New York Times columnist David Brooks expressed public disagreement with his editorial-page bosses on Friday night's All Things Considered on NPR. He didn't directly mock their choice to publish an anonymous "senior administration official" bragging about how they keep President Trump in check from his worst impulses. He just mocked the official: "It was a stupid act. You know, if you're going to be protecting the president from himself, don't tell him. And so, you know, it's going to make him be much more erratic and much more willful in the face of White House aides."
Every president since George Washington has suffered from a critical press. John F. Kennedy canceled all White House subscriptions to the New York Herald Tribune because of coverage he regarded as unfavorable. President Obama, who was almost universally adored by mainstream media, sometimes complained he wasn’t getting all the credit he thought he deserved for his policies; never mind that in many cases — Obamacare is just one example — liberal media rarely criticized him when those policies faltered.
Liberal PBS NewsHour analyst Mark Shields is one of those journalists who refuse to admit there’s any context to President Trump describing criminal aliens like MS-13 gang members as “animals.” On Friday’s news roundup, Shields protested "you have got the leader of one party calling people animals."
PBS NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff asked her regular Friday pundits David Brooks and Mark Shields to evaluate the Robert Mueller probe after a year. Shields, for his part, took out a verbal baseball bat and began attacking House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes as not only stupid and immature, but as the 21st century equivalent of Joe McCarthy:
New York Times columnist David Brooks has committed the unpardonable sin in liberal eyes of expressing support for President Donald Trump's foreign policy. Even though he described Trump as coming from a "thug" background, showing any support, even of a grudging variety, for Trump is quite surprising considering Brooks' extreme Never Trumper background.
After more than a year of relentless opposition to President Donald Trump, New York Times "conservative" columnist David Brooks has thrown his hands in the air and has declared that blind resistance is futile. Notably absent in his April 9 column is that he himself has been guilty of many of the excesses and extreme hubris of the anti-Trumpers. Brooks lays out his case without much of a sense of critical self-awareness in The Failures of Anti-Trumpism:
David Brooks announced on PBS he attended the "March for Our Lives." He said "I went to watch. And I went to be with the marchers as a journalistic observer, of course. And it shocked me as a very moderate march." That's funny. I was also there in DC as an observer, with my son, helping him capture crazy liberal signs for MRCTV. I didn't think it was "very moderate" at all.
PBS and NPR both use New York Times columnist David Brooks as their one "house conservative" to assess the week in review on Fridays. And both know that isn't the slightest bit accurate. On Friday on PBS, Brooks declared it was "menacing" for the 2020 census to once again ask people if they are a citizen of the United States. On NPR, Brooks even made anchorman Ari Shapiro laugh by saying of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, "their Trump is better than our Trump" at "blowing up the system" in Europe.
On Friday's PBS NewsHour, David Brooks, who is somehow described as the Republican or conservative half of the pundit panel, dismissed the ascent of men liked by the conservative movement as the worst kind of public servants, the C or D level of Republican aides, because they're too ideological. Larry Kudlow is just the "worst," and John Bolton is "anything but neutral on anything."
On Friday's weekly roundup on the PBS Newshour, after analyst David Brooks said the Trump White House has a "perpetual unraveling" of staff, liberal analyst Mark Shields compared it to people trying to escape the Berlin Wall, where escapees were often killed by communist guards. "This White House is resembling nothing as much as East Berlin, in that there's more people trying to get out than there are trying to get in."
The liberal media are all for tolerance – but all bets are off when op-ed columnists question adherence to abortion. On Thursday, The New York Times published op-ed columnist David Brook’s “Abortion Memo.” In his “imaginary” memo on “late-term abortions,” a Democratic consultant advised Democratic leaders to end the party’s obsession over abortion.
During the regular "Shields and Brooks" segment on Friday's PBS NewsHour, David Brooks again hit Republicans from the left as the alleged right-leaning New York Times columnist predicted that, if Republicans side with Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton and push to cut immigration, it would be "ruinous for the party." His analysis came after liberal columnist Mark Shields fretted that Democratic Senators running for reelection in red states would be hurt by Democrats shutting down the government over DACA. Brooks agreed that it would hurt Democrats in the short-run, but Republicans would suffer in the long-run.