IN DEFENSE OF BOB HERBERT.

IN DEFENSE OF BOB HERBERT. I've been an afficionado of the New York Times op-ed page since about the age of 12, when it was the only section of the newspaper I read daily. I grew up with Gail, Maureen, William, and Nick, so I really can't help but chime in to defend my old friend Bob Herbert, a 14-year veteran of "the page." In a feature article over at the Washington Monthly, T.A. Frank, a truly brilliant and funny writer, asks, "Why Is Bob Herbert Boring?"

Bob Herbert is a sensible person who usually assesses things more accurately than his colleagues, regularly hits the streets to report on the world outside, shines a light on people and issues that deserve far more attention than they usually get, and tells you things you really ought to know but don't. But here's the catch: you don't read Bob Herbert. Or, if you say you do, I don't believe you.The numbers are on my side. Take a look in LexisNexis and see how often various New York Times columnists have been mentioned (not syndicated) in other papers this year. Thomas Friedman gets more than 3,000 mentions, and David Brooks gets 2,650. Maureen Dowd gets 1,615; Paul Krugman, 1,179; Nicholas Kristof, 805. Bob Herbert gets 533. Web sites that shape national news coverage rarely link to him. ABC's The Note, one of the most insidery of Washington publications, has in the past few years referred to Paul Krugman 146 times, David Brooks 129 times, and Maureen Dowd 84 times. Bob Herbert? Twice.

Frank goes on to demonstrate that most Beltway journalists don't read Herbert and that although he's a strong voice for social justice, liberal blogs such as Atrios and DailyKos ignore the columnist. Why isn't Herbert, who has an impressive record of being correct on tough, under-reported issues, more influential, Frank asks?Part of the problem here is how we measure influence. As Frank points out, Herbert's reporting, which often relies on local events to tell larger stories about poverty and racism in America, has gotten wrongly convicted men out of jail and amplified the lives of people who usually live far outside the purview of the national media. Most recently, Herbert told the story of a young woman escaping sex work in Las Vegas. We love when Nick Kristof travels to Africa to do that, but why not when Herbert delves into problems closer to home? As for blogs, it's no surprise that the DailyKos family doesn't link to Herbert. The majority of male netroots bloggers have proven again and again that they have little interest in domestic social justice crusades centered around identity. The civil rights and women's rights wings of the Democratic coalition are far less important to their worldview than "muscular progressivism" in foreign policy, a stance largely calibrated to win elections. That's not a bad thing, but it doesn't make for a movement particularly interested in Herbert's stories of inner city poverty and persistent racism.Frank suggests that the format of statistics about pernicious social trends embedded within personal stories is ineffective, and certainly not well-suited to 800-word columns. I'd respond that Kristof won a Pulitzer doing exactly that. That returns us to the mystery of why, exactly, Herbert isn't influential among media elites. To the extent that's true, I'd guess it's more our fault than his.--Dana Goldstein