Episode 65 -- "So Long, Pamela Paul" with Michael Hobbes and Peter Shamshiri
Mar 25, 2025
auto_awesome
Michael Hobbes and Peter Shamshiri, co-hosts of If Books Could Kill, dive into the life and impact of journalist Pamela Paul. They tackle the rise of 'reactionary centrism' and the evolving challenges in media commentary, unpacking the flaws in contemporary discourse. The duo critiques Paul's anti-woke stance and its effects on political narratives, while also humorously discussing the art of blending humor with serious journalism. Their wit shines as they navigate the absurdities of op-eds and the complexities of identity in today's polarized environment.
The podcast critiques Pamela Paul's complacent editorial approach, which often sidesteps urgent political dilemmas in favor of superficial culture war narratives.
The evolution of media, driven by social media's democratization, highlights the diminishing authority of traditional intellectuals like Pamela Paul in contemporary discourse.
A historical perspective is deemed essential for confronting modern political extremism, contrasting with the nostalgic tendencies of some centrist thinkers.
Deep dives
The Challenges of Political Engagement
The discussion highlights the necessity for individuals, particularly journalists, to engage with the current political climate instead of retreating into complacency. The speakers emphasize that historical reflection is crucial for understanding how to effectively resist the rise of fascism and political extremism. This engagement contrasts with the complacent attitudes represented by certain policymakers, who express a desire for bipartisan harmony while ignoring the divided political landscape. The insistence is that a mature approach requires facing uncomfortable realities rather than clinging to nostalgic notions of civility in politics.
Pamela Paul's Media Legacy
Pamela Paul's departure from her role at the New York Times is portrayed as emblematic of the shifting landscape of media commentary and the decline of centrist positions. Her tenure is analyzed as reflective of a specific intellectual ethos that has become less relevant in the contemporary era, especially following strong political shifts. The conversation suggests that her approach, often marked by milquetoast commentary, failed to address crucial political dynamics, especially in the context of extremist movements. This is seen as part of a broader critique of how certain intellectuals managed to ignore pressing issues while focusing on superficial controversies.
The Formulaic Nature of Columns
The speakers critique Paul's column-writing style, which often included overwhelmingly repetitive themes focused on perceived leftist excesses, particularly surrounding social issues. Many of her columns centered on topics like campus politics and 'wokeness,' reflecting a fixation on the culture wars rather than substantial political discourse. This tendency suggests a lack of genuine engagement with more pressing matters that warrant deep analysis and discussion. The repetition indicates a troubling trend in media where pundits produce content that resonates with a specific audience at the expense of broader, more critical reflections.
Intellectual Elites and Social Media
The rise of social media is posited as a pivotal factor in the diminishing authority of traditional intellectuals like Paul, who struggled to adapt to a landscape increasingly dominated by online discourse. The speakers note that the proliferation of voices on platforms like Twitter has disrupted the once-gatekept world of intellectual discourse, causing established figures to grapple with their relevance. They argue that this shift reflects a broader democratization of ideas, which some traditional pundits resist, leading to a defensive posture against younger, digitally-savvy commentators. This tension highlights the challenges faced by those who cling to outdated models of authority and expertise in an evolving media environment.
The Dangers of Language Policing
Paul's critiques of language use echo broader societal anxieties about political correctness and its implications for public discourse. The discussion underscores how her focus on language policing often trivializes significant issues, framing them as mere annoyances rather than addressing substantive political challenges. This approach reflects a desire to defend her perspective while ignoring the complexities involved in evolving conversations about identity and expression. Ultimately, the speakers argue that such an obsession with language detracts from meaningful engagement with critical social issues, fostering a climate of misunderstanding and hostility.
Michael Hobbes and Peter Shamshiri of If Books Could Kill visit In Bed with the Right to talk about the life, times and very, very milquetoast opinions of Pamela Paul, who recently departed from her perch as the New York Times columnist Bluesky loves to hate. Paul emblematizes many aspects of public discourse over the last 5-10 years -- from the emergence of "reactionary centrism" to the renewed freakouts over campus speech, from the panic over trans kids to Gen X's drift to the right. Also this one has an airhorn.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
