Muddle-Headed, Fear-Mongering, BushCo Shills Still Have a Right to Shout "Fire" in a Crowded Theater

Next week, I am really going to miss The New York Times. For years now, I have spent at least part of every morning reading the Times, and I love its variety. In addition, I have had a long and enjoyable writer's relationship with the Times. I've written for the magazine, the Travel Section, the Book Review, and the Op-Ed page (once I wrote in favor of divorce, and they received a gratifying hail of shocked, shocked SHOCKED! letters in response). On the day I heard the first rumor about my Pulitzer Prize, I was working with one of the Book Review editors. In a state of disbelief, I asked her if she had heard anything. She said "No, but here at the New York Times, we have a saying that eighty percent of rumors are true." I liked that. It agreed with my experience as a gossip. Just a couple of months ago, I wrote a sidebar for the magazine. The piece was fun, the editor was fun, and they embedded me in an article about Daniel Day-Lewis. Who could ask for more?

Given my attachment to the Times over the years, I have to say that I even forgave them for Judith Miller, difficult as that was. But after the advent of Bill Kristol on the editorial page next week, that's it for the Times and me.

I cannot imagine why the Times has hired Kristol. Kristol is not merely some rightwing loose cannon like David Brooks or even William Safire, and his hiring by the Times is not a free-speech issue. Kristol has plenty of opportunities to speak, and if he didn't he could blog, like the rest of us. Kristol is a war-monger and a hate-monger, and his lies have been exposed over and over in the last four years. If you think that the Iraq War is a crime, as I do, it is bad enough that he was one of the primary cheerleaders for it, even after every single one of the reasons that the Cheney/Bush/right wing gave for the attack was exposed. But he is worse than that. Until the NIE report, he was actively advocating bombing Iran, preferably with nuclear weapons, even though the civilians in Iran who would be bombed have nothing at all to do with whatever the Iranian government is doing, or as it turns out, not doing to develop nuclear weapons. In Iraq alone, Kristol has the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands. He is unrepentant and eager for more.

William Kristol is a man whose time has come and gone. There was a moment, in, say 2002, when some of his arguments sounded prudent, if not reasonable. Now, he only sounds crazy. NOTHING has turned out as Kristol said it would, and the process of finding this out has cost the American people a great deal, and not only money and lives. Why the New York Times would hire such a person boggles the mind to think of. The announcement even made no sense, pointing out, as it did, that "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 that it was not 'a first-rate newspaper of record,' adding, 'the Times is irredeemable.'" Why would the Times hire such a person? Stockholm Syndrome? Some kind if inside-the-beltway joke? An attempt to lure that bloc of American newspaper readers who listen to Rush Limbaugh? Earth to Times! Maybe they can't read!

Day after day, I read the letters to the editor column. After almost every column by David Brooks, I am struck by how few readers agree with a single thing he says, how many cogently disagree with him. Judging by the letters column, readers of the Times are liberal to moderate, and, most importantly, they have a well-developed sense of decency and responsibility. Has the Times now decided just to stick it to us, willy nilly, by giving Kristol a platform and a paycheck? Who's next, A--- C---, who suggested that the Times building be bombed? Even the Times editors themselves, in an editorial printed yesterday, lament that the U.S. has become unrecognisably lawless and inhumane. Earth to Times! William Kristol is as much to blame for this as anyone on the planet!

So, as of next Monday, the Times feed disappears from my home page, and when I get that 1-111-111-1111 number on my caller I.D., the one that reveals how the Times really thinks of itself, I won't pick up. When they send me the money they owe me for my piece, I will divide it between a charity that benefits Iraq veterans and one that benefits displaced Iraqis. You would have thought that remorse for the Judith Miller debacle would have taught them something, but clearly not. Sadly not.

Comments

[blueshift]

I cancelled my Sunday NYT subscription the day the Kristol decision was announced (just as I did News Weak when they decided to print Rove). I have also deleted it from my browser toolbars.

BTW, I always wanted to know what happens if you shout "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse?

[ibivi]

Why the Times even thinks that they need to compete with Fox is truly amazing. Have they sunk so low that they need to wallow in the gunk put out by Murdoch and company? It's trash journalism. The gray lady is going down.

[Rosanneofpgh]

kristol is a bloodthirsty warmonger who has never been right about anything, EVER!!

I beg to disagree with those who say not to boycott the nyt just dont read the killer's columns. The only way to get anybody's attention is to hit them where it hurts; in this case, stop buying the nyt. Maybe they'll get the message when the killer is costing them too much money and then they will fire his immoral, bloodsucking, scumsucking ass!!

[OrestesMakednos]

RIGHT ON TARGET!
I had made my decision not to buy the NYT anymore for the very same reason. Your editorial verbalized my rationale better thatn I could ever express myself.

[BernieO]

There is no reason to not visit the Times site. Just don't click on Kristol's column. The Times is well aware of how many are reading each columnist. That is why Maureen Dowd is still around. I know, she has been hard on Bush, but don't forget it was her savaging of Gore that helped elect him in the first place. Ditto for Kerry.

[terryb]

Kristol, is the perfect poster boy, that represents the state of the entire M.S.M. Without the internet, there would be no truthful, sane, news presentations what so ever.
Put this man, and his ideas, front and centre for every american to see, so they all can realize, just how ludicrous the M.S.M. has become. Maybe then, even the most ignorant amongst us, might get a clue, as to the shit they have been subjected to.

[waynesmyer]

Please be careful of what you wish for! you could end up with Billy Kristal!

[bobh]

"I cannot imagine why the Times has hired Kristol."

We beat this to death over at Brad Delong's blog a couple of days ago. The Times evidently fears an increasing threat from Murdoch's Wall St. Journal, and putting the charlatan Kristol on the staff is an attempt to appeal to that mentality of reader (the same ones who buy the $15,000 wristwatches you see in ever advertisement in the Times)

[Montag46]

Perhaps the venerable New York Times thought they had to snap up such an attractive intellectual property before the new WSJ did.
I think I would prefer having Cheney write a column. Then I would know that I was getting the President's handler. Mr. Kristol merely provides smoke and mirrors.
They might have thought of reprinting works of conservative authors of a less depraved age than the present. That would be much more enjoyable.

[spicegal]

The NYT's hiring of Kristol is disappointing to say the least, but I suppose not surprising. It kind of fits with Rove being hired by Newsweek. Our neocon nightmare is far from over. As if people like Kristol and Rove don't already have platforms to project their brand of venom. I'm not sure what's going on with all this, but I suspect there's a profit motive. Just like the rest of the MSM, they believe the more controversial, the more radical, the more extreme will draw readers and boost profits.

[TommyMcCarthy]

I'm simply appalled to find my beloved Jane Smiley coming down on the side of silencing an opinion/editorial writer. It really IS a new year!!........................tm

[BirdsEatCats]

I began to lose respect for The Times many years ago, after I was interviewed by a reporter about an incident I had witnessed from start, to finish.
The article that appeared got the story completely wrong, AND misquoted me.
I received no response whatever to my complaints to the paper (not that I expected any).
I've since noticed many distortions in it's reporting on matters I was familiar with, and wondered how someone like Brooks, who makes predictions that are consistently wrong, could have a job there.
Giving Judith Miller a platform for her obscene parotting of the administration's lies about Iraq, and helping speed the race into that war crime didn't surprise me in the least.
I still read the Times online for free sometimes. I'll never buy a copy, or do business with it's advertisers.

[Mormondude]

Perhaps it's because there are only so many liberal hippies out there reading the newspaper, and the readership is dropping like a rock.

By the way, didn't HuffPo have an article about how Fox News really WAS the most fair and balanced network toward all the Dem candidates during this year-long primary?

It seems that the only myths being debunked these days are from the left.

(By the way, Jane, do you plan to vote for Clinton or Edwards, who both have far more Iraqi blood on their hands than William Kristol EVER will?)

[zull2]

It's an economic decision as much as anything.

Murdoch knows that the sort of person that will buy a newspaper instead of sit down at a computer will tend to probably be over 40, and even moreso over 50 on the average. The web is so wide open and accessible that those who sit down at a computer can choose from a wide variety of options. When they do pick up a newspaper, it tends to be some free local paper. But those who primarily enjoy buying a newspaper will tend to be that particular demographic. The other trait about that demographic is that since the dawn of time, they're the ones that vote for and approve of conservative points of view. Reading Bill Kristol reassuring them that their own points of view are right is the sort of thing that keeps them buying papers and subscribing.

It's purely about making money, and that is entirely what Murdoch is about. It's not even about conservatism, it's purely about greed. Conservatives are very sympathetic to that point of view, but they have other views that aren't necessarily related to greed. Murdoch is just all about the greed, and that's it. It's how he sees himself doing his job, and measuring his stature as a human. If he believed he could make more money running liberally oriented news outlets and papers, then he'd be after it as fast as he could.

[Nanotyrnns]

I'm not happy with the NYT hiring this con artist, either. I'm not ready to abandon them yet, though. I think the Right loves it when we attack our own supposed institutions like the New York Times, or Newsweek, or any of the candidates. They would love to see us spend our time eating our own rather than looking into what they've swept under the rug.

I'll continue to read the NYT, both in print and online. Let the Right have their fun with this. They hate the NYT no matter what or who is on the editorial page. Kristol will say nothing of any worth to anyone but the nutjobs that believe him. He'll be gone soon enough.