This is the place on the site where I guess I'm supposed to blog—except that I don't. Rather than share all my idle thoughts (fascinating as they are), I'd rather use this space to hear yours. So please send me any thoughts on what I’ve been writing, be it the book or my magazine pieces, and I'll try to get back to you in the space below. (If you don't want me to post it or to use your name, please let me know.) Thanks.
TALK BACK
Matt, I wanted to tell you that your article about the Corzine/Christie/Daggett campaign was excellent. As a newer, 'netroots' blogger, I read tons of political prose online. Your writing exceeds most. I came across you through a New York Times Magazine article about Independents. I am looking forward to purchasing and reading your 'Argument' book.
well that's awfully kind of you, Kevin--thanks. I do hope you like the book and that it doesn't feel too dated now. I'm working on another, but that's going to take a while.
on January 22, 2010
very insightful as with your previous articles -- you really understand what's up and can connect D.C. to the people. I assume many influential people read what you write (maybe even Obama).....so... how about some solutions to Obama's problems you mentioned the public financed election campaigns -- Obama (Congress?) could increase presidential allotment to $190 million enuf for a publicly funded campaign if: Obama gets the FCC (new appointments) to mandate free 10 mins at 6 and 10 PM for 60 days in Sept and Oct (none in Nov) for candidates in 3 or 5 min substantive dialog/ announceements/issues (no 30 sec lies or attack)rotated among all the major candidates and offices. might make a good story-- if Obama and others would buy in, (i.e. publicly funded House and Senate campaigns too)(talk to Rep Rush Holt or?)..
Very kind of you, Joel, and I would love to see the president take on this kind of reform. I suspect he'd say that 1)he's got a lot more urgent business to fight about right now and 2) that he's already contributed a lot to reform simply by collecting so many small donations. I think both points would have some merit. On another topic, and I really don't mean to pick on you, but is this what our correspondence is coming to in the Internet age? No punctuation, no complete sentences, etc? I'll admit to feeling old (and I have no idea how old you are), but I had to read your email like four times before it made any sense to me. I guess I should resign myself now to the inevitability of my own kids writing to me this way when they're older--if they write at all. A new world.
on January 4, 2010
With all due respect, it would have been worth mentioning that the reasons FDR has a much stronger legacy regarding the New Deal than Huey Long included that FDR acquiesced in a politically motivated IRS investigation of Long and his associates which essentially turned up nothing, and that Long was killed in 1935! The latter is a pretty staggering omission, I would think.
(Doug is talking here about my most recent column, titled "No Commoner Obama.") Well that's a very fair point, Doug. I don't actually think it negates the point I was making, but it's certainly theoretically true that Huey Long might have been remembered differently--or even elected president, who knows?--had he lived longer. I should have made mention of it, you're right. Thanks.
on January 4, 2010
I'd like to preface the following screed by saying that were I a resident of New Jersey, I'd be voting for either Corzine or Daggett; the idea of pulling the lever for a nothing like Christie would be akin to choosing Spam over Porterhouse. That said, could you specifically - and the Times in general - be more in Corzine's corner? You rightfully - and thoroughly - report Christie's failing to report the income earned on a $50,000 loan to a friend, but limit Corzine's affair with Carla Katz by saying "he has gone to court to protect the secrecy of his email messages to an ex-girlfriend who also happened to lead one of New Jersey's largest unions." Firstly, Katz led the state's LARGEST state worker union. Corzine didn't report the $470,000 he loaned her - nor its forgiveness, nor the gift tax ($160,000 appox) he paid upon that forgiveness. None of this was included. Secondly, I've a problem with reporters injecting themselves into stories. That said, when the two of you were (I think) in that diner, you'd pointed out some of what you viewed as Corzine's accomplishments. My question: who cares what you think? I can read that in a book or in an editorial. You could have pointed out his accomplishments (there've been more than a few) without saying YOU pointed them out. You didn't even wince when Ed Rendell said that "if (Corzine) wins...I think a lot of governors will say: it's ok to tell the people the truth" and what tough medicine lies ahead. Why didn't you jump all over that? How many will read that their state exectives have been lying to them for fear that we're too stupid or sensitive to know what's got to be done and that getting elected is more important? Unfortunately, the piece is endemic of how the Times is treating the race. A few days after your story appeared, another, entitled "A Rivalry as Strained as New Jersey's Finances" appeared
featuring accompanying pictures of Corzine - bathed in light and looking to
the heavens for guidance - and Christie - snarling in a darkened background. I understand that total objectivity can be elusive; it should at least be attempted. Thanks for listening.
Well. Thanks for taking the time to read and to write me, Adam. I can certainly appreciate your passion, but I fear you need to be a little more sophisticated about the way you read different venues. I'm a magazine writer and essayist. That's different from a newspaper reporter. I suppose I stay "objective" in the sense that my views are never predictably ideological, but I don't aspire to be objective in the sense that I treat all views, allegations and arguments as equal. Who cares what I think? The readers of the New York Times Magazine, I suppose. There's plenty of other media they can read if they want a less opininiated report. Readers of the magazine know that I will bring an honest, nonpartisan and analytical worldview to my writing. It's what I get paid for, and it's what they expect.
To a few of your specific points...first, on the treatment of Christie's loan versus Corzine's, I was making a specific point about Christie, which is that his campaign as a reformer had run into some problems. Corzine's personal issues are a older and less relevant to the present dynamic--that people don't like or especially trust him is well established already. It's not my intention nor my obligation to provide a perfectly balanced and compehensive laundry list of each man's transgressions. For that, I suggest you try wikipedia or something. Second, as for the Times' coverage generally, I have nothing to do with it and can't speak to your accusations. The magazine operates completely separately. If there's some institutional bias, no one sent me the memo.
Finally, I'm kind of fascinated by this line in your note: "You could have pointed out his accomplishments (there've been more than a few) without saying YOU pointed them out." I see: so you would be OK with my half-lying to the reader about that conversation, as long as it didn't appear that I had actually admitted to the governor what I believed to be true. That's not how I interact with my subjects, and it's now how I serve my readers. I think your complaint actually raises some interesting questions about how reporters should go about their jobs and how much candor is appropriate, but that's for a seminar someplace else. Suffice it to say that I believe in total transparency and in letting the reader draw his own conclusions about it, as you have.
Thanks again for a thoughtful critique.
on November 3, 2009
My name is Rajiv and I'm a community organizer in Philly. I just wanted to say that I'm a huge fan of your political writing. As you know (better than most), politics is more than just policy. It's also about the well-intentioned yet flawed human characters who populate the political arena. And your writing captures this aspect of politics beautifully. You employ the techniques of a gifted novelist, truly narrating and not merely reporting. By reading your pieces, people become a little more familiar with the psyches, the egos, and the motives of those who we elect to carry our country forward. I applaud you for your insightful work.
Hey Rajiv, can't thank you enough for taking the time to write. That's certainly what I try to do in my writing, even if I don't always succeed. Getting such a thoughtful note from a Philly reader means that if the Phillies win the series, I will be slightly less crushed. But only slightly.
on November 3, 2009
READ MORE RESPONSES
