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.
Delete5:06
DeleteYou may be surprised to learn that the files are being held back by the lawyers of the "victims".
How do you know there's a child sex ring if the files that prove it have not been released? How does that work? Just intellectually in your own head. How did you intellectually justify making that statement? Or did you really even think about it?
This is a lie. The victims want the files released. Their testimony is evidence. Some of it was used in Maxwell’s trial where she was convicted.
DeleteSorry. It's not a lie.
DeleteFrom the victim's lawyer on August 5th of this year:
"Transparency cannot come at the expense of the very people whom the justice system is sworn to protect,” “particularly amid contemporaneous events that magnify risk and trauma.”
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26069162-berman-ruling-on-epstein-grand-jury-docs/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
The victim's lawyer is arguing against the release of the files. But I'm more interested in your circular logic!
DeleteThere's proof of a child rape ring in files that have never been released and you have never seen! I love that you can actually let that come out of your mind and commit it to print. It's great.
It's so human.
A child rape ring and Trump being associated with it is a total fantasy. It is a dream fantasy. It's a psychological projection on your part. It's like Russiagate. It'll come to absolutely nothing. Both situations are made up fantasies for people like yourself.
DeleteThat's the way it is. That way and not any other way. Period.
No one believes your lies.
DeleteWell, I provided documented evidence that the lawyer of the victims is lobbying the courts not to release the Epstein files. And in time you will see that there's no rape ring. It's just the way it is. It's that way and not any other way. There's nothing you can do except continue to live the fantasy of it.
DeleteThis is nonsense. How was Epstein convicted in 2008 if there was no evidence?
DeleteRelease the files.
Delete9:10: how do you know there was no child rape ring?
DeleteNowhere in the quote does the victim's lawyer argue against the files being released, dumbass.
Delete9:10,
DeleteHow is it like Russiagate, the hoax perpetrated by the Right-wing corporate-owned media (AKA the media) to excuse the open bigotry of Republican voters?
Be specific.
There was always something fishy about the whole Epstein Files story. In what world is there Right-wingers who have the slightest problem with child rape? (None in the reality we live in, that's for sure).
DeleteOnce the media made the collective decision to disappear the open bigotry of Republican voters as the reason Trump was elected President, stories like Russiagate were inevitable.
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.
"Who appointed him the arbiter of brilliance?"
DeleteWho appointed you the arbiter of the arbiters of brilliance?
We all have opinions. End of subject.
So, Tina Brown is not wrong but has different taste in brilliance than Somerby.
DeleteSomerby used to say it was his readers’ lizard brain talking if they disagreed with him…
DeleteEvery accusation is a confession.
DeleteTina 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.
"Somerby's own longing for a time when people told him what to read "
DeleteSomerby nowhere suggests he longs to be told what to read. Why say that he does?
What do you think gatekeeping means?
DeleteThe idea that there was “gatekeeping” seems illusory. It was just that in Cronkite’s day, you didn’t have lots of alternative sources. Prior to that, you had Hearst and his yellow journalism, and that was when newspapers were the principal source of news.
DeleteCronkite kept the gate.
Delete'Gatekeeping' is a filter, not a directive.
DeleteDid 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.
Bob is fading away.
Delete"I shudder to hear a suggestion that we need info gatekeeping while our democracy is being threatened with fascist authoritarianism"
DeleteMaybe it's the lack of gatekeeping that has brought about the incipient authoritarianism.
Trump can’t read.
DeleteIt's not clear to me from this article that Summers did anything wrong.
ReplyDeleteLarry Summers steps back from public commitments, ‘deeply ashamed’ by Epstein revelations
Emails revealed that Summers sought advice from Epstein on romantically pursuing a woman he referred to as his mentee.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/17/larry-summers-steps-back-from-public-commitments-deeply-ashamed-by-epstein-revelations-00655712?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it
Summers ought to know. If he is “deeply ashamed” he likely did something, whether you agree or not.
DeleteRelease the files.
DeleteAt a minimum it shows he is a racist and sexist POS, unlike David, who is just a fascist POS.
DeleteI love David, so I’m glad you agree he’s not a racist or sexist.
DeleteMaybe Summers should have consulted you about whether his actions were shameful before issuing his statement.
DeleteHe could consult David about risk.
DeleteAccording to newly released emails, Elisa New (Larry Summers’ wife) recommended My Antonia to Jeffrey Epstein to read, also Lolita, so she obviously knew his tastes.
ReplyDeleteSomerby has returned to quote My Antonia quite a few times in past years. More than you might expect given that this is a book assigned in high school, about children coming of age. There was no enticing picture on the cover other than the one painted by Cather’s words. Odd that Somerby would share Epstein’s taste in books.
There are a lot of 'odd' juxtapositions one can point out about the world. But are they significant?
DeleteSignificance is in the mind of the beholder.
Delete"That said, the high-end gatekeepers weren't stupid, and they weren't crazy out of their heads. "
ReplyDeleteThis is so dumb and arrogant, it hurts.
If you don't understand it, think of it as if this was said about Soviet Pravda. It's exactly the same. New York Times is Pravda. And you are exactly like an old man, former Soviet functionary, lamenting the good old days.
The Soviet Union defeated the Third Reich.
Delete"New York Times is Pravda."
DeleteThat's a stupid thing to say.
Pravda had more truth than the New York Times, that's true.
DeleteHowever, in essence they are the same: establishment "newspapers of record", announcing official narratives. Like heralds of medieval kings.
The Epstein Files are the greatest bed the Republican Party has made--and they refuse to lie down in---since they responded to BLM with "All Lives Matter", and millions of refugees came to the USA's Souther border, because they thought Republicans were being serious--and not just excusing police shooting unarmed black men.
ReplyDelete