How to Read Politics and Politicians

What did The 1619 Project get wrong?

By
19

Jamie is joined by New York Times opinion columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner Carlos Lozada to discuss his new book, The Washington Book: How to Read Politics and Politicians. The two discuss how to read a politician’s memoir and the failures of The 1619 Project.

The Agenda:
—Does everyone use a ghostwriter?
—Insights from the acknowledgments section
—Inside Obama’s presidency
—Has The 1619 Project harmed the NYT’s brand?
—The worst books by politicians

Show Notes:
—Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama
—Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose
—Decision Points

By
Comments (19)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Russell J

    Choosing a book written by Ben Sasse as the worst example of anything seems like a stretch. This was in the same interview that praised a Joe Biden memoir as well as claiming any memoir could provide something interesting except one by Sasse. I can criticize Sasse for being underwhelming in actuality but he isn’t going to have made up stories about cannibals eating his relatives. Think of memoirs by Mazie Hirono, Tommy Tuberville or Kamala Harris (unfortunately 2 of the 3 already have them) and try to sell me that a Sasse book would be worst in any sense out of these. An argument that many of the memoirs, including a Sasse version, are pretty useless could actually get me nodding along.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Daniel.Standage

    Dude, the conversation turned super cringe once it got to the 1619 Project. I was tangibly uncomfortable for Mr. Lozada. His answers were squirrelier than a politician’s!

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Retired Prosecutor

    When this podcast reached the 1619 Project discussion, I'll just quote Martha and the Vandellas:

    Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide

    Collapse
  4. Lori Meldrum

    Somewhat interesting, but I kept hoping that Jamie would ask how his guest quantified "very well written". Grammar, word usage?

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Theirnscott

    Hmm, Mr Lozada really didn’t want to discuss the 1619 Project. He seemed taken aback that Jamie brought it up. His stammering spoke volumes.

    Collapse
  6. kfbz9246

    Mr. Lozada’s answers on the 1619 project are pretty pathetic full stop. Unfortunately the podcast was even more unlistenable because Mr. Weinstein’s question is also pretty pathetic. The 1619 project can’t tell us anything about ‘media’ because media is an expansive place that contains the New York Times, yes, but also OAN, Netflix, espn, first things and hustler. The 1619 project tells us nothing about OAN, Netflix, espn first things or hustler. What he’s really doings is stealth saying tell me why libtard media is evil. That’s an ok question and the 1619 project is a relevant example but even here it’s pretty crappy journalism. Trying to understand the New York Times by asking only about the 1619 project is nutpicking. It’s like asking to understand Clayton Kershaw’s career by looking at a run he gave up in the World Series. Yes he’s made bad pitches in big games but it’s made a lot of pitches so if you want to understand more than one pitch you’re going to need to look at a bunch of games. Similarly if one was interested in understand libtard media let alone ‘media ’ in any way more than grinding a republican ax against the New York Times one would need to look at an array of stories. It is possible that after doing so one still concludes libtard media is evil, but Mr. Weinstein clearly isn’t interested in even trying.

    Collapse
    1. Jeff.Oster03

      Ehh, I think this is highly unfair to Jamie. First, I don't think he meant "what can this one event make us conclude about media to the exclusion of all other evidence." He is very much aware of bad examples of media on the other side of the aisle (indeed, that was partly the reason The Dispatch was founded). If you asked him to expand on media failures at other institutions, he could do so at length.

      Second, the author of the 1619 Project was given a Pulitzer Prize, so simply asking "why focus on this one thing so much" won't fly, as if we are simply focusing on an extreme example that is out of the mainstream. I am perfectly fine with rejecting nutpicking if the nut we pick has been disowned by most normal people close to it ideologically. If the nut has been given a Pulitzer, it certainly qualifies as the target of our examination.

      Collapse
      1. Michael.Terrien

        It's not just the Pulitzer. It's a Hulu show. It's a school curriculum in some places. If this was nutpicking, the 1619 project would now be obscure. It is not obscure. There is a concerted effort to make its nonsense into conventional wisdom by poisoning the minds of the ignorant and the young with it. It is absolutely worthy of raising.

        Collapse
      2. kfbz9246

        The issue isn’t that you can’t examine it it’s that you need some context in which to examine it. No matter how long you consider one data point you can’t get a trend. You need context to get a trend. Now we can, as you suggest, fill in all sorts of contexts, just as we can fill in all sorts of responses Mr. Lozada might have given that would have made for an interesting answer. I think, however, that it is very dangerous to analyze the news when you are filling in the holes with what you think should be there.

        Collapse
      3. Scroop Moth

        Ms. Hannah-Jones received the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. A number of conservative Spinmeisters previously had received the same prize. Obviously, "the" Pulitzer Prize is actually many prizes in different categories -- and Ms. Hannah-Jones didn't get the one for history.

        Commentators, in my view, have a scope for expressing opinions about motives that would not get past a dissertation committee. If slavery wasn't a primary motive for the Revolutionary War, it certainly structured representation, the Senate and the Electoral College, and eventually derailed the Republic itself. Isn't that worse?

        Yes, liberals celebrate The 1619 Project and Mr. Lozada defends it as a contribution to debate and framing. America didn't spring from the head of Zeus in 1776-1788. Liberals are the wingers who come up with ways to make America look bad. So cancel your subscription.

        All the same, the NYTimes published lots of criticism and dissent. Conservative readers were not cheated of their umbrage.

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    For all of the people on the left side of the political spectrum who are enraged at the prospect that Republicans will not subject themselves to a public contrition for the Trump era, look no further than how you treat the 1619 Project. A darling of the progressive zeitgeist in 2019 and 2020, its fans are now prone to stare at their shoes and mumble when questioned about its claims and approach.

    For the record, I think admitting they'd screwed up would be good for the souls of all concerned and healthy for the public discourse. Unfortunately, it's a fairly human reaction to try to sweep past excesses under the rug and hope nobody notices.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Retired Prosecutor

      Apologies . . . taking responsibility . . . accepting consequences . . . . it has all become so passe, hasn't it?

      Collapse
    2. Jeff.Oster03

      But George! According to Carlos, the 1619 Project "started a huge national conversation" about race! And, well... it "evolved in a political direction" over the course of a few years. And, um, yes, sure it... it... it could have been... uh... more transparent in the way that it dealt with, er, some might say its agenda, its political agenda, but you know....

      Listen, I'm glad Jamie did this interview, and good on him for putting Carlos (who seems like a very sweet guy) in the uncomfortable position of having to say that his current employer didn't do a perfect job in journalism. I'm sure the most charitable thing we can say is that he simply doesn't have the freedom to be completely honest about what he thinks, which is more a condemnation of the NYT than it is of him.

      But honestly, there is literally nothing redeeming about the 1619 Project, and the fact that it was passed off as EITHER journalism OR scholarship (and winning awards, lest we try to sweep it aside as an irrelevant artifact) should be a mark of shame on everyone who was involved with it. Good on Carlos for criticizing it before, but the fact that he can't quite bring himself to fully do it now is something I hope makes him do some soul-searching and even gives him a few sleepless nights.

      Collapse
      1. Scroop Moth

        Lozada was not all that sweet to come on a Dispatch podcast and characterize Ben Sasse as an airhead.

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Michael Berkowitz

    I'm with the other commenters. I liked the guy and he had interesting things to say. And then came 1619. I'll point one thing out that the others seem to have missed: He kept saying how the project sparked a national debate. Really? As far as I can tell it just added a brick to the national wall. I haven't heard any two people discussing the pros and cons of the project -- just some people vilifying it and others praising it.

    What I find really interesting, though, is how convinced I am that the project is tendentious hogwash even though I never read it in any of its forms. I'm basing myself completely on snippets of various lengths taken from it. It's curious, because I'm generally on guard against forming opinions on such scanty knowledge. I guess telling me that the Founders created the US for the primary purpose of preserving slavery, or that the Civil War was about something other than slavery (true, it wasn't fought for emancipation but rather to preserve the Union, but that could have been done just as well by agreeing to expand slavery), or that whites have not fought for black equality... All of that is like telling me that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- another book I haven't read -- is true.

    Collapse
  9. Austin from Atlanta

    Wow, it’s shocking how flat his explanation of the 1619 project was. You can’t blame a guy for defending his employer, but it’s pretty damning if that’s the defense.

    He said it was one of the “most scrutinized” pieces of recent journalism. Well, yeah, that tends to happen when you quadruple down on flawed premises and turn them into an entire content franchise. And the notion that the 1619 project suffered from "contextual matters beyond its control" as if the NYT was completely unaware of the tone & tenor of American racial dialogue when they published it boarders on self-parody. Taking politics and sociology out of it entirely, the level of marketing ignorance that claim projects onto a $7-billion-market-cap, consumer-facing company is insulting to the listener.

    The idea that deleting language with no editor’s note/correction and changing it in future versions is “acknowledging and responding” to criticism is just gross. We are talking about THE NEW YORK TIMES here. If they don’t have to abide by journalistic standards, who does? It’s like the faint defense of plagiarism that was initially rolled out at Harvard, except no consequences have ever befallen the Times.

    Jaime is exactly right to point out that it doesn’t exactly help the fight against MAGA when the key institutions they perceive as their opposition also play transparent games of deception and double standards.

    Collapse
    1. James L.

      Felt the same way - you could tell he was extremely uncomfortable with the discussion given the exponential increase in the number of "um"s, "a"s and "ah"s he used during that part...

      Collapse
      1. Austin from Atlanta

        It would be really tough to criticize your employer on the record (especially one that was in the middle of a major internal investigation about how employees are sharing information externally at the time of recording). I wouldn’t enjoy being in that position.

        Yet, if you want to be the authority on “how to read” this stuff, you can’t serve up such ridiculously obsequious framing.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ben Connelly

          Why did he agree to the interview at all if he wasn’t prepared to take tough questions?

          Collapse