As a conservative media critic, I often hear liberal journalists say that the reason there aren't more libertarians or conservatives in the media is simply because lefties are more interested in news writing and opinioneering than righties. They are quite quick to deny there is any kind of discrimination--despite the experiences of Susan Molinari at CBS, Ben Domenech at the Washington Post and pretty much any right-leaning journalist in the business who doesn't make a habit of bashing Republicans like Pat Buchanan.
This pattern of vitriolic anger and rage at the temerity of a right-winger daring to venture into the left's inner sanctum of the press is once again on display with the New York Times's recent hiring of Weekly Standard founder Bill Kristol to be a columnist. Things have gotten so out of control that even the paper's public editor (aka public fig leaf) is protesting the hire. As before, inevitably, leftish reporters and editors are raising objections about the slightest thing. In Kristol's case, as Gabriel Schoenfeld writes (h/t Power Line), Times public editor Clark Hoyt is straining at a comment he made during an appearance on Fox News Channel:
Was it wrong for the New York Times to install William Kristol as an op-ed columnist? The move to put an outspoken neoconservative in such a visible position is roiling the newspaper, inside and out. First, a hailstorm of hate mail arrived at the paper for hiring a "war criminal"--one of the milder epithets hurled in Kristol's direction by some 700 letter-writers, all of whom but one were venting against the appointment. Then, taking note of this groundswell of reader opinion under the headline, "He May Be Unwelcome, But We'll Survive," the newspaper's own ombudsman, Clark Hoyt, called the decision a serious mistake: not because Kristol is an "aggressive unapologetic champion" of the war in Iraq--but for something else.
That something else is remarks uttered by Kristol on Fox News Sunday in June 2006. "I think the attorney general has an absolute obligation to consider prosecution" of the New York Times is what Kristol told a television audience shortly after the newspaper splashed details of the highly classified Terrorist Finance Tracking Program on its front page.
This "leap to prosecution," wrote Hoyt on Sunday in his weekly column, "smacked of intimidation." It also revealed "disregard for both the First Amendment and the role of a free press in monitoring a government that has a long history of throwing the cloak of national security and classification over its activities." Someone of such ill repute is not one to be "rewarded with a regular spot in front of arguably the most elite audience in the nation."
Is Hoyt right or wrong about Kristol? For the light it sheds on how the most elite journalists in the nation regard themselves, this little contretemps is rich in a variety of ways. [...]
On the eve of publication, Bill Keller, the top editor at the Times, was personally told by John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury, that the story would undermine "a highly successful counterterrorism program" and alert "terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails." The co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, former Gov. Thomas H. Kean and former Representative Lee H. Hamilton, one a Democrat, the other a Republican, also weighed in with the highest Times officials, imploring them to spike a story that would harm U.S. counterterrorism efforts. To no avail.
In light of the Times's cavalier attitude toward the publication of classified information, does Kristol's suggestion that the Attorney General "consider" prosecution really smack of intimidation, as Hoyt suggests? That is certainly one way of looking at Kristol's remarks. But another way would be that they smack only of a desire to uphold the rule of law. In this instance a newspaper had compromised a classified program aimed at tracing terrorists who had already killed thousands of Americans. Under such circumstances, the Attorney General would be remiss if he did not scrutinize the statutes to see if such behavior was enjoined by law.
Hoyt calls this perspective "disregard" for the First Amendment. But is there any plausible theory of the Constitution under which that make any sense? "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is what the First Amendment flatly says. But the courts have long held, and the press itself has long readily accepted, that these seemingly unequivocal words are fully compatible with legal restrictions on what journalists can and cannot say in print. Statutes forbidding certain kinds of commercial speech and punishing libel, to which virtually no one inside the media ever objects, have long been held to be fully constitutional abridgements of freedom of the press. Can it really be that Congress can make it crime, as it has, to publish false advertising--the unfounded claim, say, that Crest shines teeth brighter than Colgate--while it cannot make it a crime to publish material that causes grave danger to national security? Hoyt's view is nothing but unadulterated applesauce, and so, in the few cases that have come before it, the courts have held.
—Matthew Sheffield is Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This is rich. The liberal
January 16, 2008 - 15:15 ET by motherbeltThis is rich. The liberal elites, who normally champion whistle-blowers and object strenuously to any retribution against them, insist that the Times punish Kristol for his criticsm of them.
The editorial staff at the
January 16, 2008 - 21:34 ET by donsalesThe editorial staff at the NYT have finally discovered the new ______ in the woodpile.......LMAO!!!!!!
Self-awareness is NOT one of their strong suits......and the racial innuendo is inspired by our very own former POTUS ....Bubba Billy.......stirring up the kettle among his bretheren.....Brer Billy to Hilly's rescue like the DEMS of old from Arkansas.......
Nowhere to Run....Nowhere To Hide.....
I object
January 16, 2008 - 15:35 ET by cvgbuckeyeI object to Mr. Bill Kristol's comments, in 2006, that the Attorney General should investigate NYT.
Instead, I believe that they should all be tried, convicted and hung at sunrise for treason. Not just for this tryst but also for about 50 other things they have done in the past that compromised the security of this nation.
Matter of fact, I'd pull the trap-door cord as often as needed.
This is why
January 16, 2008 - 15:24 ET by Lame CherryThis is why I said Kristol made a mistake being the only tuna in the shark pen of the liberal NYT's. He should have demanded that if he was going to be their "neocon" token that at least once a week he could pick another Conservative to be published in the New York Times.
52 Conservatives blazing away for a year would make quite a firestorm there and provide a venue of exposure for the "unknowns".
Instead Kristol like all these lone wolf Conservatives surf into the ocean alone loving the glam only to find out sharks, whales and poachers named Schoenfeld with harpoons are looking for ways to kill the great white whale Bill.
One only has to look at that Joe Klein maniac in how he attacked Dick Armey like a savage rabid dog and how that blog has literally died as no one wants to be a part of that kind of HuffPo lunacy.
So I suggest to the big shots like Kristol and Limbaugh, the next time you get offered a deal, work the thing to help the cause out and stop acting like the world is doing you a favor by publishing you in the Times.......as all they are doing is sticking you in their to turn you into whale oil.
nuf said.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
"Congress shall make no
January 16, 2008 - 16:18 ET by HypocriteHater"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is what the First Amendment flatly says. But the courts have long held, and the press itself has long readily accepted, that these seemingly unequivocal words are fully compatible with legal restrictions on what journalists can and cannot say in print.
Hmmm, you mean like all the gun control legislation that people like Clark Hoyt and his friends at the Times are so fond of even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed?
I guess the MSM feels they're entitled to no restrictions to their beloved freedom of press amendment, but those of us who aren't in the journalistic elite don't deserve the same when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Hoyt
January 16, 2008 - 16:37 ET by KC MulvilleIt's an inherent self-contradiction to use the "defense" of the first amendment as the basis for denying him a voice at a newspaper. I mean, stop a second and think about that.
Wait, it gets better. Hoyt has more.
Hoyt's article is basically double-talk. It's like Joy Behar's claim that she's allowed to use double standards against Bush because she doesn't like Bush. Hoyt just doesn't like Kristol, and he's scrambling to come up with a reasonable-sounding excuse.
Mr Sheffield, My
January 16, 2008 - 16:49 ET by KeithMr Sheffield,
My respect for you couldn't be any higher but on this issue you couldn't be any wrong-er! lol. This is the part of the article that I take issue with sir.
"In this instance a newspaper had compromised a classified program aimed at tracing terrorists who had already killed thousands of Americans."
The program was compromised by the Bush administrations failure to root out the liberals in the State Department that hated him and his conservative ideology. Most of whom were on record swearing loyalty to the Clintons and opposing the foreign policy of the "neo-cons" from the beginning! All of these disclosures were FORESEEN by many people who thought that his desire to keep Clintonistas on the payroll was INSANE. Look at the U.S. Attorney mishandling! Many a pundit opined that on DAY ONE, he should fire ALL of the Clinton U.S. Attorneys just like Clinton did those of his predecessor. But no, Bush came in like some pollyanna hick with rose glasses on and Teddy Kennedy in tow. Well his stupid "new tone", promptly bit him in the ass! There's something to be said about expecting them that HATE you, to treat you fairly, it's called bringin' a knife to a gunfight. His luke warm understanding of people poorly prepared him for the DEPTH and breadth of the hatred that would be visited upon him. Nor did it prepare him to understand it's source. Those who want to kill babies, marry off sodomites, and blame America for the ills of the world, hate those who oppose their efforts! Yet they in turn are not hated by Pro-lifers or Evangelicals opposed to their efforts. Ever wonder why this is so? I mean, they are the ones murdering children and trying to pervert marriage and subvert their country right? So it would seem that we should hate them, right? But we don't. We try to educate, love, blah blah blah, etc. But look at their naked hatred for any who dare oppose their agenda! This is true just on the idea of opposing the radical feminist agenda, just ask Larry Summers former head of Harvard!
So from whence does this antipathy spring? Hint: the source is the same for all of the above haters! By not understanding the true nature of his opposition Bush has endangered this country time and time again. In the classic story of the Frog and the Scorpion, shouldn't the Frog have known that the Scorpion would be true to it's nature?!
The following is a "spiritual" look at who the enemy is but believe me "spiritual eyes" are hardly needed here. All one has to do is pay attention! See if the stuff on this list, looks at all, familiar!
2 Tim 3:2-4
2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Hmmm, sounds like the Democrats to me!
This was a prophecy by the Apostle Paul to Timothy telling him how the nature of men who opposed God, would change in the last days.
Lovers of their own selves, narcissism is encouraged by the Left, it's called being a Metro-sexual! Covetousness is encouraged through the rock and rap music they are poisoning our children with! Boasters, proud, blasphemers, look at the joy with which D-List "star" Kathy Griffin was greeted after she verbally assaulted JESUS CHRIST on an awards show! What many of you might not know is that her tent of fame has been enlarged as a result! She's now on the "C" List. Can you say, "Upgrade"?!
Disobedience to parents was codified into the liberal pantheons by Bart Simpson and South Park and celebrated by nutbags like Timothy Leary who urged liberals to reject the authority of their parents. It's also one of the underlying tenets of "rock and roll"! Unthankful and unholy are obvious to anyone with eyes, look at the MILLIONS of teens holding up their hands with the index finger and pinky up in the sign of the GOAT an emblem of satanism featured on MTV every single day!
Without natural affection, what affection could be more natural than that between a MOTHER and a CHILD? A bond which liberals sacrifice on the altar of satan EVERY day, 40 million and counting! Truce breakers, False accusers ( Dan Rather, Joe Wilson, anyone? Liberal press in general, hello? Ring a bell?) Here's the one that Bush really should have been able to see, DESPISERS OF THOSE THAT ARE GOOD! This is the one that has bitten him in the butt more than anything else. He just can't get it through his head that as a basically good man, they DESPISE him, simply because of his values! And no amount of cajoling, hand holding or bending over and grabbing the ankles, is going to change that!
Look at the next one....TRAITORS what else would you call those who leak classified information to the newspaper? If he knew this, and anyone claiming to be a Christian should have known it, he NEVER would have allowed these people remain in his administration! But he didn't know it. His false doctrine didn't prepare him for the truth. By not knowing our enemy and yes liberals are the enemy of all that is good, Bush is at fault because it could have been avoided and people like me, warned him about it in the beginning!
Yes the press is at fault, yes ,they are traitors, as are the liberals in the Pentagon and State Department who leak classified information and send their husbands on trips designed to undermine our foreign policy! But if a schlep from Queens knew this about them in advance, what's George Bush's excuse?
arguably the most elite
January 16, 2008 - 18:14 ET by Flashmanarguably the most elite audience in the nation
Someone owes me a new keyboard.
700 Letters!?
January 16, 2008 - 22:07 ET by RickTaLifeWoW! 700 letters!? If I remember correctly, that's like, all the NYT customers in existence. :-P
The liberals idea of ballanced reporting...
January 17, 2008 - 09:43 ET by c5thenA moderate liberal and an extreme liberal are all that is allowed for ballance.
No other viewpoints are tollerated, let alone listened to.
The liberals call Kristol a "war criminal" because they see themselves at war with other views and remember, all is fair in love and war.
My bet is that at least half of the 700 letters originated from readers (and blogers) on the Daily KOS site.
Do the liberals see the irony of them pushing for the firing of a journalist because of his political leanings?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.