Pixel Tracker

Sunday, March 24 , 2019, 2:43 pm | A Few Clouds 63º


Dick Polman: In Defense of Bret Stephens, The New York Times’ New Climate Skeptic

I rise today to defend Bret Stephens, the new conservative columnist at The New York Times. Readers who were incensed by his April 28 debut — a semi-skeptical riff on climate change — should hose themselves down.

Frankly, I’ve never understood people who harrumph about canceling their subscriptions after reading one thing they didn’t like. Most newspapers are veritable menus offering a wide range of meals catering to a wide range of tastes.

In my years at The Philadelphia Inquirer, whenever a ticked-off conservative phoned me to command that I cancel his subscription, I’d simply say, “Skip my column, keep the subscription.”

And one time, when a liberal phoned with the same command (he said his elderly dad was sick in bed because I was too easy that day on President George W. Bush), I told him that canceling would be silly because dad might miss the crossword puzzle.

No journalistic outlet will ever please all of the people all of the time. When a sizable number of Times readers — mostly liberals and environmentalists — phoned to nix their subscriptions after reading Stephens’ inaugural column, they basically embraced the notion that a single opinion piece on climate change canceled out the acres of space that Times reporters have devoted to detailing the perils of climate change.

What a foolish boycott.

Granted, Stephens’ first effort was a tad odd. Freed from his old gig as deputy editorial page editor of Rupert Murdoch’s flagship newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, hired by The Times to add ideological diversity to the opinion page, Stephens predictably told his new audience stuff they were loath to hear. And he told it weirdly.

He basically argued that, because Hillary Clinton’s campaign guru got his numbers wrong, then perhaps some of the climate change numbers are wrong. He offered a big caveat — “None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences” — but said we still need to guard against “overweening scientism.” He said this without factually disproving any of the science.

He also argued “that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power,” but offered no examples.

At one point Stephens wrote, “I can almost hear the heads exploding.” And so they did.

But the explodees would be well advised to get some perspective and curb their most intolerant impulses. We’ve got enough of that already. We’re suffering outrage overload.

Nobody wants to abide a discomfiting opinion, even if well argued. Stephens’ first column was not particularly well argued, but so what? He’ll do better. And in the meantime, I’m sure the climate change consensus will trump his discordant voice.

Columnists tick people off all the time (I should know), which is fine, because they’re paid to provoke. Sometimes they hit the mark, sometimes they don’t. Nothing new there.

Liberal Times readers went nuts in 1973 when the editorial page hired President Richard Nixon’s flak, William Safire, as a columnist. Safire hit and missed for the next four decades, just like everyone else on the page, and many liberals came to admire his erudite style.

So let Stephens’ voice be heard. Let the marketplace of ideas sort things out. George Will, a veteran syndicated columnist in The Washington Post Writers Group, has been writing skeptically about climate change for years, but ticked-off liberals would be foolish to retaliate by dropping their subscriptions to The Washington Post — which, on any given day, counteracts Will in its news pages.

I know that The Times’ liberal readers are most comfortable with opinions like this: “Making America Great Again was not supposed to be a belly flop into the cloudy pond of Mr. Trump’s psyche.” And opinions like this: “(President Donald Trump is) an intemperate, verbally incontinent 70-year-old,” consumed by “paranoia, incompetence and recklessness.”

Surely they’d love to see more of that on the opinion page.

Well, guess what? Those words were written by Bret Stephens — just two months ago, in The Journal.

In fact, he spent most of 2016 hammering Trump, and getting hammered by Trumpkins in return. He even called Sean HannityFox News’ dumbest anchor,” prompting Hannity to call him “a dumbass.”

So let’s give Stephens the leeway to be unpredictable, to indulge his catholic tastes. It’s called free speech.

And as for the knee-jerk cancellation shtick, I’m reminded of a story told by conservative icon William F. Buckley. As editor of National Review, he opened a letter from a reader who was so angry about an item in the magazine — one tiny item in one issue — that he demanded that Buckley cancel his subscription forthwith.

Buckley prompted wrote him back:

“Dear Dr. Morris: Cancel your own goddam subscription!"

Dick Polman is the national political columnist at NewsWorks/WHYY in Philadelphia, a “Writer in Residence” at the University of Pennsylvania and is syndicated by Cagle Cartoons. Email him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter: @DickPolman1. Click here for previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today!

Our professional journalists work tirelessly to report on local news so you can be more informed and engaged in your community. This quality, local reporting is free for you to read and share, but it's not free to produce.

You count on us to deliver timely, relevant local news, 24/7. Can we count on you to invest in our newsroom and help secure its future?

We provide special member benefits to show how much we appreciate your support.

I would like give...
Great! You're joining as a Red-Tailed Hawk!
  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.