Is the New York Times suddenly concerned with facts in its opinion pieces?
Such appears to be the case as information concerning the firing of conservative columnist Bill Kristol begins to surface.
Makes you wonder if such a standard will be required of the Times' liberal contributors given what the Daily Beast reported moments ago:
A source close to the Times familiar with the decision not to renew Kristol’s contract makes clear that his neoconservative ideology and viewpoints were not a problem—Kristol’s proximity to key Washington players ranging from Bush and Cheney to John McCain (whom he supported in 2000) was considered a distinct plus. His leading advocacy of the Iraq War also added to his appeal. Kristol was viewed as a mover and shaker whose ideas had ready impact on the political firmament in Washington.
The problems that emerged were more fundamental. Kristol’s writing wasn’t compelling or even very careful. He either lacked a talent for solid opinion journalism or wasn’t putting his heart into it. A give-away came in the form of four corrections the newspaper was forced to run over factual mistakes in the columns, creating an impression that they were rushed out without due diligence or attention to factual claims. A senior writer at Time magazine recounted to me a similar experience with Kristol following his stint in 2006-07. “His conservative ideas were cutting edge and influential,” I was told. “But his sloppy writing and failure to fact check what he wrote made us queasy.”
Interesting. Makes you wonder why Times columnist Paul Krugman's well-documented misrepresentations of economic data -- oftentimes exposed by Gray Lady ombudsmen, no less! -- don't make editors queasy.
Yet, even this might be a red herring:
Tough as this was for Kristol’s promoters, he might still have survived as a columnist had it not been for an attitude of casual and reflexive disloyalty he publicly displayed towards The Times itself. A good example came in an appearance with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show on October 30. Here’s the way Editor and Publisher described it:
“Appearing once again on The Daily Show, Bill Kristol, Jon Stewart's favorite whipping boy (‘Bill Kristol, aren't you ever right?’), on Thursday night defended the McCain-Palin ticket, at one point informing the show's host that he was getting his news from suspect sources. ‘You're reading The New York Times too much,’ he declared. ‘Bill, you WORK for The New York Times!’ Stewart pointed out.”
That, apparently, was the last straw for the Gray Lady.
Now that makes more sense, doesn't it?
Of course, the delicious irony is that the Times can't even get the reason it fired a columnist right.
Fact check on aisle three!
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The Pot Calling The Kettle Black!!!
January 26, 2009 - 11:58 ET by flyingmonkeyThe NY Times failure to get the facts straight makes me queasy.
Bill Kristol is politically in the center or center-right
January 26, 2009 - 13:03 ET by kevinm13Only the NY Slimes could mistake Bill Kristol for being a right-wing commentator. He is really center or center-right on the political spectrum and left of most real conservative reporters.
The old gray lady keeps shooting itself in the foot. This barely balanced the far-left "reporting" that the paper puts out as being mainstream. By getting rid of a view from the right (way right from where the vast majority of the NY Slimes reporting is) they will only hurt themselves further and doom their future. Won't be long at this pace.
This twisted pretzel
January 26, 2009 - 12:00 ET by 10ksnookerof a former news organiztion is looking really weird these days.
Does anybody actually care what they have to say about anything? Well, maybe the terrorists who want the latest on when to duck.
NY Times
January 26, 2009 - 12:05 ET by GothampcThis is funny coming from a newspaper that prints the scribblings of Frank Rich and Mo Dowd.
Right
January 26, 2009 - 12:06 ET by well99Since when has the NYT cared about facts.I have more faith in Billy doing his research then those communist..I mean progressives at the NYT.
Chuck full of bias.
January 26, 2009 - 12:07 ET by mizflame98The NY Times still defends the story that linked McCain romantically to a lobbyist, even though that wasn't true and yet they have a problem with the accuracy of Mr. Kristol's articles? That is truly hillarious.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
There's bias - even in their crosswords!
January 27, 2009 - 10:06 ET by Mary Louise TurnerI am an avid crossword puzzle solver and for two weeks in a row, the New York Times Sunday crossword has presented us with puzzles about Ears. The first one (January 11) was insulting enough to us McCain supporters, but the second one (January 18) was even worse because it was so sneaky! The theme answers all had the letters O, B, A, M, and A. Good grief! You can't even trust their crossword puzzles anymore!
Kristol Is a Neocon
January 26, 2009 - 12:07 ET by BW222Bill Kristol is a neocon (faux-cons) not a conservative. True conservatives take offense when neocons are referred to as conservatives. FNC does it all the time.
BW222
RINO
January 26, 2009 - 12:14 ET by Red JeepRINO
Now, now, now... Kristol is
January 27, 2009 - 12:17 ET by marvlNow, now, now... Kristol is a Green Briar Covenant New Age Post 1990 Neocon. To call him simply a neocon is a gross distortion of the facts
The DEFEATIST Bill Kristol
January 27, 2009 - 12:17 ET by UnsaneBill Kristol is a defeatist, not a conservative of any stripe whatsoever.
(I so love it when anyone gets on NB, uses the phrase "true conservative", and attempts to lecture other conservatives on what a "true conservative" should be and should think.)
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! THE HOLOCAUST OF THOUGHT IS DAWNING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
Then they need to fire a lot of people.
January 26, 2009 - 12:15 ET by jarrett.edwardsIf they are firing people for sloppy
writing then why is Dowd and Krugman still there! If they are
sticking by the sloopy writing reason they should be having a large
layoff. The reason they got rid of him is disloyalty, liberals can
not stomach disloyalty, except to the nation.
Since when has the Times
January 26, 2009 - 12:16 ET by marpelSince when has the Times been concerned about accuracy and writing technique? There's not enough room provided on this comment window to list the crap they've published, never corrected and the writers (and plegery) who have graced their pages.
So, what's the REAL reason you wanna fire Kristol, PINCH...
→ Holy Blagojevich Batman!
January 26, 2009 - 12:17 ET by Cool ArrowA politician getting fired because he refused to play ball with the messiah?
Where have I heard some such antics by a sitting leader before?
Could it be Illinois?
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
Self Check
January 26, 2009 - 12:19 ET by bradbenj5952Perhaps the NYT should do some fact checking on its own self-inflicted news stories...maybe they'll fire themselves...oh, wait, their declining circulation is doing that for them. :)
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
Maybe the NYT could not
January 26, 2009 - 12:23 ET by R D HelmMaybe the NYT could not afford to renew Kristol's contract.
-And I am only half kidding.
Schlurpburger and friends are about to run that whole mess right into the ground, anyway.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
I guess this will free up the obligatory
January 26, 2009 - 12:25 ET by katiejaneconservative columnist slot for one of the conservatives who have now seen the error of their ways and joined the kumbaya train. Anyone want to take bets on who replaces him?
al New York Times
January 26, 2009 - 12:30 ET by slickwillie2001Folks, this doesn't matter much. Under the terms of Carlos Slim's 'investment' in NYT, Carlos will own it soon and be able to reorganize as he sees fit, if Obama doesn't 'bail it out' (ie, seize it) first. The first thing Slim will do is get rid of the mentally inadequate Sulzbergers. Will it change over to Spanish?
Now all those column-inches
January 26, 2009 - 12:41 ET by SickofLibsNow all those column-inches are available for advertisers.
Oh, wait...
Kristol was the only one with verifiable facts in his print.
January 26, 2009 - 12:52 ET by JIMMY1660is this the same rag that had an op-ed fellow who never left his office to report his FACTS>
allow me to Love America
Yes
January 26, 2009 - 19:57 ET by doug1950but I think it was his apartment, not his office. Would be reporting on things as if he were out in the field and never left his flat. Just rip the news off the wires. Snazzy huh? Hell, we can do that...wait a minute..we do!
Fact checking the slimes?
January 26, 2009 - 13:01 ET by general companyThey misrepresent someone on every page, another 2 way street. These people are pitiful.
A give-away came in the form of four corrections the newspaper was
forced to run over factual mistakes in the columns, creating an
impression that they were rushed out without due diligence or attention
to factual claims.
Are their any examples?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Don't worry Billy, they're
January 26, 2009 - 13:03 ET by rbosqueDon't worry Billy, they're kicking you off a sinking ship.
The NYT...the great crusader for truth...
January 26, 2009 - 13:07 ET by PrairieSkyI can die now, because I have seen it all...The NYT apparently getting it's knickers in a twist over the supposed problem of one of it's writers not being accurate and truthful! What a load of crap!
If honesty, accuracy and truth in reporting were the standards by which the Times judged it's writers and columnists, there would be no one on it's payroll.
That said, I don't believe one word of the differing reasons for why the Times didn't renew Bill Kristol's contract. Which is it...His writing was not up to snuff, or he wasn't respectful (gag!) enough of the Times ?
We're expected to believe anything the Times says about this? Like Noel rightly observed..."Of course, the delicious irony is that the Times can't even get the reason it fired a columnist right."
Perfect.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan~ January 20, 1981
I have a conspiracy theory
January 26, 2009 - 13:41 ET by QueenMumI have a conspiracy theory which involves text messages from our Dear Leader via the Super Secret Presidential Blackberry. :)
Seriously. I too want to see examples of these egregious factual errors. In how many years? "Forced" to issue corrections? Oh, pu....lease!!! Although, I suppose if the Times actually issued a correction, I imagine it would have to be forced since this doesn't seem to be standard editorial policy.
Reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.
January 26, 2009 - 13:44 ET byI find it fascinating, humorous and sad that this site continues carping on how the Fairness Doctrine will squash conservative "freedom of speech" then turn around and complain about the firing of a "conservative" at a Liberal Media Bastion like the NY Times. If you don't like what you see...tune it out, turn it off, don't read it. It's a new world of choices. You can plug in to listen and watch what you want. Why complain? The Liberal Media is on your side they don't want your viewpoint cluttering up their message. Is there really a problem or just an exaggerated fabrication to stir the base into a tizzy to contribute to the ratings? The Ad revenues go up if there are more people watching and clicking on a site...
Fair and Balanced through a Government mandate or Unfair and Skewed dictated by the Free Market and Ad revenues? Just ask Rush about the freedom of capitalizing on the latter...
My vote is for the latter...yours?
Odd Job
OJ, OJ, OJ...(sigh)
January 26, 2009 - 14:59 ET by TailgunnerI'm undecided if ignorance is a hobby for you or a full-fledged career.
If ignorance were a country you'd be in charge of all branches of government.
Read the history of the Fairness Doctrine. Its compliance and recordkeeping requirements were so confusing that it made AM radio stations remove all controversial programming.
There may not have been much liberal talk radio at the time, but the Fairness Doctrine ensured there was no conservative talk radio either.
This is exactly what liberals want to bring back. Will they call it the 'Fairness Doctrine' again? Probably not. We're already on guard for that one.
But whatever they misname it, it will include confusing and detailed FCC regulations allowing agenda-driven 'community' groups (read ACORN) to file baseless and repeated nuisance complaints, requiring radio stations to spend valuable time and money justifying their programming decisions to faceless, unaccountable, politically appointed apparatchiks.
Same methods, same result. Rush, Sean, Mark, et al, will be taken off the air, organized conservative opposition will be silenced, and Obama's nonstop express to a socialist police state can continue with no further delay.
"Fair and Balanced through a Government mandate or Unfair and Skewed dictated by the Free Market and Ad revenues? Just ask Rush about the freedom of capitalizing on the latter..."
Did you think before you posted this crap? Do you really believe that government should ram unpopular left wing ideas down our throat and silence conservative talkers who have dozens of millions of freely chosen listeners?
How come a 'government mandate' suddenly is a good thing, OJ? It wouldn't be...no, it couldn't be...that now Obama the Great is in charge? No....not even you could think we're that gullible.
'Free market and ad revenues' means that a free people expresses their free choice to listen to the shows they choose. That's what 'freedom' means, OJ.
Apparently you'd prefer the 'fair and balanced government mandate' forcing us to listen to liberal nutjobs like Ed Schulz, Randi Rhodes or other wackos who have failed commercially for decades.
You haven't learned anything, OJ. Even if Air America was returned to the air as a fully funded US government agency, no one would listen to it. Look at the wingnuts on MSNBC. No one listens to them either.
How are you going to force us to listen, OJ? Are we headed to reeducation camps? Will you make us keep our radios on governmentally approved stations?
I'm sure Obama's got folks working on that problem. Maybe we'll all have Blackberrys implanted in our brains.
Nobody who speaks of government taking anyone off the air, whether conservative, liberal or otherwise, should ever be trusted.
The idea that liberals can openly call for silencing the political free expression of half the country, using the armed force of government, is a call to arms.
NOLI PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
THank you Tailgunner
January 26, 2009 - 15:16 ET by cocodrieI enjoyed your post.
We already have government "fair and balanced" broadcasting with PBS. It would be disastrous if all programming was reduced to that level.
Jesus Loves You
OJ
January 26, 2009 - 17:37 ET by NorthCoasterThe marketplace fairly values products based on a willingnes and ability to pay for a product. Advertisers will not pay for the minimal marketshare of unpopular programs. That is why shows like Rush Limbaugh's do well and Al Franken's fail. The popularity of most center right talk shows is gauged by the viewership if you hadn't noticed. Just look at the ratings for the cable shows. The top shows are all Fox and the viewership far outstrips the outher networks. Even better in Fox, their journalists and news readers report the news while the commentators editorialize on the news.
The demand that conservatives SHUT UP
January 27, 2009 - 12:22 ET by UnsaneSounds to me like OJ can't make a decent argument to back up his Leftism/Socialism, so he is demanding that everyone who opposes his ideas immediately SHUT UP and permanently. Only the intellectually weak crave that; that and those who want America turned into a one-party state.
I'll take whatever the free market supports. If people like hearing Leftism on the radio outside of NPR, well, the money will be there to be made. If not...
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! THE HOLOCAUST OF THOUGHT IS DAWNING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
It's all there in the NYT operations manual....
January 26, 2009 - 13:58 ET by c5thenPage 112, Paragraph 3: "Only moderate or conservative Op/Ed columnists are required to fact check their submissions before publication. All others will be dealt with only after 3 seperate credible sources complain to the editor."
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
Maybe it's simple
January 26, 2009 - 14:07 ET by SouthernRootsThose guy aren't in power anymore. Obama won. The NYT has no further need for Kristol because he has no proximity to the current administration.
I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them. - J.B. Books (John Wayne)
"F. Scott" Horton "Fitzgerald
January 26, 2009 - 14:37 ET by ledurchi"The Sacking of Bill Kristol" by The Daily Beast's Scott Horton descibes Kristol's bald-faced lying about styrofoam cups and coffee. What an outrage! How can someone who cannot be truthful about styrofoam cups have even gotten a job at the NYT?
Apparently, there was more. Horton states that the NYT had to issue four corrections to Kristol's columns. What those corrections entailed is not mentioned. Were they not as egregious as lying about styrofoam cups?
Horton's presentation of the "facts", while interesting, is much too sloppy for my tastes.
RED ALERT! Has anyone seen
January 26, 2009 - 15:18 ET by thebutlerdiditRED ALERT! Has anyone seen this?? Spew Warning!!
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/breitbart/2009/01/26/iraq-war-showdown-bill-kristol-agrees-to-debate-matt-damon-after-actors-idiot-slam/
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
→ Watch it Kristol
January 26, 2009 - 15:21 ET by Cool ArrowYou'll be the first coach to get fired before winning 100-0.
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
Wow Cool...ain't that the
January 26, 2009 - 16:33 ET by bigtimerWow Cool...ain't that the truth.
Bill Kristol
January 26, 2009 - 17:26 ET by NorthCoasterThe fact is that he wouldn't support the NYT in trashing the conservatives. They probably figured that he would function as a mole in the conservative hierarchy and do a Scott McClellan. When he wouldn't cave, he was gone.
The comment on reading the NYT too much only suggests that any individual should get a thorough background in the facts and not let one news outlet be their only source of information.
Just one more reason not to pay attention to any position the NYT takes.
Kristol
January 27, 2009 - 02:20 ET by afuelserved his purpose for the Dems, he was used in an attempt to show fracturing of Repub party as a kind of defector from the cause. With Obama now prez Kristol is expendable and a liability. Kristol hasn't shown true devotion to NYT as he appears on FOX on a daily basis.
Or its just economics as NYT is broke and getting poorer by the hour they don't have the green to keep Kristol on payroll, will others be let go in near future?
No Representation in NorCal