Left, Right, Gay, Straight -- Who Will the Times Take?

The New York Times is now involved in one of its earnest, baroque, hair-splitting and hair-pulling discussions about who should replace William Kristol on the op-ed page.

Kristol, you remember, is the Fox News commentator hired by Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. to be, along with David Brooks, an official conservative on the op-ed page (and to buy the Times some protection from the attack dogs at Fox News). Now, it used to be that you got to be a columnist at the Times because of worthy service to the paper. But in the Times' efforts to be with it and relevant in an opinionated world, it adopted the ideological bent, with Kristol being its highest concept example. This didn't work out, because pretty much as soon as Kristol was hired, the conservative epoch began to end, and because Kristol, in ideal circumstances not the best writer, didn't have his heart in it. In the end, the Times audience probably does not feed the ego and the glory of a red-blooded conservative.

The Times is now both frantically and painstakingly making lists. Who are its kind of conservatives?

After a period of this, of finding every conservative to be either quite a fuddy-duddy or quite crazy, which pretty much defines conservatives these days, some determined maverick at the Times will suggest they get a liberal. There will ensue, then, a long and complicated discussion about Rachel Maddow and the idea of not just a liberal columnist, but a gay one too, which the Times has never had (not openly).

Continue reading at newser.com

Comments

[Luvial]

Suggestion: Replace all your writers with letters to the editor and put it on the Internet. Oh, nevermind, I am already reading the future of newpapers. I stopped paying for government propaganda 15 years ago.

[rixter1965]

I don't understand why the honchos at the NYT would pay anyone to write a column on a regular basis when they then go on FauxNews, etc., and denounce the New York Times as archaic, biased, and part of the liberal-bi­ased/mains­tream media.

If there exists a conservative who earns his lucrative income from speeches,books, etc., how about someone who would accept no pay from the NYT, but be allowed space on a regular basis to express his views!?!

[Clavis]

I nominate John Boehner. It saves money by cutting out the middleman. Now, the NYT can endorse a position inherently identical to that of the radical Republican minority. All they'll have to do is publish Boehner's notes for the week, and they've got their column.

[klondiker]

Names that I would suggest:

1. Peggy Noonan
2. Arianna Huffington
3. Christopher Hitchens
4. Andrew Sullivan
5. Martin Amis
6. Noah Feldman

[chagedorn]

I think they'll probably end up hiring Andrew Sullivan

[BigMambo]

I like his writing. Unlike Kristol, he's more careful with his facts. I'd like to see a liberal, but I could live with Sullivan.

[Rrhain]

You mean the same Andrew Sullivan who condemened anybody with HIV who had condomless sex to be a killer...only to find out that he, himself, advertised for condomless sex? The same Andrew Sullivan who declared anybody who was against invading Iran to be a traitor...and still hasn't admitted he was wrong?

That Andrew Sullivan?

If the Times should, as you suggest, hire someone who is careful with his facts, why on earth would they choose Sullivan?

[kps888]

How hard can it be to find an opinionated hack who is wrong about everything?