MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2025
In search of brilliant writing: On this campus, we've long admired Tina Brown for her smarts and for her good sense.
Over the weekend, the New York Times published an interview with Brown, an interview conducted by Lulu Garcia-Navarro. Along the way, we'd say that Brown got it right, but we'd say that she also might have gotten it wrong.
The latter assessment on our part involves a somewhat gloomy thought. Headline included, here's the part of the interview where Brown describes the current lay of the land:
The Interview
Tina Brown Thinks the Über-Rich Have It Coming
[...]
Garcia-Navarro: I have a theory for why there is so much nostalgia: Even as the internet has democratized the way that people get information and who gives information, people are craving a bit more authority. People want a guide through the muck.
Brown: Of course they do. I mean, the gatekeepers have gone. Everyone goes, Yes! As if the gatekeepers were some kind of terrible inhibition to doing anything good. The gatekeepers were also the tastemakers. Lacking those gatekeepers now, it’s just this big blob of stuff and dross that comes careening at you, and you don’t know where to find the good stuff. I think that’s the biggest problem of our time...
Garcia-Navarro is describing the "democratization" accomplished by the Internet (and by other forms of new media). Brown agrees with her description, perhaps saying something like this:
Once we had a limited number of journalistic gatekeepers.
Such people and organizations weren't perfect; obviously, no one is. That said, the high-end gatekeepers weren't stupid, and they weren't crazy out of their heads. But under the new regime, many of the podcasters and "cable news" pundits who have adopted the role of "gatekeeper / guide" may not be able to offer such assurances.
All in all, there's a giant "blob of stuff and dross" available for people to choose from! Many times, it isn't all that easy to know whose guidance we can trust.
That may not be exactly what Brown meant. Still, we'll say that she was basically right at this point—but we're not sure we completely agree with where her rumination went next:
(Continuing directly from above):
Lacking those gatekeepers now, it’s just this big blob of stuff and dross that comes careening at you, and you don’t know where to find the good stuff. I think that’s the biggest problem of our time. There is brilliant writing out there. But finding it is like the needle in the haystack. I’m always feeling, What have I missed? Because somebody will say, Oh, did you read that great piece? It’s like, Where? I’ve got a thousand Substack things, I’m reading social media, I’m reading the old-guard stuff, but my head is exploding. And unfortunately what it’s leading to is a lot of people checking out. So it’s a very demoralizing time.
"There is brilliant writing out there," Brown says. Gloomily, we're inclined to think that that assertion may not, at this point, be accurate.
Is there actually any "brilliant writing" out there? It may seem odd to suggest that the answer is no. Tomorrow, we'll continue our thought.
Epstein texts Democrats questions while there are holding hearings. Democrats rely on the serial child rapist for ideas on what to ask witnesses. This is one of the exciting things about the Democratic party. Zero hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteRelease the files.
DeleteBeing evil doesn't mean you're stupid.
DeleteYes, release the files of the mass child rapist who advises Democrats by text.
DeleteThe concern over who was relying on Epstein for what kinds of advice (he was an investment guy and a member of Trump's inner circle during Michael Cohen's testimony) is a distraction from Epstein's child sex ring files. The right is desperately trying to drag Democrats down with Trump when the files are released. Asking Epstein how to get to Zabar's isn't the same as participating in the rape of underage girls.
DeleteEpstein no doubt also ate Chinese food. Does that mean Chinese food is now tainted and evil because an evil man encountered it while on a break from kiddie raping? Epstein no doubt took the subway with a Democrat. Yikes! That must mean Democrats are child molestors too!
DeleteRelease the files.
Delete"Along the way, we'd say that Brown got it right, but we'd say that she also might have gotten it wrong."
ReplyDeleteSomerby loves this kind of sentence, but it says nothing at all.
First of all, "gets it right" and "gets it wrong" must be translated to "I agree with some of this and I disagree with some of it" because Somerby is no expert on any of this and what might be right or wrong boils down to his opinion.
Second, no one every gets anything all right or all wrong, so everything can be described with such a sentence. Similarly, no one every agrees with everything another person has written, or disagrees with everything. So what exactly has Somerby said? Nothing.
But the sentences takes up space and requires the reader to expend effort for no purpose. Nothing has been communicated but work has been required of the reader. That strikes me as an abuse of that person's time and energy. I believe writers owe their readers greater respect, a better return for their expenditure.
That said, sometimes readers know in advance they will get not much back by reading and they choose to do it anyway. That is self-abuse, but it is each person's right to waste their time and energy as they see fit.
Ironically, this piece is about journalistic gatekeeping. Somerby has a lot of nerve!
Release the files.
Delete"Brown agrees with her description, perhaps saying something like this:"
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that Somerby should quote Brown instead of paraphrasing in his own words, thereby expressing a point he has made himself as though Brown agreed with it. A bit dishonest, in my opinion.
Here is where Somerby becomes an asshole:
""There is brilliant writing out there," Brown says. Gloomily, we're inclined to think that that assertion may not, at this point, be accurate."
Who appointed him the arbiter of brilliance? He is woefully underqualified for that job. There is a lot of brilliant writing on substack and elsewhere on the internet and it is very accessible to anyone who can use a keyboard and searchbar. It sounds like Brown recognizes that there is too much good stuff to find and consume it all. Somerby is doomsaying, by pretending there is too little brilliance, when he cannot recognize brilliance if it bit him on the foot.
Whenever it comes around, Somerby's answer to the question is always that the glass is not only below half full but nearly empty! He lives in the land of doom, gloom and woe, because that makes him feel superior to everyone enjoying life, a fine critic who is always right when he claims that all is dreck, because then he need have no coherent standards for judging anything.
This is again the stance of a depressed person or a self-conscious nihilist. Nothing can be good or bad because it is all awful, because nothing means anything and no one can say what is good or bad or brilliant. And that may seem like wisdom to a 20 year old but Somerby is too old to still believe that nonsense.
If Somerby has no favorite brilliant pieces to list, then it is because he cares about nothing and thinks about nothing very deeply, and really has no interest or curiosity and finds no meaning in his life. And that is the essence of depression and gross stupidity (of the type Trump displays). No one who feels that way should be writing a blog. He should be spending his time with a therapist.
Tina Brown and Garcia-Navarro would not endorse Somerby's conclusion.
ReplyDeleteNotice that Somerby has kept the headline to an essay but has deleted the text relevant to that headline. The part he quotes has nothing to do with Uber-Rich having anything coming. It is a non-sequitur.
It might have been better for Somerby to quote whatever was said about nostalgia, because Somerby's own longing for a time when people told him what to read and filtered out what was dross has more to do with nostalgia than with actual brilliance.
Did Somerby (perhaps) get it wrong? No, he definitely gets it wrong. A lot.
ReplyDeleteIf Somerby wants to argue that there is more bad writing out there now that there is an internet, then he should test it by doing a random sampling of material from the Library of Congress, have a panel of experts rate all of the samples for brilliance, then select a similar random sampling of material from the internet using the same sampling technique, have the same panel rate those samples for brilliance, do a statistical comparison of the brilliance ratings, and give us the results here. That way, we need not rely on Somerby's weird notions of what constitutes brilliance and need no rely on his haphazard and perhaps limited ability to use digital media.
After that, we can have an argument about whether everything needs to be brilliantly written in order to have merit, whether it is sufficient to stimulate thought without also supply conclusions or answers, whether entertainment is a valid reason for reading anything, and whether everyone's tastes must or should be the same. At that point, I predict that the brilliance study results will be thrown out in favor of literary serendipity and the pleasure of following one's curiosity wherever it leads, whether from shelf to shelf or screen to screen across cyberspace.
I think watching too much Fox TV has led Somerby to yearn for someone to turn off the TV for him. If he doesn't have the courage to do it himself, he may be beyond redemption.
I might have some sympathy for Somerby in his craving for real and true brilliance, but I have decided to become a Republican.
Release the files.
DeleteI found this in a recent substack article by Kate Manne. Today Somerby asks:
ReplyDelete"Did Tina Brown (possibly) Get it Wrong?"
Manne referred to Betteridge's law of headlines. According to Wikipedia:
"Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." It is based on the assumption that if the publishers were confident that the answer was yes, they would have presented it as an assertion; by presenting it as a question, they are not accountable for whether it is correct or not."
This is a frequent tactic used by Somerby, not just in headlines but whenever he wishes to avoid responsibility for a clear statement. If he had more guts he would say definitively that she got it wrong. I personally think she was wrong about the need for gatekeepers and right about the existence of brilliant writer in substacks (and other places on the internet). I think it is a reader's job to seek out that brilliance and a pleasure of life when you find some.
The reason we had librarians in the old days of stacks and shelves was to help find the good stuff. Today, that is replaced by search engines and websites that compile references to other sources (using some organizing principle). When blogs first started, each blogger had a blogroll, which pointed to other interesting blogs. Wikipedia points to lots of info otherwise difficult to find. Many college students take courses in how to find stuff on the internet and how to recognize what is bogus. Maybe Somerby doesn't know that about modern college courses.
Whatever Somerby does these days, it doesn't seem to be helpful to him. That is not Tina Brown's fault. It isn't the internet's fault either. I shudder to hear a suggestion that we need info gatekeeping while our democracy is being threatened with fascist authoritarianism and DOGE mutants have compiled all of our personal info into one big database for nefarious purposes. This is not the time to yearn for someone to tell us what to read and what to think about it.