On Kristol, the NYT and Missing the Point

It's not like I'm a fan of the guy.

My personal opinion of William Kristol, the latest addition to the New York Times' op-ed roster, is along the lines of what the leftie media-watch blogosphere has been saying about his hiring.

Kristol has a lot to answer for, in his neo-con bravado and his casual calls to war -- not just in Iraq, but also Iran.

And it pains me when the Kristols and Friedmans of the world, who were so wrong on Iraq, keep drawing pay checks (big ones), while other columnists -- who got that story right and were brave enough to say so -- have been sidelined by the mainstream media.

However, attacking the NYT for putting Bill Kristol on its op-ed page, as though this appointment typifies all that is wrong with the US mainstream news media -- that's just a bit wide of the mark.

First of all, there's nothing new in the NYT having conservative voices on the editorial pages. Before David Brooks, there was William Safire.

That's what editorial pages are for; to offer competing views, so that open-minded readers can benefit from more than one side of an argument.

And it's hard to simultaneously believe in that principle and call for someone's views to be banned, regardless of how abysmal his track record is.

But here's the larger point: people who care about the New York Times and the role it continues to play in America's ideological drama should focus not on the editorial pages, but on the reporting.

Because Judith Miller was not a columnist. She played her part in helping drag the country to war by pretending to be a reporter.

Readers had reason to believe they were getting critical reporting from Miller, on Iraq intelligence and the White House. But that's not what she was offering.

Michael R. Gordon is not a columnist either. He co-wrote pieces with Judith Miller, including one on September 8th, 2002, a fictional little item on Iraq and aluminum tubes.

On May 26, 2004, when the NYT offered its readers a mea culpa for its failings on the Iraq/WMD story, the paper was not talking about its columnists. It was talking about the news side of the operation, reporters like Miller and Gordon, and stories like the one from September 8th, 2002.

Unlike Judith Miller, Michael R. Gordon is still with the Times. He reported last February on that US military briefing in Baghdad, which offered flimsy, not-for-attribution evidence on Iran and IEDs.

Having learned nothing from the Iraq debacle, Gordon bought the IED story and tied the bombings all the way to the office of Iran's Supreme Leader, all through unnamed US government and military sources. One stop shopping.

Media-watch groups quite rightly went after Gordon for that piece, forcing the Times' public editor to address the issue.

But that got a lot less attention than the Kristol hiring, even though such an article, on page one of the NYT, carries more of an impact. It was the same kind of story that was used to sell the Iraq war.

Editorials offer opinions. Most readers know that. But it's the stuff on the front pages that shapes perceptions.

So here's my advice for all you media-watchdogs: let the Times put whoever it wants on the op-ed page, as long as their positions and affiliations are made clear (unlike Mssrs. O'Hanlon and Pollack, the Brookings Brothers war hawks who turn strangely dovish when describing their resumes).

Then take all the energy you're pouring into your blogs, comments and letters to the editor on the Kristol hiring, and channel it in a slightly different direction: keeping papers like the New York Times honest in their reporting of the really big stories.

The ones that go on the front page.

Judith's gone, but with people like Michael R. Gordon around, you'll have lots of material to work with.

Comments

[badgervan]

Every time another neocon is hired by Big Media and allowed to spew lies, it contributes to the downfall of truth as a virtue and an American basis for being; truth as part of the bedrock of our nation.
These immoral people DO influence folks with their lies, and the fact that they have been wrong almost all of the time, yet still manage to get cushy, well paid jobs allowing them to continue putting lies into the mainstream, should matter - and matter a LOT.
I have no problem with conservative writers and columnists. I have a huge problem with those like Kristol, who coarsen and weaken the debate with falsities and outright dishonest scams to further their neocon aims.
MSM: no more Kristols, please - they already have many homes that will support them: Faux "news", AEI, American Standard, etc.
For a change, let's get back to demanding truth from our media organizations.

[tomsthumb]

A law was enacted in 1948 prohibiting propaganda. It was written in response to the Nazi propaganda machine that fueled WWII. It is unfortunate that we have adopted the very same style of "news" as the Nazi's used. But we got our war on!

[Karin]

Another reader who thinks YOU are missing the point. Both the reporting, and the editorial pages should be reality based. I don't think that's too much to ask for the 'Paper of Record'.

[scooperss]

OOps

I thought you said kristol was the *missing link*!

[dana94591]

Knowing that Kristol is a propagandist why would NYT put themselves in this position to be the perveyor of this neo-con nonsense? If they know that all he does is write opinion and he has a definite agenda why would they give him another platform???
Wasn't Weekly Standard and New REpublic enough for him?? Apparently not. Now Kristol goes mainstream with his neo-con drivel for all to ingest and spew at will.

[mickyx65it]

I think Mr. Gisbert is "Missing the point", as he says. There is ONE thing the NYT, Friedman and Kristol have in common: They are Zionists. No one who is not a Zionist will ever have a column on foreign policy in the NYT. It does not take a genius to figure that out. Taking from Noam Chomsky's words, it takes well educated people like Mr. Gisbert to systematically "Miss that point".

[Boobaloo]

I agree with you about Kristol, he can write his op-ed pieces but, why isnt Judith Miller charged with Treason and rotting in jail?

She used her position to be a mouth piece for Israels war machine, she herself being a Jewish Zionist with split loyalties between Israel and the USA; we know which one won out.

She worked for a foreign nation to drag America to war; why is she not in jail for betraying this country and the American people?

And researcher: No one views the NYTs as a liberal paper, no one. We all know its a right wing ZioNeoCon mouth piece.

[Boobaloo]

I agree with you about Kristol, he can write his op-ed pieces but, why isnt Judith Miller charged with Treason and rotting in jail?

She used her position to be a mouth piece for Israels war machine, she herself being a Jewish Zionist with split loyalties between Israel and the USA; we know which one won out.

She worked for a foreign nation to drag America to war; why is she not in jail for betraying this country and the American people?

And researcher: No one views the NYTs as a liberal paper, no one. We all know its a right wing ZioNeoCon mouth piece.

[research]

I don't understood why anyone considers the NYT's a liberal paper!

the NYTs has been conservative since I can remember.

Worse, this war shows the paper to favor a fascist relationship with the government.

[Incredulous]

I agree that it's important for us to hear opposing views, and you're right, the NYT has always given voice to ideas from the left and the right. What I find so repugnant about Kristol's op-ed coup is the fact that he's NOT the voice of conservatism. He doesn't espouse the values of conservatism in America. He's a radical fanatic, on the fringe. Neo-Conservatism is radical fanaticism. The Project for a New American Century is a fantasy; a radical blood-drenched orgy of perpetual war and world domination. It's a sick twisted fantasy, and Kristol is it's leading propagandist. Propaganda is not a discussion of opposing views. It's brain-washing. Kristol has his own propaganda rag. He doesn't need the NYT to disseminate his propaganda. The fact that he's been wrong about everything in the Middle East makes this whole thing even more mystifying. Why would the NYT want to give valuable op-ed space to a propagandist who's wrong about the Middle East? It makes no sense. Or maybe they think he's right. Maybe they're heavily invested in arms and oil, in which case they definitely support perpetual war in the Middle East. The more blood that America spills in the Middle East, the richer certain corporations and individuals get. Individuals like Kristol; propagandists with a personal agenda.

[MR]

Keeping the Times honest in their reporting? Really? Yawwwwwnnn. Arent you a wee bit late to the dance with that? Didnt you ever hear of Whitewater? Created produced and directed by the New York Times. Remember Wen Ho Lee? The difference between Brooks and Safire and Kristol is that, agree with them or not, Brooks and Safire werent arrogant, they werent stupid and they didnt show the kind of colossal misjudgment and being completely wrong on important issues the way Kristol has. the issue isnt conservatism. The issue, like 7 years of Bush, is competence, something missing from the front pages of the Times as well as their editorial page for at least the last 10 years and now made worse with the hiring of Kristol.

[Pericles]

Are there really no honest conservatives who display insight and occasionally make a prediction that comes true? That can't be right.

The problem is that punditry has become a sinecure. Once you're a pundit, you're in for life, no matter how off-the-mark you are. When was the last time David Broder said something worthwhile in his WaPo column?

Pundits are like the game-show celebrities of my youth: Kitty Carlisle, Bill Cullen, and that lot. Nobody could remember any more why they were celebrities, but they stayed on the air because they were celebrated as game-show contestants.

[bobh]

I see the Kristol hiring as a business model thing. They want to be more competitive with Murdoch and his Wall St. Journal, who find the charlatanism reassuring. I want the Times to survive, and if this sort of thing is necessary, so be it.

[Forest]

William Kristol founded the Weekly Standard and News Corp. owner, Rupert Murdoch, funded it. If you want Kristol columns, that's where you'll find them.

[ajax2]

Gizbert doesn't understand that propaganda is not opinion.