This column by David Brooks spoke to me this morning. I felt as I read it that he had gotten into my head, surveyed the way I think about commentary journalism and put words around the concepts in a way that made them “share-able” with others.
Brooks writes about the difference between the “engaged writer” and the “detached writer” in today’s world. Judging just by the labels, one might be tempted to gravitate to the more energetic and personal sounding “engaged writer.”
Not I. From my days as a political columnist, then as an editorial writer and subsequently as an editorial page editor, it’s the detached writer model that I find most valuable, most persuasive, most rewarding and – ironically – most engaging.
Here’s just one of my favorite passages from the column:
The detached writer believes that writing is more like teaching than activism. Her essays are generally not about winning short-term influence…. She would rather have an impact upstream, shaping people’s perceptions of underlying reality and hoping that she can provide a context in which other people can think. She sometimes gets passionate about her views, but she distrusts her passions. She takes notes with emotion, but aims to write with a regulated sobriety.
In today’s day and age, where readers have so many sources beyond political parties for their news and information, it seems to me that the detached writer is all the more important. It’s an especially important basis for newspaper Editorial pages. To my mind, commentary today should be less about preaching to the choir or “energizing the base,” as they say, and more about getting people to think critically and logically about complex issues.
I try to live this philosophy. The stated mission of our Sunday commentary section, called Points, is to “Think Smart!” We often talk about how our goal on the Editorial pages is simply to “get people to think about something in a new way.”
Yes, it’s nice when readers say “I agree” with this editorial or that, but it’s real music to my ears when somebody says: “You know, I hadn’t thought about it that way before” or “Wow, that essay really made me think more carefully about that issue.” That’s when you think: Gee, maybe what we wrote really had lasting impact, really meant something in the larger scheme of things, might influence some future course of action.
In some ways, Brooks’ column seems aimed at young people just launching their writing careers. But the messages contained in it are relevant across all levels of experience. It should also be relevant to readers. That’s why I’m sharing it here this morning.