The New York Times confirmed the buzz that it's hiring conservative William Kristol as a weekly op-ed page columnist. (As opposed to the early liberal gnashing of teeth.)The Times story began by noting Kristol is a "vigorous supporter of the Iraq war" and has even vigorously attacked his new newspaper home:
Mr. Kristol, 55, has been a fierce critic of The Times. In 2006, he said that the government should consider prosecuting The Times for disclosing a secret government program to track international banking transactions.
In a 2003 column on the turmoil within The Times that led to the downfall of the top two editors, he wrote [in The Weekly Standard] that it was not "a first-rate newspaper of record," adding, "The Times is irredeemable."
That's an awfully weak way to describe the Jayson Blair scandal, which ended with the dismissal of Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd. Was it unreasonable to conclude that the Times was not a "first-rate newspaper of record" when it allowed young Jayson to type stories datelined from Jessica Lynch's West Virginia home while he was sitting in a bar in New York making stuff up?
Michael Calderone at Politico offered more:
Rosenthal told Politico shortly after the official announcement Saturday that he fails to understand "this weird fear of opposing views."
"The idea that The New York Times is giving voice to a guy who is a serious, respected conservative intellectual — and somehow that’s a bad thing," Rosenthal added. "How intolerant is that?"
Kristol, whose strident support of President Bush and the war in Iraq remains a source of consternation among liberals, took pride in the reaction on the Huffington Post, where the news first broke.
"I was flattered watching blogosphere heads explode," Kristol told Politico. "It was kind of amusing."
Rosenthal also said "People who don’t want to hear what their ideological opponents have to say are making a gigantic mistake." He came to know Kristol during the first Bush administration, when he was a White House reporter and Quayle was chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle.
Also: Steve Benen responds to Warner Todd Huston.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Abe Rosental has it exactly
December 30, 2007 - 08:38 ET by motherbeltAbe Rosental has it exactly right (emphasis mine):
"The idea that The New York Times is giving voice to a guy who is a
serious, respected conservative intellectual — and somehow that’s a bad
thing," Rosenthal added. "How intolerant is that?"
That's the way liberals operate...anyone who disagrees with them is mean and evil, and has no right to speak (or write for public consumption, as the case may be). A respectable newspaper should not allow it.
And once again, the lefites show their true colors as the ones who want to shout down and shut down everyone who doesn't agree with them (on the highest of principles, of course).
Well, I thought his reply
December 30, 2007 - 09:36 ET by Warner Todd HustonWell, I thought his reply was funny. On the "me thinks he doth protest too much" level. His misdirection was amusing, too. Notice how he STILL didn't address that he is a name caller, nor did he demonstrate how his original piece happened to conform to serious political discourse?
Oh, and I found myself getting a badge of honor with this attack by an extreme leftist from the nutroots.
I made a short reply...
December 30, 2007 - 11:26 ET by Warner Todd Huston... to Steve Benen on my own blog:
Publius' Forum. Go on over and check it out.
The audience difference
December 30, 2007 - 13:42 ET by KC MulvilleBenen wasn't writing to the general public, which you must do if you're trying to write serious discourse. He was writing to the self-adoring and snarky class, with whom he feels comfortable.
The New York Times holds itself out as a public newspaper, where the public (therefore all ideologies) can discuss our common affairs. But too often it caters to a specific ideology, which is fine, so long as it admits that it has abandoned the general public for a niche audience. The NYTimes won't admit that, even though it is absurdly clear, and that's why conservatives despise it. The upheaval over Kristol is simply a reflection of the niche audience (i.e., the Loony Left), which feels it has stolen the prestige of the NYTimes fair and square, and doesn't want to surrender an inch of it.
Keep up the good work, Warner!
Wow
December 30, 2007 - 10:13 ET by OldSailor88The bloggers over at Huffpo are blowing an O ring over this one. They can't believe how the NYT can give up their "ethics" and hire a "neocon shill" like Mr. Kristol. I ended up reading a link posted there called TVnewslies.org. Really funny. Check out their required reading for Bush supporters.
My favorite quoet from there was(emphasis thiers):
"Keep in mind that the Neo-Con philosophy states that no rules apply when it comes to achieving power, even lying and cheating."
Gee. Sounds like the Clintons.
Ecce potestas casei!
Well the nutroot's
December 30, 2007 - 11:52 ET by BlazerWell the nutroot's blowing a gasket is understandable. NYT-Jazeera is like the Taj-Mahal of liberalism to them, their loudest echo chamber in the print media.
In their eyes, Kristol's gonna whip it out and start peeing his name all over the wall's, when in actuality he'll be bringing repute and credibility to this washed up socialist rag.
Just when you thought that Rove being hired by NewsWeek right after King Kos, really got em' going, well this takes the cake. I love it !
Now I only have to choose where I'll go rub it in first.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Underwear Gnomes
December 30, 2007 - 11:49 ET by third eyeYou know, Ive not quite figured out why letting Kristol write a column in the NYT is tying the left's panties in such a knot. Being that they're all champions of tolerance and inclusion of ideas and all...
Here's why:
December 30, 2007 - 17:27 ET by motherbeltHere's why:
Josh Marshall, at this TalkingPointsMemo blog, had this to say (emphasis mine):
First, the headline is illustrative of his panic:
Kristol to Ravish Grey Lady (Hilarious, is it not?)
Anyway, the money quote:
But the weirdest thing about the choice is that Sulzberger and Co.
have failed to grasp the taxonomy of the neoconservative literary
cartel. David Brooks is the house-broken William Kristol......[...]... And they already have him.
So why you'd want both Kristol and Brooks on staff is a
question that simply has no logical answer....
In other words, the NYT already HAS a token conservative columnist to balance their five liberals: Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, Frank Rich, and Nicholas Kristof; why on earth would they need another one?
Hey Warner I read your
December 30, 2007 - 12:03 ET by BlazerHey Warner I read your write up over at Publius but I wished you would have warned us about this little nugget from Benen.
"True, except now, one of the world’s most prestigious news outlets has apparently given this thug space on the most valuable media real estate in existence."
Now that's what I call ROTFLMFAO funny !!!
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Kristol's Mistake
December 30, 2007 - 15:07 ET by Lame CherryBill Kristol's old man was a neocon as liberal communist Jews created the term in meaning they were communist Jews who were strong on Reagan type defense.
Bill is just a Pat Buchanan progressive policy maker where Buchanan is an isolationist like Ron Paul.
What is bothersome in this is simple. Kristol is like all these prima dona types parading around as "Conservatives". He is grinning about his coup in now being able to take a pee on the New York Times without once acknowledging THE ONLY REASON HE IS THERE IS BECAUSE RUPERT MURDOCH OWNS THE JOURNAL AND IS ABOUT TO BURY THE TIMES.
Kristol is the token liberal Republican where Kristol should have said, "You want me on your yellow parakeet lining rag of a paper.........you will 365 days a year bring in op ed writers from John Bolton to Thomas Sowell to join me or there is no deal.
Without having any delusions about Bill Kristol, I like the guy. I remember him on Charlie Rose getting beat up by 4 liberals over the Iraq war and never got off message.
I just do not agree with his slant in American issues no more than Bill Buckley whom I adore.
You are on top Bill, put your hand out and bring along the posse as when you go down then Conservatives will be there who will help you back up.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
LC, as you say..and the Captain also...
December 31, 2007 - 12:31 ET by JayTeeThe NYT is bringing on Kristal...because as you say ..
THE ONLY REASON HE IS THERE IS BECAUSE RUPERT MURDOCH OWNS THE JOURNAL AND IS ABOUT TO BURY THE TIMES.
Someone on the NYT staff must have done research for improving circulation and viewed the Election results from 2004, and counted the Bush millions as possible subscribers and representing the Majority (not a Pelosi Majority).
Representing the Minority (Pelosi) has its own implications for circulation, and the NYT is coming to grips with Reality.
They must have a 2008 new year resolution "Increase Circulation".
March 15th, 2008 the gatheringofeagles.org and friends are marching in DC, come on down.
Amazing what a death-spiral
December 30, 2007 - 17:21 ET by Captain RepusAmazing what a death-spiral in circulation, ad revenue and stock price can do to a news (loosly defined) organization.
Look to MSDNC and CNN to follow along in the coming months as the corporate bean counters give them a reality check.