NY Times Public Editor says he would never have hired Bill Kristol
Clark Hoyt, the public NY Times said that Bill Kristol should never have been given a job because he wanted to prosecute the NY Times for running the "bank data mining" story. Here's Hoyt:
Publication of the article was controversial — my predecessor as public editor first supported it and then changed his mind — but Kristol’s leap to prosecution smacked of intimidation and 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. This is not a person I would have rewarded with a regular spot in front of arguably the most elite audience in the nation.
One would think that journalistic ethics should count for something. If you're a warmongering conservative---those rules need not apply. (h/t Jason)
UPDATE: Think Progress says that: "New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt writes today that Kristol “refused to talk” to him about his comments or the controversy over his hiring, which Hoyt calls “an odd stance for someone who presumably will want others to talk to him for his column.”
If you're a war mongering neoconartist NO rules apply. That seems fairly obvious at this point.
Sent to the Public Editor in response to his article:
I agree with the public editor that this decision was "not the end of the world." However, it was the end of my subscription. The decision itself was questionable enough. Rosenthal's response to the criticism was unforgivable. To assume that thinking people who do not wish to pay to be insulted about their beliefs (and Kristol is insulting and abusive in his rhetoric--not sure how Rosenthal justifies this as a "well-articulated" alternate viewpoint) or who object to being lied to in the service of a bone-headed ideology need to be schooled in democracy was beyond the pale. I exercised my democratic AND free market rights not to pay for trash. This is not about the conservative point-of-view, this is about Kristol's hateful conservative point-of-view.
I suspect Rosenthal is glorying in the controversy because that, rather than any ideological integrity, was the intention of this hire all along. It certainly has gotten the Times some long overdue attention. Please, God, keep him from sinking any further into the Jerry Springer mind-set. What's next? An afternoon talk show hosted by a pseudo-celeb where Times columnists can confront each other and reveal secrets about their colleagues' paternity?
This is all terribly disappointing.
Kudos to Clark
Bill Kristol doesn't want anyone talking to him about what he's writing. He's the one who decides that and he doesn't need anyone else's opinion, thoughts, or advice. He's superior to all others, you see?
Unfortunately as most of we sentient beings out here already, Bill Kristol is one frickin' big LOSER. Hey Bill... STFU!
...not to mention the fact that his two columns so far (or at least the two I've seen) were utterly inane.
Bill Kristol needs to be on the pathfinder team Dubya sends into Qom. He should be wearing his yamulke.
Right ON! beat me to it. Since when does Kristol "Research" any damn thing? He just sits around talking to his fellow bush cronies and bitching about the Clintons. He WON'T Talk to anyone who might have an opposing opinion. Hell, Kristol probably thinks Brit Hume is a liberal...
“New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt writes today that Kristol “refused to talk” to him about his comments or the controversy over his hiring, which Hoyt calls “an odd stance for someone who presumably will want others to talk to him for his column.”
What is so odd? It's typical. Kristol and his ilk are bullies. They are perfectly content to spew their bullshit in front of friendly audiences (like the Heritage Foundation), through articles (removed from direct criticism and confrontation), and as talking heads in unchallenged forums like Faux News.
Bill Kristol and the rest of his neocon warmongerers will never put their views and beliefs to the test directly in front of diverse audiences. His column will make money for the paper because of their extremity. He will foment sales by people waiting to see what other stupidity he will spew so that they can respond in letters to the editor that will never be posted.
The NYTimes is a business. They are in the business of selling papers, increasing readership and increasing ad revenue. The addition of Kristol will help them do that. He's there because David Brooks isn't wingnutty ENOUGH.
You didn't think this was about principles, did you? You didn't think that the NY Times is a REAL newspaper, did you?
Bird cage owners vote bloody bill #1!
Its time to turn up the heat. I was curious doesn't the Times do any background check on who they are going to hire?
"Bill Kristol should never have been given a job"
well effin' duh!!!
(now, i am just waiting to hear that the WashPost regrets hiring michael 'the sky is green' gerson... waiting... waiting... waiting...)
The notion that some 'elite' audience reads the NYT is laughable. I can't think of a major news event in the last 40 years on which the NYT had any meaningful role.
The NYT is the newspaper of the 4Ws: Whitewater, Wen Ho Lee, Weapons of Mass Destruction and, of course, the AWOL drunk.
Hoyt writes some good stuff, but I'm sorely disappointed he cherry-picks two angry, misspelled comments to quote. I guarantee there were far more on-target objections, and his move wouldn't have been as bad had he included a few. Same ol', same ol'.
Kristol refused to talk with me about this issue, or an earlier statement that The Times was “irredeemable,” or the reaction to his appointment — an odd stance for someone who presumably will want others to talk to him for his column.
Well, it's characteristically gutless and arrogant, but I also question whether the Times management should tolerate it. Reporters may disagree with an ombudsman's judgment, but I don't think I've ever heard of one completely blowing off the ombudsman! Why are Rosenthal and Sulzberger all right with this?
The biggest issue with Kristol is that he's been almost unfailingly wrong. That's not incidental to him being a far right-wing imperialist, since as a group they're almost always wrong, and have always been so throughout human history. But the NYT could have found a conservative who wasn't a political hack and wasn't such a hackneyed stylist. Allowing him to keep on at The Weekly Standard and have a contract with Fox News is ridiculous.
Great new book out about the Neocons, They Knew They Were Right, by a "reformed" member of the club, Jacob Heilbrunn. I posted a review here:
I have let my Newsweek subscription expire because they hired Rove.
If I bought the NYT I would cancel that too.
I would never shake hands with Rove or Kristol........wankers both!
I'm not sure if this has been said before here, but Don't Click on Kristol's Link. While I perversely want to see the nonsense he is spouting, the best way to show disdain is to not give him hits. I refuse to click on it.
Yeah. They shouldn't have let him host the Academy Awards either. He's just not funny anymore.
/Got nothin'.
So he's written how many columns before they decided this? one? morons.
Dooh, you think?
The source of kristolnacht's grin?
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/5023/yspictures/card9.JPG
Kristol looks like a fool. The Times must be doing this deliberately.
Samson @ 11: I doubt the WaPo ever will express regret over hiring Gerson, because as loathsome as Gerson is, and even though almost every one of his columns has a disingenuous or illogical argument, Fred Hiatt at the WaPo luvs him some right-wing imperialists. As with the NYT's hire of Kristol, I suspect the WaPo's Gerson hire is mostly due to three reasons:
1) a vain attempt to placate loud right-wingers trying to work the ref
2) an attempt to retroactively make their previous gaffes on WMD and general war-mongering respectable
3) disdain for liberals and their largely on-target critiques of poor reporting and worse judgment.
All are annoying, but number 2 troubles me the most, because it has the most potential to do harm.
Bill Kristol is NOT a conservative, please do not describe him as a conservative, neo-con ? yes, true conservative ? no, there nothing conservative about Bill Kristol.
"...arguably the most elite audience..." oh, please, since when? Most of the 'Times' readers I know are arrogant, ill-informed social climbers.
UPDATE: Think Progress says that: “New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt writes today that Kristol “refused to talk” to him about his comments or the controversy over his hiring, which Hoyt calls “an odd stance for someone who presumably will want others to talk to him for his column.”
Did Hoyt try asking Kristol's ass -- the source from which all his great ideas flow?
What exactly is a "public" editor?
'smacked of intimidation and 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.'
Imagine that.....who'd a thunk it? When the United States officially becomes a police state and William The Bloody is still around, I am sure he would be guaranteed a place in the upper echelons of the AmeriKan Politburo.
Neocons should not be given a platform to further destroy our country.
It is insane.
Batocchio @ 21:
reasons 1, 2, and 3 are spot on...
i am in the middle of reading chalmers johnson's blowback, and he makes it a point to mention all the times the NYTs failed to accurately report events or simply didn't cover events at all, generally when instances of american imperialism where involved (ie, kwangju massacre)....
Having worked in the newspaper buisness for 20 years I have one reason why the NYT hired this moron. Major newspapers have been losing subsciptions at a alarming rate. The only major newspaper that has grown subscribers over the last 5 years is, the NYpost. Shit sells newspapers.
Batocchio @ 13:
Agreed. He made it appear as though everyone who objected (other than Hoyt himself) was an irrational zealot.
The deed has been done, NOW what are you going to do about it?
How much $$ did the NYTimes get from PNAC and the Carlyle Group to hire old neocon william kristol?
Is this part of the strategy in the ever growing drumbeat for marching to war with Iran? again under FALSE pretenses!
All I am looking for is the truth. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to the set of facts that is the basis for that opinion. For a very long time now the right wing has rewritten history, or just invented facts from their collective butts to back their opinion. William the Bloody is one of the worst at just pretending that he has researched and carefully vetted his facts/opinion.
wingnut cats always land on their feet
I 'bloody' well let them know directly why I cancelled my subscription and threw in an interogative as to whether they were going to hire Judy Miller back ( so they can once again boast that alternative reality as well as alternative opinions). Too bad, they have some talented people who write for them. I decided a long time ago to not support stupidity with my money, when there is so much out there for free!
Radically Moderate @ 15:
"Shake hands" with them? I wouldn't walk across the street to urinate on either of them if they were on fire!
They must be losing subscribers by the boatload.
*
Yesterday I was just about to buy the Sunday Edition of the NYT then I had second thoughts. The last time I was waiting in my doctors offiec I saw a copy of Time Magazine.
Didn't pick that one up either. I also do not buy or read the National Enquirer.
Liberals on the op-ed page? I only see Krugman as being a true liberal; the rest --especially Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich-- are Judas goat liberals who unjustifiably trashed the hell out of Al Gore in the run-up to the 2000 Presidential campaign.
And if they want a real conservative instead of a neoconservative, Jim Pinkerton would have been a much better choice.
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH
how can we get this guy fired???
now!
Frank Cocozzelli @ 39:
Its not so much about conservative or neoconservatve as it is about shock value. MSNewspapers have looked around at talk radio, cable news and come to the view that, right of center morons sell newspapers. MSNewspapers have drunk there own koolaid, thinking that this is what the public wants.
I sent the NY Times a message on 12/28/07, within minutes of finding out about Kristol's rumored appointment. I threatened to cancel my subscription.
Then a better solution hit me.
Today I sent this note to the Times, and also to Bloomingdales/Macy's:
Dear Editor,
I sent you a message a week or two ago protesting the hiring of Bill Kristol. Like your Public Editor, I think the hire was a mistake. A tragic mistake. If the NY Times felt like it needed to hire a conservative, there are many floating around who are honest and worthy of reading.
I'm a home subscriber, seven days a week. I have been for many years. I've decided not to cancel my subscription in protest. Instead, I've decided to do something that I believe you will care much more about. I'm going to boycott Bloomingdales and Macy's.
I noticed that on 12/26/07 approximately one-fifth of the entire front section was Bloomingdales ads. That's not insignificant. That would qualify them as a Huge Advertiser in your paper.
My wife and I live in NYC. We have tons of extra income. We won't be spending it at Bloomies or Macy's for the next year. Each and every day you keep William Kristol on your op-ed page.
I'm slowly beginning to introduce this idea to the left-leaning side of the blogosphere. If I can get a mere 10% of the Upper West Side to boycott, that would be quite a huge hit to the stores' botttom lines.
It's a very, very bad year to piss off consumers. Wouldn't you say?
Now it's time to do some shopping on-line.
SCHRODINGER"S CAT @ 38:
I only subscribe to Mad Magazine now.
Radically Moderate @ 15:
I wouldn't shake hands with any wankers. My hand would be sticky for the rest of the day.
Billiam Kristol's Biography on PNAC's website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/williamkristolbio.htm
"the process of transformation.. is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." -- PNAC document
diamondmc @ 29:
To swat all those unhousebroken dogs?
Batocchio @ 13:
I guess the Times was looking for consistency, not integrity. Sad comment on them, they apparently don't have any meritworthy standards either.
eastriver @ 42:
Nice job. Good luck to you.
eastriver @ 42:
Radically Moderate @ 15:
so you know where they're hand has been...
And that goes for anything Rupert Murdoch is behind as well... wankers the lot of 'em. Enough people cancel subscriptions and refuse to watch these mediawhores, that oughta put some pressure on the money they're making...
Bill @ 49:
I say EXCELLENT approach. If we liberal thinking people refuse to give these folks who advertise in this rag one more cent until they pull the ad campaigns, that says something. There's lots of other places to shop and if not, then you could save a shitload of cash in a year. I applaud you!! Keep up the great work!
Oops... Kudos go to eastriver@42... sorry... I oughta start reading from top to bottom...
Anyway, you get my drift. I applaud people who speak with their feet. Well done!!!
I am often amazed at the time and effort perfectly intelligent bloggers give to agonizing about the Gray Lady. Standard and Poor downgraded NYT to one level above junk bond status back in June. It is bleeding circulation and Craigslist is eating its classified revenue lunch.
Note that it recently abandoned the 'registration' requirement for content. It is going the way of the proverbial buggy whip as are idiot pundits like Tweety, Timmeh, Broder and so on.
Never forget, 'Journalism' is an amateur profession, glorified English majors with lobotomies. Digby, Jane and Marcy at FDL, the Agoniste folks and countless others are actually better than these credentialed hacks as writers and newshounds.
Don't even get me started on Biz journalism. They wasted months over the summer lying about the economic shipwreck we face and are known in investor circles as 'pump monkeys' because they hype and pump stuff to stave off the day when investors discover all the fraud.
Broder, Tweety, Modo, and Timmeh are just a different breed of pump monkey with no accountability.
So my admonishment to you all is to waste less time parsing pump monkeys and spend more time digging for the stories. The economic train wreck we face will be transformational and the manipulated 'little people' are increasingly anxious about how Corporatists stole their humanity to make micro profit centers of them.
Many are upside down or under water paying mortgages on homes that are worth less than the mortgage value. They are now eating their credit cards and defaulting on auto and college loans in the first wave glimmers that will. before long, amplify and exacerbate the sub prime fraud mess.
The only candidate with an iota of a clue of what this all means is John Edwards and not even he is aware of the true extent of the ramifications of 'Peak Oil' and the looming collapse of the entire sloppy unsustainable mess we all know as Suburbia.
As Hill and Barack engage in useless sniping, each new day brings another bundle of foreclosures, layoffs and general travail not known since the Great Depression. There is no way Little Nero and the Corporate Oligarchy will be able to keep a lid on this.
The equity markets blew nearly 5 percentage points in the first weeks of the year and totter. Wealth is vaporizing. The maelstrom mess of the economy is making people very anxious and the Iraq mess just compounds things. Keep an eye to turnouts as the GOP is doomed by heavy turnout.
People are against a wall and firing their only bullet, their ballot. Tweety et al only got afflicted by delusions of significance because no one in regular America paid any attention to them in the fat and happy boom period. Now that worry rears its scary head, the people look at gasbags like Tweety and readily notice:1. They suck. 2. They are useless.
Tweety doesn't hear that razor sharp scythe heading for his neck, nor do any of the other insulated, clueless gas bags.Kristol is like something reasonable folks view with a shudder like a puking Tourettes Case and avert their eyes in horror.
It is an embarrassment for the NYT. They are paying a neocon to write propaganda for his cabal. Any other group would have to pay to advocate or at best get a guest billing. Kristol bites the Gray Ladies tit as he tattoos filth on her back.
The RNC has something on Kelly and the Times courtesy
of Dick Cheney and one of the security agencies.
Presumably Kristol will not be able to resist offering his unique insight and advice to one of the Republican presidential candidates, and that will be the opportunity the Times will want to truncate his deal with them.
Hiring a token member of the other side for your op-ed page is a long-standing journalistic practice... but it should be someone who hasn't been totally hostile to your publication. It's best if you have someone who has a certain amount of sympathy with both sides. David Brooks and William Safire made good contributions to the Times in the past because they were conservatives who had some sneaking admiration for some aspects of liberalism. It is harder to find similar liberals on right-wing op-ed pages, but the liberal Susan Estrich does good work for FoxNews.
I think you should link to the first page of the article, not to the second. I read this site everyday and enjoy the content quite a bit. A problem, however is that you constantly take things out of context, and since we only read what we want to read it doesnt give the viewer a fair chance to get all the information - unless they have the intelligence to go to the first page. I hope noone takes offense, but its the honest truth.
Daniel @ 58:
Peter Noone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI9LXhq_azc
ysbaddaden @ 59:
Speaking of context.
I don't get it. Why wouldn't the Times want to hire one of the greatest fictional writers of our time? Kristols imagination is right up there with JK Rowlings, only a little more far fetched....
diamondmc @ 29:
I would argue one point herein above, my dear diamondmc: not just shit, but slimy, methane-bubbling, vomitous putrefaction.
Other than that, I'd hazard a positive spin on the recent addition of the Bloody Slime to the Times. This should increase the loss of subscriptions exponentially! Au Revoir, NYT!
Quick responses:
Samson @ 28: I still need to read Blowback, it's on my list, but I just did a post on a Johnson article on blowback.
andy @ 22: Of course Kristol is a conservative! He's not a Goldwater conservative, but he's an authoritarian, imperialist conservative. If the rule-of-law and fiscally responsible conservatives want to take the GOP over, I'll be very happy, but Bush, Kristol and the lot have ruled the roost for some time now. John Dean's remarked that, as a Goldwater conservative, with no major change in his own views, he's now a conservative Democrat. There have always been authoritarian, imperialist conservatives, with all their accompanying cronyism and corruption. The aggressive fight to protect entrenched, unearned privilege over meritocracy and equal opportunity has always been at the heart of conservatism, the minority of good faith (if mistaken) conservatives and small "l" libertarians excepted. Peggy Noonan, Jonah Goldberg and many other prominent conservatives embraced Bush as one of their own, and have only distanced themselves now that he's hurt the brand. This is the old sales line, that conservatism can't fail, it can only be failed. Sorry, not buying it. Bush is in many ways the absolute embodiment, or the ultimate blend, of "traditional" conservatism and the past few decades' movement conservatism. Again, if sane, responsible conservatives want to take over the party, I and many others will cheer them on. But at some point, on some level, ya have to admit that what powerful, self-described conservatives do and say is indeed conservatism.
Chris Rich @ 53: I agree with you on the virtues of Digby and other great bloggers, and I imagine many C&L readers do as well. But the NYT is enormously influential. As Jeff Greenfield said last week, "bad conversation drives out good conversation." Even if we news junkie blogophiles know the NYT and Hardball are often suspect and sometimes outright crap, not all the public does, and the chattering class still reveres them. Like it or not, the NYT and Chris Matthews set much of our national political discourse, and because their inanity hurts the chance for "good conversation," it's important to challenge them.
Daniel @ 58: Okay, but you, I, and I imagine most other readers clicked the first page. I don't think there was any attempt to hide page one, it's just that the highlighted quotation was on page 2.
Wrong reason. He should not have been hired because he's a flaming asshole, and an idiot who has never been right about anything.
Chris Rich @ 53:
OMG!!! I dare not truncate your post, because each delicious word is an essential element of your attempted wake-up call. I have been warning all who will listen (my faithful dog?) for better than 20 years that the Corporatists are pushing their train wreck that they now call the global economy a few more inches/feet/miles down the track, hoping it will sustain momentum long enough so that they can maintain the facade of a 'healthy' economy until they can come up with a fix--struggling all the while to avoid revealing the mangled wreckage.
There is no fix. Our species is about to reap the consequences for many decades of hedonism and irresponsible economic behavior. The 'Great Depression' was a cakewalk compared to what we're facing.
Frankly, I'm surprised they've managed to stave off the big crisis as long as they have. I guess the little economies of the world still have a bit of blood left in them to suck out.
I hope to be somewhere rural and sustainable before the worst happens. Even if I make it to a place where I can raise my own food, I doubt I'll be safe.
Oh, well, it won't be dull...
Chris @ 65 should read "Dies the Fire" By: SM Stirling, and learn to do some sword fighting or something like that. Or maybe he has? I dont think anything terrible is going to happen, and if it does - thats the way world works, ask the Romans. Fortunately with technology as it is and the awareness of people as to whats going on in the world, there may be chaos, but not as extreme as some people may surmise.
I have made a vow not to buy the New York Times on days when Bill Kristol's column is being published...
alecia @ 67:
Why buy it at all ......... though people like Kristol run americon land now anyway so it wont really matter.
How is it that the USA ends up rewarding these blatant neo-fascist-NAZI's like Kristol? What has become of this place?
So, how can Kristol get away with simply refusing to speak to the public editor? Kristol is an employee after all, the NY Times can require him to respond. What is the editor's purpose if he can simply be ignored?
They've done more than simply sullied their credibility at the Times - they've also gutted the public editor's job.
Maybe that was their purpose.
Uuh I am trying to suggest that they matter less with each passing day and are making their own death warrant by foisting obvious drivel. Maybe the Gray Lady of decades past was worth a thimbleful of toad spit but that is not so now and it shall be less so with each daily circumnavigation of your most basic clock.
I daresay one might plot the decline curve on an X-Y chart based on current circulation bleed rate and forecast the point when they sink, probably by 2009 along with the comparably odious WAPO and Nielson trends suggest the Tweetys of the screen aren't long for this world. It is simply easier to just pull up a Reuters feed for basic useful stuff and go blog hopping for more interesting and more crafty opinions. What part of circulation hemorrhage are you missing? Don't you think this mass exodus suggests the stunning depreciation of content value?
And given the skill and value of these Digby sorts, it would thrill me deeply tobe able to click on their pages and this one to find truly robust content they are clearly capable of rather than these tedious dissections of pompous overpaid imbecile drivel. You have in your hands the tools to hasten the Gray Lady's inevitable trip beneath the soil by merely doing a better job, hardly a challenge at this point.
Ignore the crazy old bat like some dementia aunt in the attic and we will all be better for it while enjoying the application of your considerable talents to far more useful pursuits.
Last week I received in the mail a NYT's solicitation to subscribe to their rubbish. I took the subscription card and wrote on it that I would never read or subscribe to their rag as long as Bill Kristol was in their employ.
They were kind enough to furnish a postage paid envelope to return the message to them. Let them pay the postage to hear your disdain for them. I encourage everyone to do the same. Receiving thousands of those rejected solicitations on their dime might get their attention.
I'm pretty disgusted with the NYT on this one, just as I am with Newsweek for featuring Karl Rove. I'll likely think twice before buying a NYT, and won't renew my subscription to Newsweek.
So who is responsible for hiring Kristol so we know where to direct our ire?
Comments are closed on this entry