NY Times Looks Into a Blurry Kristol Ball, and Blinks

It's hard to get angry at The New York Times hiring crack analyst William Kristol for their op-ed pages. Not hard because their hiring doesn't deserve the anger, but rather because after hyperventilating it's hard to do most anything.

Also, when you've used up all your outrage at Newsweek hiring Karl Rove as a commentator, it's hard to get worked up over something far less. Not "far less" as in better, just "far less" as in less horrifically awful.

The editorial page editor of the Times, Andy Rosenthal, reacted to all the teeth-gnashing over Kristol's hiring by saying that he doesn't understand "this weird fear of opposing views." Clearly, he doesn't understand. It's not the opposing views people are objecting to, it's the lack of common sense analytical skills.

There are plenty of opposing views that are thoughtful, observant and well-presented. I'm not crazy about George Will, Paul Gigot, William Safire or David Brooks as right-wing commentators, but I respect their thought process. I can even tolerate Tony Blankley or William F. Buckley as analysts who at least understand views not their own, as much as I may disagree with the gentlemen. But that's not the problem with William Kristol.

William Kristol has not only been completely wrong about everything he's written about the Iraq War, he was one of the leading proponents of it, working to convince the public that America should get involved in the war. A war that is arguably the most horrific foreign policy disaster in the 231-year history of the United States, a war that has brought disgrace to this nation in ways that may take generations to repair. And for over four years, William Kristol has relentlessly, proudly, vociferously pounded his support and defense of this disaster.

And this is the crack analyst the New York Times wants its readers to pay attention to for his ace opinions? Andy Rosenthal has his syntax wrong. People aren't upset at "this weird fear of opposing views" -- they're upset at "this fear of weird opposing views."

How weird?

Only a few weeks after the Iraq War began, William Kristol was a guest on NPR's "Fresh Air" program and said as as dismissively and haughtily as only he can:

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's been almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."

Sunnis and Shias have been fighting each other for 800 years. Just pick up any history book on "Wars, religious," it's right there. If it wasn't in all the papers that's only because it began before the Gutenberg printing press was invented, so some hand journals may have missed it in the 13th century.

And this is the crack analyst the New York Times wants its readers to pay attention to for his ace opinions?

Sure, anyone can get their facts a little wrong once in a while. But this isn't "a little wrong." This is like saying, "There's a certain pop psychology that Jews and Nazis can't get along." This is missing one of the core, underlying themes of political and religious life because either you're too stupid or too disingenuous. And William Kristol is not stupid. So, the New York Times wants an utterly disingenuous commentator for its paper analyzing events? Not the sort of thing most people are looking for in solid news reporting.

But here's how editor Rosenthal defends the decision: "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."

Serious? A guy who tries to pawn off the flim-flam that there's no 800-year evidence that Sunnis and Shias can't get along is not serious.

Respected? A guy who for four years has been defending the worst foreign-policy disaster of our lifetime is not respected. Except by the 11 percent who still think Dick Cheney is doing a bang-up job.

William Kristol has been wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong about the Iraq War every time he's had a chance to be wrong, from Day One and 3,900 American deaths, at a cost that's estimated to reach $2 trillion.

In the end, it's not so much a question why the New York Times asked William Kristol to give his opinion. It's a question why anyone would ask William Kristol to give his opinion.

Comments

[Mark701]

I think the NYT may have shot themselves in the foot with this one. One would have thought that after the Judith Miller fiasco they would be looking for some good solid reality based analysis, but instead they hire Kristol. I can't imagine what they expect to get out of this.

[BoulderSue]

I am totally befuddled about the Times recent hire, as I have been about a number of their policies in the last few years. Your post expresses it exactly. So where do we go now?It's getting awfully hard to find reliable news and well thought out opinion. Not everyone can get on-line and read papers from around the world as I do. Depressing, isn't it? One should feel that way no matter where you are on the political spectrum if you are honest with yourself. I think Barry Goldwater (one of my old heroes) would agree.

[MSB]

Who cares?

The Times is dead.

It has been for quite a long time. Murdoch just speeds up the formalizing of the process.

Now all it needs is Page 3 girls.

[themodernleader]

When a once great newapaper places self-interest above the Republic's interests the decline of our democracy is perceptible.
Other news media model such despicible behavior. Americans lose confidence in the validity of the news they are reading. Citizens become convinced that important news is intentionally being withheld to protest special interests. Rumors spread like wildfire and have a life and credibility of their own.
Gradually, empirical facts, knowledge, and ordinary experience become the previlege of the few as controlled information and knowledge derived from superstition and self-interest become part of the decision making process.
Now you can understand why this country is declining. Citizens no longer have valid sources of information for judging and deciding.

[LittleGreenGreaseBalls]

At the bottom of the NY Times home page is a *contact us*. Click it and go to *member center*. On the list there is Publisher and President. I sent a very polite e-mail to the publisher stating that Billy is the worst mistake the Times has made since they screwed with Select Times.

I’ll wager a quarter that Billy doesn’t last six-months. Nobody wants to be counted with utter fools unless it’s the Washington Post.

[Benny59]

I wonder if they didn't hire Kristol as a ramp-up for the new Democratic Administration. The NYT is always criticized for being ultra-liberal and Kristol would offer the perfect foil when all the news will be about democratic changes in Washington. This guy can't help himself and the NYT will already have an idiot in residence to take the heat for what promises to be a rabid Republican noise machine. I think it is a brilliant move and Kristol deserves to stand in front of the world with his pants around his ankles.

[americanwhocares]

No surprise here. Rich corporations and the ultra rich are controlling America's destiny because of the influence of money in politics (America has the best government money can buy). Not sure American’s will wake up in time to stop the destruction of our democracy. Sad but true.

[ChicagoBob]

!
The Times seems bent on self-destruction.

Robert, I agree with you completely. I have read some of Kristol's stuff and what jumps off the page is not only the complete lack of logic and analytical thinking but the egotistical self-absorption that no one dare question his positions.

A good conservative would be fine. I enjoy reading about both sides of the issues, but Kristol is just to be ignored.
!

[chappelforpres]

Just so we're all on the same page, we haven't had a critical press since Reagan invaded Granada. How effective can you be when your so deeply embedded, that you appear more a Proctologist than a reporter?

Kristol is an unabashed pro-Zionist and largely discredited NeoCon mouth piece, whose agenda reflects the editorial undercurrents of the paper's conservative ownership/­management­. Why else would you hire an "anaylst", so unpopular as to rival the President's.

Quite frankly, its a no-brainer that the support of Bush's "have (significantly) mores" will yield sorely needed ad revs to the Time's coffers.

[ChristopherLib]

Their defense of this is laughable. The idea that the NY Times needs opposing points of view is rediculous in itself. They already have that. And if you want to pick an opposing point a view picking Kristol makes as much sense as picking Michael Savage.

[legalclubs]

You are all so very wrong. Kristol isn't a "stooge" or a "suck up" to conservatives, he is one of them. He also happens to be well educated and is clearly able to articulate his point of view in a manner which is sufficient for him to be a conservative "star" commentator. Also keep in mind that the people with the mindset of Kristol managed to "win" the last two presidential races (Yes, even as I progressive I have to admit Gore lost after the press did the full recount and determined Gore would of lost no matter how the votes were counted) and hold nearly half the seats in the Senate and the House. Don't you think we might want to be exposed to their thought process so we know how these people think? How better to defeat your opponent then to understand his ideas in order to defeat his ideas? Either that or you can stick your heads in the sand and when we lose the election in 2008 you'll still be clueless as to what happened? Think people.

[Durango]

What does it take for a Republican to become humiliated in this country? Have they no shame?

Hell, I've seen convicted criminals like G Gorden Liddy offering opinions. How can that be?

If Kristol had any class he would committe Sepeku for having been so wrong so often.

PS. Furhter evidenc eof Kristols crimnality came on the Daily Show where he said we should invade Iran.

[don]

I'm just spitballing here, but what better way to expose the ruminations of Kristol to the glaring light of logic than to subject them to the critical thinking of a readership that can respond directly in a forum other than the Weekly Standard and Fox News? He and his cohorts won't be able to control the published response to his lunatic ramblings as easily as he has in the past. I remember feasting on the outrage that Molly Ivins would generate in the letters to the editor in the Startlegram following the publication of one of her pieces, usually ending with a vow to cancel subscriptions. I can only hope that the NYT readership subject Kristol's blathering to a full monty, but avoid that subscription canceling bit, it's kind of whiny.

[raptor]

Another problem with major publications (NYT, Time, Newsweek, etc.) hiring Kristol, Rove, etc. is that high school students with dubious critical-thinking skills will use them in research and then just parrot them.

[bluescat47]

Guys like Kristol are like baseball managers with bad records; they move on to manage another team (often having the same results) but rarely seem to get fired. My favorite Kristol column was just prior to the invasion of Iraq when he wrote that the arguments against invasion were "laughably weak" and then brought the A word ("appeasers")out of the gutter and put it in play. Shades of McCarthyism.
And the last thing the NY Times needs is another unquestioning, mindless cheerleader for Israel. Kristol is an empty suit - no, let me re-phrase that - an empty shirt.