First Anniversary of Bill Kristol at the New York Times: Will He Get Axed Next Week?

Exactly one year ago this weekend, the the Huffington Post's Danny Shea broke the news that, as Jim Morrison might have put it, the Kristol Ship was about to sail at The New York Times. Much uproar ensued across the blogosphere. I recalled Kristol's call for the paper to be prosecuted, on Fox News in 2006, after its big banking records scoop: "I think it is an open question whether the Times itself should be prosecuted for this totally gratuitous revealing of an ongoing secret classified program that is part of the war on terror."

A day after the Huffington Post reported it, the Times announced that it had indeed hired the conservative pundit as a new weekly op-ed columnist, on a one-year contract.

Liberal bloggers really reacted now and Kristol said, in an interview with Politico.com, it gave him some pleasure to see their "heads explode." Kristol, of course, was perhaps the most influential pundit of all in promoting the U.S. invasion of Iraq and has strongly defended the move ever since.

Times editorial page editor Andy Rosenthal backed the move. Rosenthal told Politico.com shortly after the official announcement that he failed to understand "this weird fear of opposing views....We have views on our op-ed page that are as hawkish or more so than Bill... 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?"

The paper, however, noted in its own announcement: "In a 2003 column on the turmoil within the Times that led to the downfall of the top two editors, he wrote that it was not 'a first-rate newspaper of record,' adding, 'the Times is irredeemable.'"

Fun soon followed when, on January 7, eight paragraphs into his new stint as op-ed columnist, Kristol already made an embarrassing error.

His column, which suggested (with his usual prescience) that the Democrats not underestimate Mike Huckabee's chances to win it all, included a paragraph just past the midway point, in which he quoted the "conservative writer Michelle Malkin" as saying, "For the work-hard-to-get-ahead strivers who represent the heart and soul of the G.O.P., there are obvious, powerful points of identification."

There was just one problem : She never said or wrote it, as she was quick to point out herself on her michellemalkin.com site: "Since I never usually appear on the New York Times op-ed page unless someone's calling me a fascist, I was pleasantly surprised to see the quote. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), I didn't write what Kristol attributed to me. A different MM - Michael Medved - was the author."

Several long hours passed before Malkin was changed to Medved in the column at nytimes.com, with a note at the bottom of the column disclosing the original error. But as Jon Stewart is fond of saying, "Bill Kristol, aren't you ever right?"

Six days later, in a message that probably did not going down well in the New York Times' front office, the paper's public editor, Clark Hoyt, said the Times needed to hire a conservative of some stripe but called the hiring of Kristol as an op-ed columnist a "mistake."

He also wrote that of nearly 700 messages he has received about the selection, only one praised the pick. Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., he revealed, "was surprised by the vehemence of the reaction."

Hoyt concluded the column: "This is a decision I would not have made. But it is not the end of the world. Everyone should take a deep breath and calm down.... If Kristol is another [William] Safire, he has the chance to prove it. If not, he and the newspaper will move on, and the search will resume." Kristol proceeded to suggest Clarence Thomas for vice president and then promote Sarah Palin. He even accused Stewart of relying too much on information in the...New York Times.

Now, a year later, the Times indeed has a chance to "move on." What do you think will happen?

Greg Mitchell is editor of Editor & Publisher. His latest book on Iraq and the media is titled "So Wrong for So Long." His book on the 2008 campaign will be published next month.

Comments

[jackjava]

I say fire him. He lives in a dream world and he is at best, a disgrace to this fine newspaper. He doesn't write very well and his opinions need no forum paid or unpaid.

[TheKat]

The boys at Newsweek might extend an offer after all they've got Rove.

Hmm, do you think they would?

How about Cheyney? Would they fire him up on the masthead as well?

[larry278]

Kristol could be picked up by the VILLAGE VOICE to replace 1 of the 3 writers let go by the VILLAGE VOICE. No, neither the VOICE nor Kristol's writings will be called the Reactionary Rant nor Rabid Read.

[elizaconnors]

I used to think that Kristol's heart just wasn't in it when I read his editorials in the NYT. After watching him on Fox News Sunday for months on end, I have decided that he really isn't that much of a thinker. He just spouts off knee jerk ideological comments whenever he is asked a question.

I welcome diverse opinions, but they should show some careful thought and some well constructed arguments. Surely, there is someone out there who is driven by the sheer joy of intellectual argument and not love from the RNC.

[MAH1952]

I find what the NYT did to be the perfect example of what is wrong with the Left (even though only a NAZI would call the NYT liberal). You do not invite the wolf into the henhouse and then act suprised that the wolf devours the chickens. The current Neo-Cons are not interested in discussion. They want to remake the country (and the world) to what it looked like in the late 1600s (white men on top, minorities in various steps going down to slaves, women on their backs). And they appeal to the lowest instincts which will always get votes. So allowing them a venue like the NYT is at least irresponsible.

[Janelynne]

Bill K is as irrelevant as Paul Wolfowitz. No one has the stomach left for their "smartest guys in the room routine", which hubrisly ran our country into the ground.

[ibsteve2u]

Axed? With Israel flinging high-test into Gaza? Not likely, given the "unique perspective" a PNAC-er can bring...

[Punkynsnow]

What poetic justice it would be if one of the architects of the Project for a New American Century would end up on the unemployment line, joining the millions of others who are out of work thanks to eight years of the failed policies that PNAC espoused.

Unlike the rest of us, I'm sure Mr. Kristol will find another job, most likely with an organization that shares his values. He does have friends in high places...

[Mercedes]

William Kristol wrote the original PNAC (Project for the New American Century) agenda in 1996, basically outlining the US as taking over the planet's military, economic and morality decisions, because the US is the last 'Empire' left. Too many Good and Decent people died because of this agenda and Bush's using its policies to force Iraq into becoming a Democracy at the end of a gun.

Nope, Kristol should just forget writing another word about anything ever again...

[Fremon]

Kristol is the perfect embodiment of a mediocre ideologically directed mind. One direction only and don't change with the facts or logic. Whoops, forgot that Shrub is also a practicioner of this discipline. Naturally there are so many more that I can't remember them all.

[TooLooseLeTrek]

What else is she going to say? So...that means the rest of the world is wrong.

"In an interview aired Sunday on Fox News Sunday, Mrs. Bush says she knows her husband's eight years in office was not a failure, "...and says she doesn't feel as if she needs to respond to people who view it that way."
---Yes, it is very difficult to defend lies.

"She says history will judge the two-term presidency of George W. Bush."
---And Karl Rove is busy right now trying to rewrite it.

"Mrs. Bush notes that under her husband's watch, the nation has been kept safe from attack since Sept. 11 [blah blah]...toppled Saddam Hussein and liberated millions of people [blah blah]... from oppressive governments.

---She forgot to mention that Sept 11 happened DURING his watch, and that he received ample warnings from a number of different sources, including other governments. And yet, they did nothing. In fact, the events on 9/11 and after have never been independently investigated.

As for 'liberating' Iraq and Afghan people, I bet they wouldn't agree. And in the meantime, we continue to lose our rights as the police state in Amerika gains momentum. As for Saddam, he was effective in keeping Iran in check. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/1st-anniversary-of-bill-k_b_153582.html# Look how powerful the country has gotten since W removed Saddam!

[diogeron]

I have to admit that I truly do not understand the logic of the "He's kept the nation safe since 9-11" argument. If one holds that position, isn't the flip side of that coin: "He didn't keep us safe on 9-11?" After all, Bush WAS the president on Sept 11, 2001 and the attack DID happen on his watch after he and Condi had ignored the daily intelligence report of August 6th titled "Bin Laden determined to attack in the U.S."

[Freesia2]

In the way these things often work, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they kept him on. Since so often in print media what novelty sells copies is the main consideration, that Bill can't get much of anything right isn't a problem. Buzz about Bill might be reason enough for them to keep him. I hope not - but I wouldn't stop stirring the sauce in shock if I heard he's going to be delighting us for another year. Yuck.

He's one of the primary players in the Palin threat we just weathered (another yuck), so that alone would be reason enough to send him packing as far as I'm concerned, and the pushing for Iraq seals it. (There's not a yuck big enough for that one.) Standards would be nice, yet that they hired him at all sort of shows where the bar is for the NY Times. But as I'm writing this I realize - let me ask you? What am I doing? I'm buzzing about Bill. They may see "Kristol" as a real gem.

[diogeron]

Jon Stewart's comment sums it up best. Kristol is the intellectual antithesis of King Midas: Everything he writes is wrong.

[Freesia2]

Aye.

Go away Bill. Shoo.

[kopryor]

As one of the 700 who e-mailed Mr. Hoyt at the time of the appointment, I can now state that William Kristol's contribution was exactly as expected.

It has nothing to do with aversion to a conservative viewpoint (without question, David Brooks is my favorite columnist). It is that the person who delivers the column must be a journalist first, and an idealogue second. William Kristol has it the other way around. And that simply makes him Bill O'Reilly with a slightly more effete accent.

[SparkyDash]

I am quite surprised Mr. Kristol lasted as long as he has at NYT. Shameful.

[hmmmmmer]

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck it must be Bill Kristol. I apologize to all ducks that read this.

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

I hope they keep him. In these dark days we need all the laughs we can get.