Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
IN DEFENSE OF BOB HERBERT. I've been an afficionado of the New York Times op-ed page since about the age of 12, when it was the only section of the newspaper I read daily. I grew up with Gail, Maureen, William, and Nick, so I really can't help but chime in to defend my old friend Bob Herbert, a 14-year veteran of "the page."
In a feature article over at the Washington Monthly, T.A. Frank, a truly brilliant and funny writer, asks, "Why Is Bob Herbert Boring?"
Bob Herbert is a sensible person who usually assesses things more accurately than his colleagues, regularly hits the streets to report on the world outside, shines a light on people and issues that deserve far more attention than they usually get, and tells you things you really ought to know but don't. But here's the catch: you don't read Bob Herbert. Or, if you say you do, I don't believe you.The numbers are on my side. Take a look in LexisNexis and see how often various New York Times columnists have been mentioned (not syndicated) in other papers this year. Thomas Friedman gets more than 3,000 mentions, and David Brooks gets 2,650. Maureen Dowd gets 1,615; Paul Krugman, 1,179; Nicholas Kristof, 805. Bob Herbert gets 533. Web sites that shape national news coverage rarely link to him. ABC's The Note, one of the most insidery of Washington publications, has in the past few years referred to Paul Krugman 146 times, David Brooks 129 times, and Maureen Dowd 84 times. Bob Herbert? Twice.
Frank goes on to demonstrate that most Beltway journalists don't read Herbert and that although he's a strong voice for social justice, liberal blogs such as Atrios and DailyKos ignore the columnist. Why isn't Herbert, who has an impressive record of being correct on tough, under-reported issues, more influential, Frank asks?
Part of the problem here is how we measure influence. As Frank points out, Herbert's reporting, which often relies on local events to tell larger stories about poverty and racism in America, has gotten wrongly convicted men out of jail and amplified the lives of people who usually live far outside the purview of the national media. Most recently, Herbert told the story of a young woman escaping sex work in Las Vegas. We love when Nick Kristof travels to Africa to do that, but why not when Herbert delves into problems closer to home?
As for blogs, it's no surprise that the DailyKos family doesn't link to Herbert. The majority of male netroots bloggers have proven again and again that they have little interest in domestic social justice crusades centered around identity. The civil rights and women's rights wings of the Democratic coalition are far less important to their worldview than "muscular progressivism" in foreign policy, a stance largely calibrated to win elections. That's not a bad thing, but it doesn't make for a movement particularly interested in Herbert's stories of inner city poverty and persistent racism.
Frank suggests that the format of statistics about pernicious social trends embedded within personal stories is ineffective, and certainly not well-suited to 800-word columns. I'd respond that Kristof won a Pulitzer doing exactly that. That returns us to the mystery of why, exactly, Herbert isn't influential among media elites. To the extent that's true, I'd guess it's more our fault than his.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (16)
"As for blogs, it's no surprise that the DailyKos family doesn't link to Herbert. The majority of male netroots bloggers have proven again and again that they have little interest in domestic social justice crusades centered around identity."
Umm...and this is based on...what? Anything?
This is nothing more than simple gainsaying and making things up that sound reasonable to the gainsayer.
Me? I'm going with the hypothesis that Herbert -- immensely likable, certainly -- is indeed dull.
Posted by: Jim Pharo | September 24, 2007 1:20 PM
Yeah, too bad the netroots didn't stand with DC women's rights groups in support of Joe "short bus (for post-rape emergency contraception)" Lieberman; that'd show they *really* understand how identity-group politics works.
Posted by: Chris | September 24, 2007 1:21 PM
Quickly using Google to see how often a few columnists' names appear on dailykos.com, I got the following counts.
Bob Herbert - 609
Paul Krugman - 1760
Nicholas Kristof - 139
Thomas Friedman - 1360
Maureen Dowd - 749
David Brooks - 2040
There were a lot more hits on Herbert than I expected actually. I don't remember seeing his name on the frontpage that often compared to Krugman/Brooks/Friedman/Dowd, but I'm probably misremembering.
The Kristof numbers seemed improbably low, but even counting "Kristof" only gets to 342. That's odd. So here's a little evidence that Herbert gets a little less attention on kos, but not a lot less attention than the other NYT columnists.
Posted by: Brian Weatherson | September 24, 2007 1:38 PM
Interesting, Brian. Those numbers differ from the ones T.A. Frank came up with...check out the article.
Posted by: Dana | September 24, 2007 1:47 PM
Frankly, I think Herbert and Dowd should edit each other. She would give him some spark, some sizzle, some memorable turns of phrase or skewerings. He would give her a social conscience. Win-win all around.
Posted by: Wendell | September 24, 2007 3:21 PM
I love Herbert's columns. I find his them chilling in terms of his refusal to sanitize the reality of typically brutal injustice. I don't find his writing dull; it seems the emotional equivalent of documentaries.
Maybe we've become so desensitized by uber-sensationalism in the media, we gloss over nuts-and-bolts type writing.
Posted by: Davidson | September 24, 2007 3:39 PM
When I first started reading Herbert's columns a couple of years ago, almost every time I would read one, I'd expect to see a lot of chatter about it, and the issues he'd raised, in the lefty blogosphere.
After awhile I stopped expecting it anymore, but it still doesn't make any sense to me. He writes compellingly (IMHO) about quite nontrivial issues, but nobody (amngst those who play a role in driving the national or blogospheric discussion) pays attention to him, in a similar way to how the MSM has largely failed to pay attention to John Edwards this year.
I don't get it.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 24, 2007 3:49 PM
As for blogs, it's no surprise that the DailyKos family doesn't link to Herbert. The majority of male netroots bloggers have proven again and again that they have little interest in domestic social justice crusades centered around identity. The civil rights and women's rights wings of the Democratic coalition are far less important to their worldview than "muscular progressivism" in foreign policy, a stance largely calibrated to win elections. That's not a bad thing, but it doesn't make for a movement particularly interested in Herbert's stories of inner city poverty and persistent racism.
With all due respect, Dana, how often have you linked to a Herbert column? How often has TAPPED in general? You and your colleagues aren't exactly outsiders to the blogosphere, after all.
For that matter - and I'm asking out of curiosity, since you didn't address the question - how often do the non-male bloggers link to Herbert? How does Kos compare to, say, Feministing? How does Atrios compare to Pandagon? I don't know, and I'd venture to guess neither do you. Maybe the problem isn't limited to the male half of the 'sphere. Which was Franks' point.
Posted by: Charles Kuffner | September 24, 2007 3:55 PM
As for blogs, it's no surprise that the DailyKos family doesn't link to Herbert. The majority of male netroots bloggers have proven again and again that they have little interest in domestic social justice crusades centered around identity.
News flash: I read Bob Herbert at the NYTimes site. I don't need a link from DailyKos to read his column.
And does it really take a link to Herbert to tangibly demonstrate "an interest in domestic social justice crusades centered around identity"?
Maybe you need to read the blogs at Kos more closely.
Posted by: corinne | September 24, 2007 4:00 PM
"Quickly using Google to see how often a few columnists' names appear on dailykos.com, I got the following counts.
Bob Herbert - 609
Paul Krugman - 1760
Nicholas Kristof - 139
Thomas Friedman - 1360
Maureen Dowd - 749
David Brooks - 2040"
I wonder how many of those cites for Dowd, Brooks, and Friedman are criticism.
Posted by: Josh R. | September 24, 2007 5:54 PM
"why not when Herbert delves into problems closer to home"
Because he's delving into problems closer to home. Duh.
Why did MLK start to lose support in the north when he took his work to Chicago?
The more things change...
Posted by: Doug | September 25, 2007 4:27 AM
I've always liked the guy.
Posted by: merlallen | September 25, 2007 8:23 AM
Herbert is boring? Read today's NYT column, ferchrissake ...
Wendell, I wouldn't let Maureen Dowd near Bob Herbert with a 10-foot pole ... where Dowd is concerned, snark and piffle is more like it.
Posted by: melissa | September 25, 2007 12:55 PM
I think Herbert and Dowd should edit each other. She would give him some spark, some sizzle, some memorable turns of phrase or skewerings. He would give her a social conscience.
Posted by: tower defense | April 25, 2009 3:48 AM
links of london 2010 New Arrivals are part of the most beautiful jewelry collections in the world. With wide variety of styles and designs,
Posted by: links of london | February 2, 2010 1:33 AM
links of london 2010 New Arrivals are the best gift
Posted by: links of london | February 2, 2010 1:39 AM