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

[phonyvet]

I'm with you, Jane; hiring that smirking bastard is one too many; I'm outta there!

[oldpotsmuggler]

Here's a little quote I lifted from Wikipedia.

On January 2, 2007, David Corn of The Nation, posted a list of Kristol's pre-Iraq war statements "about the justification for the war, the costs of the war, the planning for the war, and the consequences of the war."[9] Corn concluded that "Kristol displayed little judgment or expertise ... [I]n an effectively functioning market of opinion-trading, Kristol's views would be relegated to the bargain basement."

The Wikipedia piece also specifically mentioned that Kristol had predicted that Sunni and Shia in Iraq would not engage in exactly the kind of fighting against each other that is still ongoing, and that the majority Shia would not favor a religious government.

Being so wrong so often, while being extremely "intelligent" and well educated indicates that he actually malevolent rather than wrong. He would appear to know that he is speaking falsehood and proceeds specifically to promote a political agenda. "The ends justify the means" kind of thing, with an extremely elitist orientation.

It's clear that nothing he writes can any longer be taken at face value, and one would think that NYT editors would be sophisticated enough to not allow themselves to be taken so badly.

[tbrnotb]

The NYT has been resting on its 20th Century laurels for way too long. Where were they in the run-up to the war? Where have they been with all the scandals? No Daniel Ellsberg breakthroughs, no cutting edge reporting for the last 7 years.

They've been gone a lot longer than you NYT fans care to admit.

[westtexasboy]

true, the country is deeply divided, both socially and culturally, and, in light of that, the news that kristol will appear in the Times can be nothing but depressing. the deeper concern, though, is that the Times appears to be mis-reading the direction the country is going. thanks, jane, for saying so much in so few words!

[brixtony]

Great column (post?). I'm an habitual Times reader and won't cancel my subscription yet, although I read a lot on line anyway. "Yet" may apply to the very near future. I want to see how this plays out. I'm torn between respect for different opinions and coddling a pompous apologist for corporate power - maybe that's the key?. Does the Times need him or does he need the Times. He'll now be "NY Times commentato­r..." for ever. What's at the heart of this is that there is actually a small pool of 'pundits" from which the media drinks. The same faces show up on the networks, PBS, NPR, Fox, ad nauseum. Brooks, a harmless wishy-washy Conservative bobo ( or boo-boo), rears his head all over the place. There must be many really intelligent, articulate Conservatives in America who can really give us on the left some food for thought - real dissenting voices whose arguments can be countered by facts, logic and, yes Virginia, ideology. There must be. Right?

So I'm not cancelling. Yet.

[rhutcheson]

Much as I dislike Kristol, I like the Times more; there's no equivalent domestic source of news.

[yourstruly]

Ah, Jane, he is repugnant, but since I haven't been kept away from the Times by Safire (who wrote those nasty Agnew speeches, remember?) or Tom Friedman who sprinkled his blessings all over the Iraq war, I'm not going to let Kristol keep me away from the Times and Krugman, Herbert, Rich, or even Gail Collins. I figure if I don't click on his stuff, that will send a message just as a cancellation would.

I'm not sure who is guiding the Times into more conservative waters. One might assume it's Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who was Judy Miller's great pal. He must have some notion that they should go head to head with Murdoch and the new Wall Street Journal. Gag!

I worry more about the biases of reporters and editors who shape the hard news. They just handed the Week in Review to a self-proclaimed conservative, so there must be someone championing them.

The best thing progressives can do is keep monitoring the news and opinion and let publications know when their operations are offensive.­Since you've published there extensively, I'd think they'd take note.

[BobHiggins]

I felt the same way when I read of NYT's hiring of this little prick.

I hate to lose the Times, even with all its warts, but Kristol?

If it were Goebbels what would happen to their subscribership.

Well... it is.

Bob Higgins
http://worldwide-sawdust.com

[JLindsley]

I sadly empathize.

I enjoy the Times opinion page - Read Maureen Dowd often, even appreciate David Brooks. I like the balance of differing views. But Bill Kristol? Why and who’s next – Ann Coulter? (Woops am I being repetitive?)

I felt the same way when Newsweek hired Karl (architect supreme) Rove. Didn’t renew my subscription.

PS – I am a Jane Smiley fan!!

[nottoworry]

Time has someone call me 3 to 4 times a year entreating me to let them place their paper on my porch in Oklahoma for a very reasonable sum. I always say "no" and give them a number of reasons why. I believe they got my name and number off some political list I am on. Now, I shall add William Kristol to my list of "why I don't want their paper". Whatever are they thinking of.

[WorkingClass]

Thank you for this Jane. I look forward to the day when the NYT is just another Murdock rag like the WSJ. Hopefully a true opposition press will fill the vacuum.

[esl]

Why would the Times hire Kristol? It just boggles the mind. Is someone being blackmailed? Has the Times been wiretapped?

[Remonster]

I am with you Jane. Good riddance NYT.

[signalman]

That editorial you referenced,together with the news that Kristol was hired, had my head spinning.
Dowd is still amusing,Krugman is informative,the editorials are insightful.
The Science and Health sections are valuable.
Kristol can be avoided. Perhaps when he is not read (# of clicks),he will be history. As he deserves.

[Sylvia]

Jane Smiley, thank you for speaking out! William Kristol is a right-wing nut-job who should never be given a legitimate platform like the NYT. I hope the newspaper comes to its senses and cancels him. The corporations have completely sold out this country when this discredited neocon gets a column in such a (formerly) prestigious paper.