Editing David Brooks (commentator) (section)

==Critical reviews==
{{Unbalanced section|date=August 2020}}
===Books===
In reviewing ''On Paradise Drive'' (2004), [[Michael Kinsley]] described Brooks' "sociological method" as having "four components: fearless generalizing, clever coinage, jokes and shopping lists." Taking umbrage with the first of these, Kinsley states, "Brooks does not let the sociology get in the way of the shtick, and he wields a mean shoehorn when he needs the theory to fit the joke".<ref name = Kinsley>{{cite news|last1=Kinsley|first1=Michael|title=Suburban Thrall|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/books/suburban-thrall.html|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|location=New York City|date=May 23, 2004|access-date=November 14, 2014}}</ref> This followed the 2004 ''[[Philadelphia magazine|Philadelphia]]'' magazine fact-checking of ''Bobos in Paradise'' by [[Sasha Issenberg]] that concluded many of its comments about [[Middle America (United States)|middle America]] were misleading or untrue.<ref>{{cite magazine|last1=Issenberg|first1=Sasha|authorlink=Sasha Issenberg |title=Boo-Boos in Paradise|url=https://www.phillymag.com/news/2004/04/01/david-brooks-booboos-in-paradise/|magazine=[[Philadelphia (magazine)|Philadelphia]]|date=April 1, 2004|access-date=November 14, 2014}}</ref> Kinsley reported that "Brooks defend[ed] his generalizations as poetic hyperbole".<ref name = Kinsley/> Issenberg likewise noted that Brooks insisted that the book was not intended to be factual but rather to report impressions of what he believed an area to be like: "He laughed"  that the book was "'partially tongue-in-cheek'". Issenberg continues, "I went through some of the other instances where he made declarations that appeared insupportable. He accused me of being 'too pedantic,' of 'taking all of this too literally,' of 'taking a joke and distorting it.' 'That's totally unethical', he said." <!--UNCLEAR AS TO WHICH ARTICLE, BROOKS ORIGINAL OR ISSENBERG, THAT THIS STATEMENT ADDRESSES: Brooks later said of the Issenberg the article made him feel that "I ''suck''...I can't remember what I said but my mother told me I was extremely stupid."--><ref name="Beam 2010" />

In 2015, David Zweig expressed the opinion in a ''[[Salon (website)|Salon]]'' piece that Brooks had gotten "nearly every detail" wrong about a poll of high school students in his recent, ''[[The Road to Character]]''.<ref name=Zweig150615>{{cite web| last1=Zweig|first1=David|date=June 15, 2015|title=The Facts vs. David Brooks: Startling Inaccuracies Raise Questions About His Latest Book | work = [[Salon.com]] | url=http://www.salon.com/2015/06/15/the_facts_vs_david_brooks_startling_inaccuracies_raise_questions_about_his_latest_book/ | access-date=August 15, 2015  }}</ref>

===Articles===
In March of 2012, [[Dan Abrams]] of [[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]], and then Brooks, were criticized by [[Lyle Denniston]] with regard to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]'s 2010 decision in ''[[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]]'', where alongside the claim that Brooks had "scrambled the actual significance of what the Supreme Court has done", he goes on to state that "[t]here ''is'' a link, but it is only indirect, between the Court’s 2010 decision... and the rise of [[Super PAC]]s" [emphasis added].<ref>{{cite web | first=Lyle|last=Denniston|author-link=Lyle Denniston| date=May 7, 2012| title=Constitution Check: Did the Supreme Court give us Super PACs?| work = [[Constitution Daily]] (Blog.ConstitutionCenter.org) | url=http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/03/constitution-check-did-the-supreme-court-give-us-super-pacs/| access-date=January 14, 2016| archive-date=February 21, 2016| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160221005745/http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/03/constitution-check-did-the-supreme-court-give-us-super-pacs/| url-status=dead | location = Philadelphia, PA | publisher = National Constitution Center }}</ref> 

Writing in response to Brooks 2015 opinion in ''[[The New York Times]],'' "The New Old Liberalism", Tom Scoca of the now-defunct ''[[Gawker Media|Gawker]]'', after leveling the [[ad hominem attack]] that Brooks was "a dumb partisan hack", went on to argue that Brooks possibly "perceived facts and statistics as an opportunity for dishonest people to work mischief", and so did not use them to support his policy positions.<ref name=ScocaGawker>{{cite web|last1=Scocca |first1=Tom | date = 2015-07-14 | title=David Brooks Has Noticed Hillary Is a Soviet Dictator | work=[[Gawker.com]] | url=http://gawker.com/neutral-observer-david-brooks-has-noticed-hillary-is-a-1717779151 | access-date=August 15, 2015 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150815094043/http://gawker.com/neutral-observer-david-brooks-has-noticed-hillary-is-a-1717779151 | archive-date=August 15, 2015 | location=New York, NY | publisher=Bustle Digital Group }}</ref> [[Annie Lowrey]], responding to Brooks' opinion, "The Nature of Poverty", on May 1, 2015, in ''[[New York (magazine)|New York]]'' magazine, criticized Brooks' basis for his argument for political reform, claiming he used "some very tricksy, misleading math".<ref>{{Cite web | last=Lowery|first=Annie| authorlink=Annie Lowery|date=May 1, 2015| title=David Brooks Is Not Buying Your Excuses, Poor People| work = [[New York (magazine)|New York]]  | url=http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/david-brooks-is-not-buying-it-poor-people.html | access-date=September 20, 2016 }}</ref> [[Sean Illing]] of ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]'' criticized the same article, claiming Brooks took arguments out of context and routinely made bold "half-right" assumptions regarding the controversial issue of poverty reform.<ref>{{Cite web | first=Sean |last = Illing | author-link = Sean Illing | date = May 1, 2015| title=Why David Brooks Shouldn't Talk About Poor People| work = [[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] | url = http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/05/david_brooks_shouldn_t_talk_about_the_poor_the_new_york_times_columnist.html | access-date=September 20, 2016}}</ref>

In 2016, Brooks' analyzed the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]'s decision in ''[[Dretke v. Haley]]'',<ref>{{cite news|first=David|last=Brooks|url=http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/opinion/the-brutalism-of-ted-cruz.html?referer=https://www.google.com/|title=The Brutalism of Ted Cruz|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=January 12, 2016}}</ref><ref>''[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1824.ZS.html Dretke v. Haley]'', 541 U.S. 386 (2004).</ref> leading [[James Taranto]] to the critique that "Brooks's treatment of this case is either deliberately deceptive or recklessly ignorant".<ref name="borking">{{cite news|first=James|last=Taranto|author-link=James Taranto|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/brooks-borks-cruz-1452628864|title=Brooks Borks Cruz|newspaper=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|date=January 12, 2016}}</ref> In a self-published blog, law professor [[Ann Althouse]] argued that in the piece, Brooks "distorts rather grotesquely" by exaggerating the character of then-Texas solicitor general [[Ted Cruz]] (who brought the case to the high court).<ref>{{cite web | first=Ann |last = Althouse | date = January 13, 2016 | title = THe best conservtive balances... | work = Althouse.Blogspot.com | url = http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-best-conservatism-balances-support.html | access-date = January 13, 2016 }}</ref> 

===Other media===
In 2023, Brooks was criticised online following a tweet presented as misleading that claimed an airport hamburger meal had cost $78, and that the exorbitant cost of hamburgers was the reason Americans were dissatisfied with the economy;{{cn|date = November 2024}}<!--Along with the secondary source, the tweet in question should probably be cited.--> his critics pointed out that Brooks' high restaurant bill was the result of his ordering multiple scotches along with his meal.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Olmsted |first=Edith |title=David Brooks Is Getting Absolutely Roasted Over His $78 Airport Meal |magazine=[[The New Republic]] |date=September 21, 2023 |url=https://newrepublic.com/post/175705/david-brooks-78-airport-meal-fact-check |access-date=September 5, 2024}}</ref>