Kristol Fear

There's an interesting op-ed in this morning's New York Times, written by the paper's city editor, Clark Hoyt. It attempts to respond to the flood of criticism the Times has received since bringing Iraq war apologist and American Empire proponent Bill Kristol onboard its editorial team. So far, the paper's largely liberal readership has reacted with unrestrained fury to the appointment, regarding it as an attempt by Times Publisher Arthur Sulzburger, Jr. to endear the Times to the conservative crowd and in doing so take their money.

The paper of course calls the decision a matter of journalistic balance, which offers little consolation to those who are sick of seeing Kristol's self-satisfied, Cheshire-Cat-on-Ludes grin plastered all over another news source which regularly proclaims its devotion to "balance": Fox News Channel.

Not long after starting this website, I published a column which attempted to put into perspective the ubiquitous assertion by many on the right that not only is there a "liberal media," but that it's engaged in some kind of nefarious cabal to squash the opinion of Joe Six-Pack, while simultaneously laughing at his simple-minded ignorance.

At the time, I said that I'd seen exactly the opposite; throughout my career, I've watched manager after producer after editor overcompensate to ensure that he or she is never accused of a liberal bias -- often at the expense of any semblance of real objectivity or dedication to the truth. Stories, particularly of a political nature, have often had a right-wing perspective forced upon them, even when one wasn't necessary, simply in an attempt to preemptively quell the perceived ire of a group whose extremist element doesn't want its ire quelled in the first place -- because to lose its "liberal media" boogeyman would be to lose its authority.

In other words, CNN can give Bill Bennett all the airtime he wants -- it won't stop the right from demonizing the network.

Hoyt's op-ed attempts to justify the appointment of Kristol, the son of neo-con architect Irving Kristol, and for the most part the venerable city editor has a point -- somewhat pretentiously articulated of course -- when he insists both that the right deserves a louder voice on the editorial staff and that Kristol doesn't deserve the venom being spewed in his direction by those who pride themselves on being "open-minded" (a fundamental characteristic of the left, by the way, which conservatives have become almost laughably adept at using against it).

But the problem with giving someone like Kristol a voice at the Times -- a paper he once suggested, in classic over-the-top far-right bloviation, should be prosecuted for treason -- is twofold: First of all and once again, it will not in any way win over those who hate the Times and consider it leftist garbage (and trust me, Kristol is shifty enough to figure out a way to both write for the Times and still laugh at it behind its back like a kid on a playground). Secondly, Kristol doesn't have the honest-to-God political credentials that his de facto predecessor, William Safire, had; whereas Safire was a genuine DC heavyweight whose opinion most could respect if not necessarily agree with, Kristol is little more than a fortunate son -- a member of the new self-appointed beltway elite whose credibility stems solely from his high-profile position at a think tank and the generous amount of facetime he gets from Fox News.

In other words, why should anyone really care what he has to say?

Least of all, the readers of the Times.

So why bother?

(New York Times: He May Be Unwelcome, but We'll Survive)