooks' effort to focus on positive ways people are making change, he is wrong when he writes, "A lot of what we do in our business is expose error, cover problems and identify conflict." To be correct, it ought to read, "A lot of what we should do in our business is expose error, cover problems and identify conflict in perspective."
Though not new, the phrase, "if it bleeds, it leads", in the age of 24/7 news is more apt than ever, as each "news" source, especially those online, compete for eyeballs and clicks. Yes, error, problems, and conflict are covered, but often exaggerated far out of proportion to their actual import. Worse, the media now often promotes conflict in order to get attention, to be the first with the most annoying.
The paradigm certainly isn't new. Just go back to the Hearst papers encouraging a Spanish-American War over a century ago. However, the immediacy of the internet has created expectations in most people that they actually need to know everything NOW. And, of course they don't. But, whereas a generation ago if someone killed their four children in Kansas, it might make page seventeen of a New York paper five days later, often not making the "evening news" at all, today all the most disgusting gore is immediately aggregated and immediately fed to the billions of online consumers, amplified by the echo-chamber effect of (anti-)social media.
Though I have often disagreed with him, Brooks is a thoughtful man worthy of engagement.
7
@Steve Fankuchen
What makes people distrust the media is when there are over half a million stories accusing Trump of something, but when the investigation turns to the people who incited this riot, we just hear crickets in the background.
When it existed a generation ago, actual journalism refused to join sides.
2
"How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics...?"
I'm not sure that only 10% of our lives are influenced by politics but generally speaking I think the answer is clear: the pressure to increase readership and profits and the knowledge that stories about conflict (or the latest wonder food or celebrity happening) are better at doing both.
4
"How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics and 10 percent of our coverage on the 90 percent of our lives influenced by relationship, community and the places we live in every day?"
10 percent of our lives influenced by politics? That would be true if we lived in a near-Utopia where politics was really about providing the best possible life for all citizens with minor differences of opinion about how to do it. Have the last two and a half years been anything like that?
12
Thanks. You make a very good point. I hope the Times will listen to you. I think the Wash. Post does a good job with this. It has a weekly column called Inspired Life that is inspiring in just the way you describe.
6
Following up on the 90/10:10/90 comment -- YES! Magazine is a bimonthly that follows up in detail on the problems we face and the creative approaches that are being used to address them. Each issue confronts a major social issue alongside what is being done in communities around the country to address that challenge. Topics range from climate change to racism to policing to hunger. There is no shrinking from the issues, and solutions range from micro to macro. More reporting could profitably follow on their lead.
7
The problems we face in the larger society will not be fixed by ignoring broad policy while focusing on specific and individual examples of how Weavers enact positive change. At some point we'll have to identify the broad governing policies that can positively impact the broader society in the same way that the Weavers have in small communities.
3
Thank you Mr. Brooks. I know too that solutions to some of our most difficult issues are all around us. There are so many people that just want to improve the world around us and diligenly work to make it happen. I wonder if you have any recommendations of other writers or publications that support this outlook and highlight these efforts?
1
Thank you Mr. Brooks. I know too that solutions to some of our most difficult issues are all around us. There are so many people that just want to improve the world around us and diligenly work to make it happen. I wonder if you have any recommendations of other writers or publications that support this outlook and highlight these efforts?
1
I don't doubt that "weaving" may well help many people have a higher purpose, and help them handle their pain.
But it doesn't much address the reasons that so many have that much pain in the first place.
Maybe we need to address that rather than apply another spiritual opiate to the situation, as we have let religion do in the past.
We can start with a true accounting of the depredations of Social Darwinist capitalism, and our refusal to see the poor as equally human, because there's a Calvinist ethos out there that doesn't want to have progressive taxation, a legitimate social safety net, or a respect for the commons. And, yes, the media tends not to cover that, either--insufficiently profitable.
21
Mr. Brooks, earlier I was revisiting Crossgates with the reflections of Orwell on his days at school, where he measures 'Character' and his take on football in a sanguine ironic way, engendering peals of laughter from this reader.
The power and need of the Rich in our society where they make the rules, and we end up feeling weak and resentful. But if he had not been an involuntary toady to awful Bingo and Sim, he might have chosen a career as desperate George Bowling in 'Coming Up for Air'.
Your writing is honest and is growing in compassion. This admirer of your work wishes to thank you. It might help if there was less coverage on the rising rate of suicide in these times we are living, and The World Bulletin News from Reuters and other links is sufficient to keep some of us informed.
In praise of modern technology, we have a far wider variety of choice topics to address, and we do not all expect journalists to cover what's really going on.
While important and essential that an attempt is taking place to create the earth's first multicultural democratic republic, we might benefit from taking a look at what is happening in our home gardens.
Raw and rude guidance is not inspirational for the growing of our offspring, and on reading your essay, The Red Queen might have added 'Politics are in Fashion', bringing us all together.
1
There were good Germans too. Many people like my parents who loved the books, the music, the culture, the universities, the inventiveness and work ethic of the people and did everything they could to support the communities they were living in until they couldn't anymore.
It's very late in the day now for weavers.
8
Mr Brooks, people weave themselves into communities sparsely and haphazardly if the impulse is simply to feel "woven". Those communities, formed haphazardly, will often be at odds with each other. Some will find woven in wokeness, some in being born again.. and so forth. Others will have "been there done that". Your initiative needs a Dionysian spark so each can envision the tapestry. My best suggestion is to read Walt Whitman cover to cover a few times, then go do as he did, for the times we have today.
4
I would like to respectfully disagree!
The story that *everyone* have been painstakingly missing for (at least) 40 years now, is about soaring inequality -- specifically, its impact in pure DOLLAR terms.
Indeed, it stays the best-kept open secret of the modern era.
Everyone knows the inequality is high, but what does it really mean? A little high? Ridiculously high? Should we fix it? I propose that the right question would be the cost of inequality to the average American. Let's see?
The average American's income in 2016 was $31,000/year, the equivalent of working full time at $15/hour (yes, an *average* American enjoys the living standards afforded by $15/hour *minimum wage* job).
Technically that's the median figure, meaning half Americans live on less, the rest have more.
And the price of the inequality for our guy? That would be the difference between the median and the mean income. The later figure is what our guy were making if we had NO inequality whatsoever.
In 2016 it was $18T / 250M = $72,000/year.
So the price an average American pays for having the current levels of inequality is living on $31,000/year instead of $72,000. That's the perfect equality. But the numbers are similar even for realistic inequality level. E. g. at the level of 1975, the median income would be around $60,000. But probably more like $100,000 thanks to GDP multipliers (the last figure is guesstimate, of course).
More details and the fix:
https://link.medium.com/2ozdx5mT4V
7
@Yuri Unequal results of human achievement conjure up simplistic notions of injustice. Some individuals learn these harsh truths through self discovery in the pursuit of relative financial sustainability. Unfortunately, prior to self discovery, human impulse is generally towards chasing a vision (ideal) of equality or generosity. Equality is as undesirable as it is unrealizable. Attempting to achieve equality requires that each of us forego who we are and what we can do in order to create something in which no one ultimately believes - a society everybody is the same or has the same. Acknowledging and/or recognizing we have to proceed knowing to increase opportunities for all is likely to favor those better able to take advantage of them and may often first increase inequalities. I'd like to see most Americans proactively acknowledge this reality while advocating for altruistic policies that are based on timely empirical data provided by groups/parties/individuals who'll have skin in the game. Let's proactively make equality of opportunity for self-interested rational persons behind the veil of ignorance better since perfection isn't realistic. For this same reason, stories like this one are few and not often enough.
2
@José Franco
How about lowering the inequality to where it was back in 1975? Still undesirable as unrelia... that word.
My numbers are courtesy of St. Louis Fed, I'll reply with links.
1
If it bleeds, it leads.
Unicorns are global. Communities are local. Relationships are binary.
As you so rightly understand it, weaving is the intersection of warp and weft, most of which has been known for the last 10,000 years since we became sedentary agriculturalists.
We are not agriculturalists anymore, so who are we?
Maybe great and unequal wealth is recreating a new form of feudalism.
Or maybe we haven’t come to grips with interpersonal moral responsibility.
4
These type of stories promote freedom of thought which often reveal flaws in our approach while self reflecting. Articles that encourage freedom of speech allow us the opportunity to distract ourselves or rationalize our underwhelming actions by complaining about externalities, making it easier on the ego. We can only control and create change from within. We are the stories we tell ourselves!
1
If these people start businesses, those businesses will be run very differently from the way most businesses are run in this country. Their bottom line will not be measurable in money.
Since these businesses could generally make more money than they do, they will be prey for entrepreneurs who specialize in taking over businesses and making them more profitable.
These people seem to be cleaning up messes that others have made. They will be tolerated and encouraged by the messmakers so long as they limit themselves to cleaning up messes and do not try to prevent the messes from being made.
Messmakers pay some of their public mouths very well to give this encouragement, since it does not threaten their messmaking but rather makes it easier for them to avoid some unpleasant consequences of their messes.
4
As I understand journalism, for something to be news, the questions of the who, the what, the where, the when, the how, and the why are the essential ingredients. Perhaps another category could be alternatives. I agree that what is lacking in the news are stories about the people and groups who are making a difference by offering positive measures to societal problems. It's easy to feel overwhelmed when we're constantly bombarded with what's wrong in this world and not being provided with stories and options about what's being done to right the wrongs.
2
These types of stories enlighten, promote self reflection and growth. We have to be conscious and in the now during these lucid moments in our lives. David, thank you for shining a light on the often overlooked.
3
There are two approaches to life. One is realistic, the other is not. They are "we are all in this together." The other is "it's us against them." Even if the second approach is what you believe (and sadly, it is an approach that dominates one political party in this country), the fact is we ARE all in this together. This means that when we look out for others, we look out for ourselves. Whether you realize it or not, this is how life works. The weavers, it seems, have come to know this, and they are helping people in ways best suited to their talents, experience, and how they can best connect with them.
There is a way of paraphrasing the Golden Rule that goes like this: we do unto other as we would have them do unto us, for good or ill. Knowing that this is how life works, it makes the most sense to do good, practice kindness, show compassion, and make a positive difference for others and therefore ourselves.
9
Mr. Brooks, how many Republicans are Weavers? They're the ones who leave us "feeling disempowered and depressed." Are you suggesting that we ignore this story of the dissolution of our nation and the people responsible for it?
Did it ever occur to you to invite Charles Perry and Dylan Tête and Sarah Adkins and Pancho Argüelles and the others whom you mention (but not by name) to a larger, national discussion of the moral rot in America, one that finds its breath and being in the Republican Party of whom, be it said, that you are still extolling for its adherence to the mortal combat of "unfettered capitalism" and the abandonment of the moral choices upon which our lives are measured?
If "our emotional health is dependent on connection with others," why are we a country that's poor by any worthwhile measure except money and fame and power?
"How is this not a story? Why don’t we cover these people more?" Perhaps the answer to your questions is that we are weary of a life that hasn't meant very much to us, either individually or collectively. Sure, some people find temporary, fulfilling nurture, but for most, life is not a journey, it's a mere existence. But perhaps the worst that we know is that we can't do very much about the political forces that control us.
Finally, you write often about your Weavers and readers are deeply moved by your seeming compassion and wisdom. Then you'll write a column that displays your true allegiance to the forces that make life lousy.
154
I think it helps to choose media carefully. Twenty-four cable news stations should all be avoided. They seem to be in the agitation business and Fox News is nothing but Republican Party propaganda, just like RT news is Russian government propaganda. Social media should also be avoided, particularly Facebook and Twitter. At least by avoiding cable news and social media you are not exposed to the worst media for news. Next it is a good idea not to focus solely on national media but to focus somewhat on local media. Some of the stories that David Brook says the media are missing are most likely to be in local media. Democracy has taken a big hit in America by the loss of local newspapers. It was just reported that the Times-Picayune of New Orleans in coming to an end. It did a great job in covering Hurricane Katrina. The internet seems to be blamed for the demise of so many local papers and it is a disaster. Whatever can be done to revive local newspapers should be done. Reading the New York Times is not like reading a local newspaper, even if you live in the NYC area.
5
The sad truth is that under this Trumpian paradigm the news must spend 90% of its time on politics because politics has, in effect, become 90% of our lives. The days of it being 10% of who we are and how we react with each other are gone. David, you see our essence is being attacked in one way or the other: our personhood as women; our religion if not Christian; our LGBT community; our brothers and sisters whose skin is darker than lily white. Our children and teens are being killed at the hands of unhinged white men who should have NEVER had guns in their hands. Need I go on? This IS our life now. And the media is responsible in keeping us informed. We have enough on our platter to be concerned over and fear. We do not need more ignorance than already sadly exists in our society. Camaraderie and helping one another in a community is admiral and necessary. Of course, it is. But we have to expand on that community. One town at a time is not enough.
16
Politics reflects our deepest values. It is the system with which we decide what rules we will be governed by. For example, through politics we decide whether a girl who is raped and impregnated must carry that pregnancy to term; whether we go to war and leave veterans with PTSD and commit suicide; whether people who work earn a living wage; and whether we will build libraries, schools and other community gathering places. Brooks gives politics short shrift
when it is at heart the weaving of the basic fabric of our lives.
3
I think Mr. Brooks can answer this question better than I.
Why, Mr. Brooks, are you, not some group called the media but you as an individual, not covering these people and organizations?
3
“How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics and 10 percent of our coverage on the 90 percent of our lives influenced by relationship, community and the places we live in every day?”
I don’t agree that the existing skew toward politics is wrong. The stories you say are getting shortchanged are not hard news. They are the stuff of Opinion essays, profiles, maybe in-depth magazine pieces. They are important, and they should be covered, but those stories should not exist on the same tier as pure, fact-based, unbiased (or at least as unbiased as humanly possible) reporting of — and expansion on — evolving news stories. There is a danger in fudging the line between straight, dry reporting and the softer reporting you describe. That kind of coverage can morph too easily into advocacy journalism. This paper has stepped over that line before, and it makes me angry.
1
"but you've also got to describe how the problems are being tackled."
Problem here is they are NOT being tackled. They are getting worse.
2
"How did we in our business get in the spot..." Really? Mr. Brooks is asking us a question that he is qualified but unwilling to answer. Well, it's money. The owners of media pay him to write stories that they want disseminated. Long ago Mr. Brooks bought into an ideology and wrote about it. Owners liked what he wrote and they paid him to write more to fill their papers. Was it hopeful stuff or was it in support of a narrative that they wanted us to structure our lives around?
Sure this sounds conspiratorial but it's all very simple if you want to see it. Even this story supports the narrative. At this moment the greatest threat to our democracy is spreading all sorts of lies and Mr. Brooks is talking about grass roots connecting of neighbors. Sure, sure we in our small communities will find happiness and fulfillment in the tending and connecting to others but a great portion of our lives will still be spent working jobs to survive so that others may make profits. We will focus on small things while others make the greater decisions for us.
We were supposed to be a nation where the common man had equal say as the richest but we have become inured in their narrative and allowed them to take our voice. Mr. Brooks, a member of the fourth estate, has been given a soap box where he may make the common man aware of his situation but instead he tells is to ignore the papers because they are filled with bad and focus on relationships and find meaning there.
7
Hubba, hubba. I've been thinking similar thoughts for years, most especially for the last two years. My response to the grief that the news brings, including that covered by this paper, has been to work harder at getting to know my neighbors and to support them, or to apologize for not being there for them when they needed it in the past. I'm not what you would call good at making these relationships solid, but I've got my eyes open and am looking for ways to support them more, no matter their politics.
I love the idea of focusing on building supportive communities that help people move successfully through their problems and griefs, no matter what 'tribe' they identify with. And I love doing this with the people next door, across the street and down the block.
Please see how much influence you can swing on this topic and bring us more news of the successes and joys among us.
2
Many of us in the mental health field are here because we're committed to fixing in the present and future what was traumatic for us in the past.
4
The idea of "news" is that you report on things that are out of the ordinary and generally not expected. Crime and other wrongdoing is "news" because such things are supposed to be out of the ordinary and unexpected. When people doing GOOD things becomes the news, then we are in real trouble. The problem now is that for many people the media is the only source of information about the "outside" world. Previously, people could also learn about what is going on in the "outside" world from the people they met in church or at the lodge or on bowling night. But when one's primary source of information about the "outside" world is the media, which by definition focuses on the bad things that happen out there, one tends to view the entire "outside" world as being a place where ONLY bad things happen. So it's not the media which needs to change. It is people whose entire perspective of the world is funneled through the media who need to experience the real "outside" world themselves.
5
Good article. Indeed, it starts with trust, but trust only comes from conversations, honest, to the point conversations, especially face to face, which means a lot of listening. We think and, therefore, often think what we see is what is to be seen. Yet, this is not the case in so many situations for human beings are very complex with their own life experiences and/or impressions.For example, we might forget that McDonald's does not give everyone the same feeling, especially as experienced among other cultures, etc...
1
Good luck to "Weave the People," but so far Trump and the Alabama legislature are winning by dividing a lot faster, and more successfully, than anyone can weave politically. What Trump and the Republicans are really good at is gaining and keeping power. Power is how you ultimately change a culture, as liberals did for a half-century when they made sure the courts were packed with their guys, for example. Now it's the Republicans who're doing a much better job of court packing than liberals ever did. My money's on the courts to rule the changes that count in America for the next half century with a lot more clout than mere feel-good "weavers" will have. Unless liberals who want change to go their way get much better at raw politics than they are now, all the "weaving" at the local level we can achieve won't help much,. compared to the massive damage to "weaving" the Republicans will be able to do with power instead.
40
It's timely that Paddy Chayefsky's "Network" is experiencing a revival.
The birth of for profit, ratings generated news.
The death of journalism and broadcast news as a public service. Once required by the FCC for the public good in exchange for obtaining a licence to broadcast over the public airways.
Replaced by the merging of journalism and entertainment.
Today, the news is what ever the market researchers determine will attract the largest audience. What sells? What's profitable? What will increase market share. Advertising revenue. Maximize our shareholders value?
Exactly what we have now.
The genie is out of the bottle.
The horses have left that barn.
Why?
To paraphrase Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar,"
"The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
3
"Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out that associational life is the central feature of American life."
Long ago even foreign observers such as de Tocqueville and Martineau were able to see a connection between America’s corrosive hyper-individualism and the early influences of what would become an equally corrosive capitalism.
Yes, de Tocqueville admired American individualism. He also believed that a society of individuals lacked the intermediate social structures such as those provided by traditional hierarchies with which to mediate relations with the state. The result could be a democratic “tyranny of the majority” in which individual rights were compromised.
de Tocqueville also warned that a society of individuals can easily become fragmented yet, paradoxically, uniform when “every citizen, being assimilated to all the rest, is lost in the crowd.”
7
If you ask me, the obsession with individualism is a big part of it. I think there are too many of good news stories being covered- the wrong kind. Good news stories are popular these days, but always in the same mold: An individual who has some obstacle in his/her life, the individual overcomes it, and goes on to score some big achievement. These stories are intended to make YOU feel good and make YOU feel inspired. While it may not be intended this way, they are also a contrast to all the bad news which involves institutions, communities, nations, etc. After an hour of everything wrong with the world, mainly its institutions, here's a single person that overcame great odds all by himself.
This can only contribute to more people rejecting the ideas you put forth here and putting their faith in a worldview in which all institutions and communities, large or small, are rotten, and goodness is only found in inspired individuals, acting on their own.
I've long wondered why the news business focuses on the bad in the world (if you think they focus on the bad in this country, think of how they treat the rest of the world). But increasingly I'm concerned about how, not just how little, they treat the good.
4
@Robert W.
"After an hour of everything wrong with the world, mainly its institutions, here's a single person that overcame great odds all by himself."
In my experience at meetings like this, if you change, you are going to do it with someone else's help and\or example. Nobody does it alone; nobody survives alone. That's my experience.
4
@Gianni Amen to that. Unfortunately, that upsets some people's cherished narratives.
Well...these things are covered to some extent by certain journalism outlets. 60 minutes, for example, regularly has positive news stories about people solving problems and so do many local news outlets.
There is something interesting to note here. I live in Maryland. Maryland is a very heavily Democratic state, yet we have a Republican governor. Many other heavily Democratic states have had Republican governors as well.
I wonder if part of this is because governors are mainly covered by local news outlets which focus more on problems being solved and down-to-earth issues while being nowhere nearly as pessimistic, negative, or controversy-centric as national publications like the NYT.
I guess my point here, is that I suspect much of the discord and division we have in national politics (among both politicians and ordinary citizens) stems from the way news is covered. National news focuses on the negative and on the controversial. When you focus on the controversial, you polarize people. You say there are two sides and force people to choose one of those sides.
In contrast, when you focus on the positive, you don't force people to choose a side. Everyone (basically) can get behind something good. News about good things encourages solidarity. So do stories that don't focus on politics.
I wonder if the way local news is covered accounts for the less-polarized nature of local-politics, and if the the controversial nature of national politics encourages polarization.
11
@EL
To continue the thought, Larry Hogan--the Republican governor of Maryland--is tougher on climate change than many Democratic governors. I can't imagine a prominent Republican politician in national politics having a similar stance.
Many national news outlets, especially TV news outlets like Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, are responsible for polarizing the national conversation. (I think they do this because controversy helps ratings and polarization encourages loyalty.)
As is well known, Fox is responsible for spreading copious amounts of misinformation. Do we ever stop to think why they do this, or why there is such an audience for this?
I think it is at least partly because other controversy-centric news has a tendency to push people away when they don't agree with some of the opinions espoused by that news organization.
As a result, these people who are pushed away view themselves as opponents of another side. This leads them to take up views just because they are opposed to the views of the other side. For example, this leads Republicans to reject the conclusions of climate-scientists (something that shouldn't be a political issue at all).
Like David Brooks, I wish our national news outlets focused less on controversy. I think it would be healthful for our Democracy and healthful for everyday people like you and me who get sucked into the news.
It’s all about the ratings and clicks, Money. But as individuals we have a choice, as to what we allow to reside within our Brains, especially rent-free. My number one “ hobby “ is reading the NYT, readers comments, and responding. I’m learning, I’m engaging others and occasionally I’m amazed by a truly excellent essay or article. And the best part : NO calories.
46
Mr. Brooks clearly lives, breaths, and is, likely, obsessed with his job as a journalist-- a job he apparently believes is neither a healthy one for him and his colleagues, nor for us, as consumers of his and his colleagues' efforts. He does not appear to understand that those not immersed and entirely engaged in his profession have lives as professionals in alternate fields, and we live as married couples and as engaged members of our respective communities. While he tours, identifies those outstanding Weavers, and touts his examples of community builders, most of the 350 million of his fellow citizens are working hard, earning a living, and, for many of us, enjoying and growing emotionally and intellectually as a consequence of the social affiliations we enjoy at work and with those in our community. And yes, some of us, a fractional part of our population, read the newspapers and watch the news on television; however, we Americans are not easily convinced by what we see and read, in spite of Mr. Brooks' belief that we are.
20
"Journalists don't always cover what's really going on".
Ain't it the truth, Mr. Brooks.
I think such thoughts every time I read about how the economy is "booming", how many people have work, etc. Then I look at the truth around me and realize that these are just aggregate figures, figures which don't reflect the vast number of people who are unemployed and have given up, the under-employed, and the multi-job "gig" workers with no benefits or protections at all. We have the highest income inequality ever, the highest of all the "rich" nations. And, being the very richest nation, we (at least, almost no one in our government) seem to be doing nothing to rectify things.
177
@Ellen
Speaking of aggregate figures, every time Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos goes into a small restaurant or bar, the average net worth of the patrons increases to billions.
7
@VJBortolot
Thanks for the laugh!
3
I don't know why the media doesn't cover the precious goodness among us, and covering it can't hurt. But, if the goal is building of trust within a community, I'm not sure that providing more information is the main answer. Some research indicates that we instinctively begin to trust people when we observe them doing the same thing as us at the same time as us. Think of people with whom you may have sung, danced, picked up trash, assembled furniture, or moved boxes. Perhaps in a addition to learning and listening, we need to be doing together. How? Yeah. I don't know. But finding those activities would be the main goal I would try to work toward in building community relationships.
6
It's a great column. The answer to the question in the last paragraph is that bean counters now run news organizations. I saw it happen in television journalism. It went from news to something called 'infotainment' to what ever it is today.
There's only two ways to make a buck... cut costs or charge more. In the case of television news, most GM's I knew became obsessed with the orders from the mother ship...make more or loss your job. The result --- hiring inexperience... it comes cheap-- and doing more live which is generally spot news elevated plus spot news fits in a template all j-school students now study. Watch a local newscast and see how much of it actually relates to you from the 'top story' a crash or crime, to the 'urgency' of everything. Not much, I'll bet.
Now it's happening to newspapers. CNN and MSNBC are the best examples I can cite to describe 'news as infotainment.' It's just programming.
12
It's understandable how this gathering of so called "weavers" could be a beneficial and cathartic experience for individuals who wanted to share their pain, but looking at it with a realistic lens, what was really accomplished beyond a certain individual validation? "Weaving" requires a design of the final product and the structure of a loom to hold the threads together. Considering the apparent eclectic and disparate nature of these individuals, what is the metaphorical "loom" that would unite them a common purpose?
4
“We’re trying to do something that has never been done before. We’re trying to create the earth’s first mass, multicultural democratic republic.”
Yes! This is the answer to the malaise of purposelessness the USA is suffering through. "All persons are created equal" can still be our greatest gift first to ourselves, through hard individual and cultural work, and then to the world. Our hospitality through centuries to the world's peoples (aside from the current president) can become our greatest strength. We more than any other country can choose to be a beacon to the world of human understanding, tolerance and unity. It may be our nation's highest destiny.
18
"How did we in our business get in the spot where we spend 90 percent of our coverage on the 10 percent of our lives influenced by politics and 10 percent of our coverage on the 90 percent of our lives influenced by relationship, community and the places we live in every day?"
I don't know, but while you're looking into 90 - 10 ratios like this you might try to find out why the GOP thinks it's ok for the richest 1 percent in the United States to own more additional income than the bottom 90 percent. That might help explain why the media doesn't want to focus how some people give more than their fair share to hep thos among us in need. Might make the very well off feel too guilty about their gilded status. Just sayin'.
307
@Pluribus Perhaps the first step is in realizing that, talking points aside, the policies presented by the entire political class is in agreement on the income disparity you despair of. We cannot vote our way out of this plutocracy. The owners of capital have rigged the game including what their stenographers find newsworthy..
6
@Steve Bruns It is hard for me to believe anyone thinks the way you do when there are several Democratic candidates for president talking about income disparity and proposing solutions to reduce it. You can be pretty sure that anyone interested in helping rebalance wealth in this country is a Democrat.
4
@Steve Bruns It's really not that hard. We get money out of politics.
1
Good news, good works, and kind hearts are everywhere in in my life. Instead of worrying about Trump's immigration plans, we are working with Habitat for Humanity to build a new home for an immigrant family from Cameroon. We deliver flowers from church every Sunday to people who need help and we share their burdens. We move forward through the good and bad times with our friends and family. We have grandchildren to love and guide. Our lives are rich beyond our wildest dreams. Yet, the media never covers people like us, primarily because it is a business and must sell ads and attract eyeballs to survive. David, perhaps you chose the wrong profession, with its focus on billionaires, politics, conflicts, and wars. Glad you are finally meeting positive creators who are building relationships and reflecting the love in their hearts.
8
I am drawn to stories about solutions. As I peruse The Times, I'll almost always read the stories about education, though I don't have a child in school; about homelessness, though I am not homeless; and about a multitude of other issues when the stories are about solutions. The Times story about Chicago and public housing ("Chicago Finds a Way to Improve Public Housing: Libraries") is just the sort of story that draws my interest. These sorts of stories are uplifting and satisfying. More please.
6
The stories the media misses, the small ones, the ones that can give a person the feeling that s/he is not alone are the stories that people such as yourself overlook. Your group does nothing for someone like me. In fact this country does nothing for people who are older, cannot find jobs, and are considered worthless. We're no longer in our working prime even though we've got years of knowledge behind us. We can't retire because we aren't old enough. Some of us cannot work minimum wage jobs because all our skills were directed towards IT, HR, research, and other "advanced" professions where we are now considered useless.
I'm tired of hearing from people that things will work out, it's a matter of time. I've lived through two major bouts of unemployment and a few minor ones. In that time not one person has reached out to help me find a decent job, let me know that they understand, etc. I have a handicapped brother too. The small village I live in claims to be tolerant: so tolerant that they refused to make a small accommodation when he needed it. So tolerant that they, with all their learning, never once defended him or my defense of him.
You are not a weaver David. You are a pundit who has been very, very lucky. Most of us haven't been as lucky even though we've worked very hard and kept our end of the social contract. The party you have shilled for has destroyed the social contract in America. In other words, the GOP has alienated people.
5/16/19 8:41pm
487
@hen3ry
You are so correct. It is like "thoughts and prayers" with David. No one who is really a deep thinker, as David hopes we see him, could possibly be a true conservative in the present situation. Whatever that used to mean has evaporated. David has admonished us to be more spiritual, be true to our family, aspire to be more involved in our communities, and many more moral imperatives as he disregards most of his advice in his own life. I don't want pablum, I want David to push very hard to make his party more honest. Speak truth to power. Say, "Here, I stand." Be the Jewish Martin Luther!
199
@hen3ry
Hello hen3ry: These words that you wrote hit the nail on the head!
"You are not a weaver David. You are a pundit who has been very, very lucky. Most of us haven't been as lucky even though we've worked very hard and kept our end of the social contract. The party you have shilled for has destroyed the social contract in America. In other words, the GOP has alienated people."
Brooks spent a year deigning to meet us"real people" around the country. Guess what? He found out that many people, even dreaded Liberals like me, have been building communities and doing good deeds in our day-to-day lives! Now he writes breathless columns extolling the epiphanies he has discovered!
Sorry Mr Brooks, but after ignoring (and trashing) the good things that ordinary people (both Liberals and others) have been doing in our country for the bulk of your career, you don't deserve much credit for finally catching on and grabbing our coattails.
Give real people like hen3ry some real solutions and real hope, then maybe it'll be worth listening to you.
92
@hen3ry
You have captured the feelings of many who feel alienated and betrayed by the evolution of our society and it's institutions over the past 30-40 years. I have been one of the lucky ones, but practicing medicine for 42 years I listened to many patients express feelings similar to yours. Many had no health care until Obamacare. They were shunned because they had been on welfare or public support. Some could find no help to care for a disabled family member so they could work and earn a living.
A few democrats have stepped forward, but I fear it will take a greater crisis than Trump to finally change direction.
In defense of Brooks, he has been writing more often about community, building bridges, and importance of relationships across all sectors of society. Tom Friedman is doing the same. By writing to Brooks, you remind him that people really struggle which will help keep him focused on the issues you raised.
Are there other people in your community who along with you could develop a working group to identify problems you can fix? I helped patients start support groups for chronic diseases which resulted in a care network and eventually the ability to obtain funds, some public, some private to expand services. You appear intelligent and up to the task.
50
I must confess, this column explains why I miffed with CBS News for removing Jeff Glor from the evening news. Jeff always selected a genuinely uplifting story at the end of the news. This went a long way to counter the nonstop nasty stuff most of the news focuses on.
6
When a large portion of the ''media'' is broadcast as a 24/7 propaganda channel the purports one radical and extreme point of view, then it is quite hard to push back with any type of different point of view.
It is especially hard when almost all of the rest of the media is reporting on/rebutting said point of view of the first. They first play that singular point of view over and over again, and then have on (almost always) two people that have the opposing view to ''debate'' (continuing on the false equivalency)
This makes things appear somehow fair and balanced, which of course it is not, because all of the facts gets so distorted and further away from any type of reality. (especially of those living simple everyday lives)
On top of all that is social media (which is even more polarizing than that of above) where one cannot have any reasonable conversation. If you do put out any definitive point of view, then you are instantly bombarded with the opposing point of view. It goes on and on.
The moment we do look up from out phones, for any type of meaningful real life connection, we are shy and at wits end, because we have so acclimatized ourselves to instant recognition. We cannot pick up the nuanced cues from one on one conversation.
The glowing blue light is becoming our only friend.
47