Featured Post

Click Here for Reviews of "The Tunnels"

Sunday, January 13, 2008

'NYT' Public Editor Hits Hiring of Columnist

In a piece that has drawn relatively little attention so far, Clark Hoyt, The New York Times' public editor, today called the paper's decision to hire Bill Kristol, the rightwing pundit, a "mistake," and noted that the Times' had received almost 700 letters of complaint -- and only one note praising the choice. Then there was this: "Kristol refused to talk with me....an odd stance for someone who presumably will want others to talk to him for his column."

And the fun continues: Kristol's second column is in Monday's paper, hailing the surge in Iraq and the Democrats refusal to join in. He writes: "Obama’s view of the current situation in Iraq is out of touch with reality. In this, however, Obama is at one with Hillary Clinton and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party." Here's a full summary of the Clark Hoyt critique:


Ian said...

greg, this is all garbage. why is nobody talking about the main thing. the main point. the number one problem nobody is talking about with kristol. forgot conservative or liberal or promoter of the war or anything else. forget all of that.

he has made statements, countless statements about domestic and foreign policies for years, the overwhelming majority of which have been completely wrong! THAT IS THE ISSUE.

the NY Times is the most important paper in the world. why do you give any space to someone who is statistically wrong most of the time.

if someone goes and gets 3 doctorates at harvard all exploring foreign policy, but then every prediction they make about foreign affairs is completely wrong...do you give them a space. do we give britney spears a space because she's famous.

my point is, what the hell is the criteria here. regardless of what degrees someone has, or if they're famous, or if they are rich or known for starting some popular paper, why should someone have access to one of the largest megaphones in the world if they have shown to not know what the hell they are talking about?

as far as im concerned, this isnt about politics, its about reporting. the times has been appropriately slammed for doing shoddy reporting the last several years. how do they respond to this..by hiring columnist who has been more wrong on issues than they were. that's the problem

Simon Owens said...

Greg, I've seen a couple of Editor and Publisher articles about Kristol's op ed and the fact that he made an error with his Michelle Malkin. What you guys aren't highlighting is the fact that he was actually *wrong* about two things: The michelle malkin quote and that Barack Obama would win in NH. I know that Kristol wasn't the only person to get that prediction wrong, but I still think it notable that it's only his first column and he's already been wrong about *two things*. And plus, he was more confident in the Hilary downfall than most other pundits.

Ian said...


ok, so now, in his brilliant follow up article, this monster has the nerve to attack others for "bring wrong" about the iraq war, this time blasting dems for saying the surge wouldnt work. of course, when we cited the deaths and attacks for why things were bad, they said they didnt matter. that it was the political progress that mattered. now that deaths are supposedly down, they say that it's a measure of success.

Anonymous said...

The New Hampshire thing, he might have been right. Last I looked there is a recount being initiated.

Bill Kristol might be a good op-ed columnist because his opinion might represent a great deal of people. That would be great if his opinion didn't affect people, or mislead them, only reflected them.

They really need to spell check that article. they spelled conservative wrong.