Stay in the Loop
BSR publishes on a weekly schedule, with an email newsletter every Wednesday and Thursday morning. There’s no paywall, and subscribing is always free.
The day of the pundit: My favorite Times columnists
Grading New York Times columnists
Dan Rottenberg
Assuming you still read a newspaper, who's your favorite columnist, and why?
You may prefer a columnist who gives voice to your own views (as the Inquirer ads used to say about columnist Dorothy Storck, "She says what you think"). BSR's Patrick Hazard says his heart surges every time he sees Nicholas Kristof's byline in the New York Times for demonstrating "that ordinary individuals can still make a big difference." (Click here.)
I guess I'm different. As a reader, I turn to columnists for insight and provocation, preferably delivered by writers who know their subject, love the English language and won't waste my time.
Whether I agree with them is irrelevant. In fact, I'd rather read columnists I disagree with, if only to test the validity of my own views.
Bill Safire, R.I.P.
At the New York Times— the gold standard of op-ed pages— no columnist currently rises to the level of my past favorites, William Safire (a well-connected Washington insider with a love of linguistics and a rare ability to laugh at himself) and Bob Herbert (an enterprising black journalist blessed with the equally rare ability to spotlight injustice without becoming maudlin).
On the other hand, no one in the current Times stable descends to the artless level of the late A.M. Rosenthal, whose grim rants could mostly be boiled down to three words: "I feel threatened."
So which Times op-ed columnists command my attention these days? My idiosyncratic ratings are based on a single criterion: How do I react when I see the columnist's byline? You may react differently. The envelopes, please:
Victims and villains
A: Joe Nocera (op-ed columnist since 2011). Hard-hitting, thoughtful journalist who does his homework, takes courageous positions (as in his continuing exposes of NCAA abuses and his un-populist defense of British Petroleum), and dramatizes his issues by confronting his targets. Downside: Like the late Anthony Lewis before him, tends to spotlight victims rather than villains (who are more interesting to read about but also tougher to pin down).
A-: Maureen Dowd (since 1995). Experienced, perceptive, sprightly Washington hand whose combination of inside knowledge and word play produces first-rate skewerings of deserving targets, as well as downright original insights (like her oft-repeated perception that Dick Cheney was nuts). Downside: Seems to have lost her edge somewhat since Bush & Co. left office.
B+: Paul Krugman (since 2000). First-rate polemicist, if you like polemics. Slashing but well-documented liberal attacks on conservatives are usually fun to read— no mean feat for an economist. Downside: Treats his adversaries as fools or knaves; lobs his potshots from a safe distance instead of engaging with other viewpoints; preoccupied with reminding us when he's been right and his foes wrong (as if anyone is always right all the time).
Loopy for Hillary
B: Gail Collins (since 2007). Congressional court jester: Facile wordsmith who possesses deep knowledge of Congress but seems stuck on a repetitious theme: "Let's all laugh at politicians." Rare feat: Her unrelenting mockery inadvertently causes me to empathize with the buffoons she ridicules.
B: Bill Keller (since 2011; also 2001-03). Specializes in long, judicious pieces weighing both sides of a sticky issue, usually sensibly if unexcitingly. Downside: For all his thoughtfulness, sometimes reaches loopy conclusions: Insisted that Obama couldn't win re-election without Hillary Clinton as his running mate; championed Bush's invasion of Iraq and urged Obama to do likewise in Syria.
B: Thomas Friedman (since 1995). Visionary, experienced foreign affairs specialist; possesses rare ability to perceive that the future will differ from the past and present. Downside: Pompous legend in his own mind, constantly proffering sage advice to world leaders without ever pausing to wonder why they steadfastly ignore him, to wit: They're neither saints nor social workers but politicians struggling for power if not survival.
Eat your spinach
B: Nicholas Kristof (since 2001). Columnist as social worker: Dedicated reporter who hop-scotches the Third World exposing injustice, sexism, corruption, famine, etc. Like spinach, his column plays a valuable role in the global ecosystem even if his pedestrian prose is hard to swallow.
B-: Charles M. Blow (since 2008). His ingenious shtick is a weekly statistical chart that usually spotlights racial biases among Americans. His numbers speak louder than his predictably liberal prose.
C+: Frank Bruni (since 2009). Capable, cheerfully sensible, predictably liberal (and gay, to boot) but has yet to tell me anything I don't already know. Upside: Relatively new, so may yet find a stronger voice.
Heavy reading
C: David Brooks (since 2004). Ivory tower personified: Impressionable political/social theorist given to broad but often-unsupported generalizations. Seems to spend his waking hours reading books and research papers, which he uncritically rehashes for readers. Upside: Non-ideological conservative with relatively open mind; annual "Sidney" awards spotlight outstanding magazine articles you may have missed; provides seemingly endless material for BSR parodies (see here and here).
C-: Ross Douthat (since 2009). The good news: A conservative Catholic at the Times! The bad news: Mostly preaches to the choir, and humorless to boot. Cause for hope: Relatively new; may yet develop a more engaging voice.♦
To read responses, click here.
You may prefer a columnist who gives voice to your own views (as the Inquirer ads used to say about columnist Dorothy Storck, "She says what you think"). BSR's Patrick Hazard says his heart surges every time he sees Nicholas Kristof's byline in the New York Times for demonstrating "that ordinary individuals can still make a big difference." (Click here.)
I guess I'm different. As a reader, I turn to columnists for insight and provocation, preferably delivered by writers who know their subject, love the English language and won't waste my time.
Whether I agree with them is irrelevant. In fact, I'd rather read columnists I disagree with, if only to test the validity of my own views.
Bill Safire, R.I.P.
At the New York Times— the gold standard of op-ed pages— no columnist currently rises to the level of my past favorites, William Safire (a well-connected Washington insider with a love of linguistics and a rare ability to laugh at himself) and Bob Herbert (an enterprising black journalist blessed with the equally rare ability to spotlight injustice without becoming maudlin).
On the other hand, no one in the current Times stable descends to the artless level of the late A.M. Rosenthal, whose grim rants could mostly be boiled down to three words: "I feel threatened."
So which Times op-ed columnists command my attention these days? My idiosyncratic ratings are based on a single criterion: How do I react when I see the columnist's byline? You may react differently. The envelopes, please:
Victims and villains
A: Joe Nocera (op-ed columnist since 2011). Hard-hitting, thoughtful journalist who does his homework, takes courageous positions (as in his continuing exposes of NCAA abuses and his un-populist defense of British Petroleum), and dramatizes his issues by confronting his targets. Downside: Like the late Anthony Lewis before him, tends to spotlight victims rather than villains (who are more interesting to read about but also tougher to pin down).
A-: Maureen Dowd (since 1995). Experienced, perceptive, sprightly Washington hand whose combination of inside knowledge and word play produces first-rate skewerings of deserving targets, as well as downright original insights (like her oft-repeated perception that Dick Cheney was nuts). Downside: Seems to have lost her edge somewhat since Bush & Co. left office.
B+: Paul Krugman (since 2000). First-rate polemicist, if you like polemics. Slashing but well-documented liberal attacks on conservatives are usually fun to read— no mean feat for an economist. Downside: Treats his adversaries as fools or knaves; lobs his potshots from a safe distance instead of engaging with other viewpoints; preoccupied with reminding us when he's been right and his foes wrong (as if anyone is always right all the time).
Loopy for Hillary
B: Gail Collins (since 2007). Congressional court jester: Facile wordsmith who possesses deep knowledge of Congress but seems stuck on a repetitious theme: "Let's all laugh at politicians." Rare feat: Her unrelenting mockery inadvertently causes me to empathize with the buffoons she ridicules.
B: Bill Keller (since 2011; also 2001-03). Specializes in long, judicious pieces weighing both sides of a sticky issue, usually sensibly if unexcitingly. Downside: For all his thoughtfulness, sometimes reaches loopy conclusions: Insisted that Obama couldn't win re-election without Hillary Clinton as his running mate; championed Bush's invasion of Iraq and urged Obama to do likewise in Syria.
B: Thomas Friedman (since 1995). Visionary, experienced foreign affairs specialist; possesses rare ability to perceive that the future will differ from the past and present. Downside: Pompous legend in his own mind, constantly proffering sage advice to world leaders without ever pausing to wonder why they steadfastly ignore him, to wit: They're neither saints nor social workers but politicians struggling for power if not survival.
Eat your spinach
B: Nicholas Kristof (since 2001). Columnist as social worker: Dedicated reporter who hop-scotches the Third World exposing injustice, sexism, corruption, famine, etc. Like spinach, his column plays a valuable role in the global ecosystem even if his pedestrian prose is hard to swallow.
B-: Charles M. Blow (since 2008). His ingenious shtick is a weekly statistical chart that usually spotlights racial biases among Americans. His numbers speak louder than his predictably liberal prose.
C+: Frank Bruni (since 2009). Capable, cheerfully sensible, predictably liberal (and gay, to boot) but has yet to tell me anything I don't already know. Upside: Relatively new, so may yet find a stronger voice.
Heavy reading
C: David Brooks (since 2004). Ivory tower personified: Impressionable political/social theorist given to broad but often-unsupported generalizations. Seems to spend his waking hours reading books and research papers, which he uncritically rehashes for readers. Upside: Non-ideological conservative with relatively open mind; annual "Sidney" awards spotlight outstanding magazine articles you may have missed; provides seemingly endless material for BSR parodies (see here and here).
C-: Ross Douthat (since 2009). The good news: A conservative Catholic at the Times! The bad news: Mostly preaches to the choir, and humorless to boot. Cause for hope: Relatively new; may yet develop a more engaging voice.♦
To read responses, click here.
Sign up for our newsletter
All of the week's new articles, all in one place. Sign up for the free weekly BSR newsletters, and don't miss a conversation.
