creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
R. Emmett Tyrrell
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
9 Feb 2012
The Delousing of a Movement

WASHINGTON — As the tents were coming down at McPherson Square, the dead rats and mice being retrieved, … Read More.

2 Feb 2012
Exit Newt

WASHINGTON — Ah, yes, Newt Gingrich did in the last days of the Florida primary precisely what I … Read More.

26 Jan 2012
Newt Gingrich: Our Bill Clinton

WASHINGTON — How long have I been saying it? At least for 15 years, but in private, I have been aware … Read More.

Departing Kristol

Share Comment

WASHINGTON — Let us put an end to the dark murmurings over why The New York Times did not renew its contract with its lone conservative columnist, Bill Kristol. Some say it was a matter of politics. Kristol is a Republican. The Times is Obamist. For a certitude, the political disagreement was there, but politics were not the ultimate cause of Kristol's departure.

I can report on copper-bottom authority that The New York Times let Kristol go owing to public health concerns. As the Times' financial condition has grown fragile, the publisher of the Times, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., has become apprehensive that Kristol's conservative views could endanger the health of some of the newspaper's neurotic liberal readers. During the past year, readers unexpectedly encountering Kristol in the otherwise lenitive company of Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert have complained on the correspondence page of various discomforts. None appeared life-threatening, but what if an aged environmentalist or an infirm McGovernite lost in reveries of 1972 actually suffered a coronary? The trial lawyers would move upon the Times in an instant. Sulzberger might not survive.

Of course, the Times might not survive anyway. It labors under $1.1 billion of debt. So precarious are its finances that it recently had to accept a $250 million loan from a Mexican with the unlikely name of Carlos Slim. Whether he really is a Mexican is not clear, and the Times' team of investigative reporters is now so tiny that Executive Editor Bill Keller has not been able to spare even one reporter to inquire. As far as I have been able to ascertain, no reporter even has Googled to verify Slim's nationality. He might be Portuguese. He could be dangerously overweight. Actually, I am told that investigative reporters at the Times now, in an effort to economize, rarely leave their offices and conduct many of their investigations on the telephone. Sulzberger likes them to call collect.

Yet, to return to Kristol's departure, frankly I shall miss him. During this past year, he rarely filed a boring column, which doubtlessly offended many of his colleagues on the op-ed page. "Boredom is a virtue" is their motto, and the only other Times columnist who regularly breaks with the general tedium is that perpetual high-school rowdy, Maureen Dowd, who often mistakes a cackle for a syllogism. Moreover, Kristol's conservatism is usually sound, solidly reasoned and often amusing. This has led to charges from unnamed journalists in a Washington Post column by Howard Kurtz that Kristol was "predictable." This is a charge liberals often file against conservatives, giving us still more evidence of their double standard.

The adherence to principle that renders a conservative "predictable" in the eyes of liberals is exalted as "highly principled" and even "heroic" when exhibited by a liberal.

Another charge against Kristol from unnamed journalists is that he has been cavalier about facts. Kurtz writes that Kristol "had to correct three factual errors," presumably during the past year. What the errors were Kurtz does not say, but the Times' "Corrections" section overflows daily, rarely with Kristol's name. Once, a Times reporter had to interview me in an attempt to correct errors in a news story that I had broken in The New York Sun. When the "correction" appeared, is was still inaccurate.

Kurtz also reports that Kristol — at least when he has written in The Washington Post — has been "controversial." Well, at least he was not predictable, or was he? Kurtz reports that in the summer of 2007, Kristol wrote that the presidency of George W. Bush "will probably be a successful one." On that judgment, I would side with the herd of unnamed journalists, though by using selective criteria, Kristol can make a case. Elsewhere, Kurtz — apparently in consultation with the herd — adjudges "controversial" Kristol's 2007 observation that "military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected." I cannot find anything controversial about that.

This is not the first time Kristol has departed the mainstream media. In the late 1990s, he was a regular with George Stephanopoulos, Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson in a round-table discussion on ABC's "This Week." He left amid rumors that ABC thought him too involved in politics. After a period of reorganizing, ABC put Stephanopoulos in charge of the whole show. Stephanopoulos had been a Democratic political apparatchik all his adult life, before joining ABC as a "political analyst." What prepared him for journalism at ABC? In his 1999 autobiography, he admitted that while serving as a senior adviser to Bill Clinton, he would "spin" the press, beginning with the Gennifer Flowers tape. Looking back on his years of spinning, Stephanopoulos lamented, "I have been willing to suspend my disbelief about some of (Clinton's) more suspect denials." Suspension of disbelief — there is the mark of a great American journalist!

Kristol simply does not measure up.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is founder and editor-in-chief of The American Spectator and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute. To find out more about R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;... I can appreciate Billy Kristal... I have a book by his mother which seems a well researched and thoughtful book.... What I cannot appreciate is the  New York Times Neurotic Liberal readers... Now; I would not doubt that there are a lot of Liberals who read that rag... On the other hand, as many Liberals, they are likely to be well educated and well paid... And if they make it clear that they are not going to read any conservative non-sense day in and out, or buy their paper, or the products advertized if they publish some one they do not like, writing something they do not want to read, then they are well within their rights... That too is freedom of speech... That too is freedom of expression... It does not make them Neurotic, and I doubt you have near the education to pass such a judgement...But it sounds authoritative, to not only insult the intelligence of your opposition, but to deny their sanity... It kind of cuts yourself out of the middle ground... What else is there in the way of conversation once you have attacked them on the basis of mental disease or disorder??? All it means is that you are not talking to them...You are not engaging with them in deciding the future of the country...Instead, you are talking with others about them, and demeaning their input... But, you put yourself out to exclude others... You draw a line between them and us... You make the space between a no man's land, where decent people fear to go... When we need unity, you sow disunion... Such behavior as you demonstrate is treason... I am not calling you ill...I am not calling you neurotic...I am calling you criminal, and if it were within my authority as a citizen I would arrest you and hand you over to the authorities... We do not know before hand when or if our unity as a nation may be the difference between life and death, or between freedom and slavery; so it should not be destroyed or sold cheap...You wreck our unity for your bread and butter, while another divides us with your help to have great wealth or political power... We need our unity as much for protection against your employer, as against foreign enemies...So, you answer my question: Are the readers of the New York Times within their rights shutting up the mouth of Bill Kristal in the fashion they have???Because freedom of speech is protected, but no one has to give anyone a megaphone...The right likes their Rush, but they can change the channel anytime they get sick of him....Would that make them crazy???Would there be some point in anyone calling them crazy even if they believed it???Instead, when they talk, that is; them, and not Rush, I try to listen...I look for common ground....It is only my obligation because I see that it is, as a citizen; and so should you... Our unity has been bought dear and sold cheap... We need some way to get it back, what ever the price....Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:35 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Terence Jeffrey
Terence JeffreyUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Alan Reynolds
Alan ReynoldsUpdated 15 Feb 2012

4 Aug 2011 The Long War and The Budget

7 Oct 2010 With Rahm in the Windy City

2 Feb 2012 Exit Newt