The Times Adds an Op-Ed Columnist
By THE NEW YORK TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/business/30kristol.html?hp)
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/cropped_speakers/Kristol_William_WEB_150x200.jpg

William Kristol [above], one of the nation’s leading conservative writers and a vigorous supporter of the Iraq war, will become an Op-Ed page columnist for The New York Times, the newspaper announced Saturday.

Mr. Kristol will write a weekly column for The Times beginning Jan. 7, the newspaper said. He is editor and co-founder of The Weekly Standard, an influential conservative political magazine, and appears regularly on Fox News Sunday and the Fox News Channel. He was a columnist for Time magazine until that relationship was severed this month.

Mr. Kristol, 55, has been a fierce critic of The Times. In 2006, he said that the government should consider prosecuting The Times for disclosing a secret government program to track international banking transactions.

In a 2003 column on the turmoil within The Times that led to the downfall of the top two editors, he wrote that it was not “a first-rate newspaper of record,” adding, “The Times is irredeemable.”

In the mid-1990s, Mr. Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, an influential policy study group. Before that, he was chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle.

A native of New York City, he holds a bachelor’s degree and a doctorate from Harvard.

His father is Irving Kristol, one of the founding intellectual forces behind modern conservatism.



What does this say about the NY Times? What does it say about Mr. Kristol? And, what does this say about the "mainstream media"?

I guess it's the NYTimes attempt to branch out after utter failings in their anti-American, anti-Bush diatribes in the Op-Ed?

Conservatives ftw.

The Times Adds an Op-Ed Columnist
By THE NEW YORK TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/business/30kristol.html?hp)
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/cropped_speakers/Kristol_William_WEB_150x200.jpg

William Kristol [above], one of the nation’s leading conservative writers and a vigorous supporter of the Iraq war, will become an Op-Ed page columnist for The New York Times, the newspaper announced Saturday.

Mr. Kristol will write a weekly column for The Times beginning Jan. 7, the newspaper said. He is editor and co-founder of The Weekly Standard, an influential conservative political magazine, and appears regularly on Fox News Sunday and the Fox News Channel. He was a columnist for Time magazine until that relationship was severed this month.

Mr. Kristol, 55, has been a fierce critic of The Times. In 2006, he said that the government should consider prosecuting The Times for disclosing a secret government program to track international banking transactions.

In a 2003 column on the turmoil within The Times that led to the downfall of the top two editors, he wrote that it was not “a first-rate newspaper of record,” adding, “The Times is irredeemable.”

In the mid-1990s, Mr. Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, an influential policy study group. Before that, he was chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle.

A native of New York City, he holds a bachelor’s degree and a doctorate from Harvard.

His father is Irving Kristol, one of the founding intellectual forces behind modern conservatism.



What does this say about the NY Times? What does it say about Mr. Kristol? And, what does this say about the "mainstream media"?

All the major papers like the LA times and New York Times are beginning to tone down the left wing racism and political correctness that have permeated them over the last 15 years … they have lost a lot of readers over that period of time.

But including a conservative columnist doesn’t change the editorial bias of the paper any more than having Combes on Hannity and Combes changes the editorial bias of Fox news.

The new york times sometimes does excellent journalism... and sometimes not. But I don't see the biases and prejudices of that paper changing anytime soon any more than I see the biases and prejudices of Fox changing anytime soon.

What does this say about the NY Times? What does it say about Mr. Kristol? And, what does this say about the "mainstream media"?[/I]



It means that the Times in an attempt to stop the massive hemorrhage of money, now has to answer to the stockholders. The readership of the paper has been in free fall and bottom line for the paper, above ideology, is still money.

The readership of the paper has been in free fall ... I've heard some of the NY Times' critics make this claim but never seen actual data to prove this. Sure the 'subscription' may be down (as people switch from paper to online news) but can you show us some data to show that "readership" is down?

What I found intriguing was why would Bill Kristol, who has his OWN publication, want to join the paper he's so critical off? If people start getting his views through the pages of NY Times why would they buy the Weekly Standard? Or isn't that at least one less reason to by Mr. Kristol's own publication?

I'd be interested in hearing his answer to that ... There's something not right about this. If NY Times have gotten, say, Charles Krauthammer, I wouldn't have been surprized at all.

Billy Kristol is a crappy writer and a crappy paper deserves him..

Billy Kristol is a crappy writer and a crappy paper deserves him..

Which (national) newspaper is non-crappy, in your opinion, electronicmaji?

What I found intriguing was why would Bill Kristol, who has his OWN publication, want to join the paper he's so critical off? If people start getting his views through the pages of NY Times why would they buy the Weekly Standard? Or isn't that at least one less reason to by Mr. Kristol's own publication?



Maybe to make it better? Or, another source of income.

Which (national) newspaper is non-crappy, in your opinion, electronicmaji?



All newspapers are crappy because that's what digg says.

Which (national) newspaper is non-crappy, in your opinion, electronicmaji?
the only non crappy national newspaper is The Onion

I've heard some of the NY Times' critics make this claim but never seen actual data to prove this...http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif

Newspaper Circulation Falls Sharply (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&t=703323&u2=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/business/media/31paper.html)


October 31, 2006

The circulation of the nation’s daily newspapers plunged during the latest reporting period in one of the sharpest declines in recent history, according to data released yesterday. The slide continues a decades-long trend and adds to the woes of a mature industry already struggling with layoffs and facing the potential sale of some of its flagships....

...The New York Times, one of the few big papers where circulation had held steady over the last few reporting periods, lost about 3.5 percent of its circulation both daily and Sunday...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/31/business/1031-biz-webPAPER.gif

-------------------------------------------------------------

Followed by another decline in 2007 (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&t=703323&u2=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/business/media/05cnd-abc.html?_r=1&ex=1352005200&en=92352410b3ebf222&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin), as reported by the Audit Bureau of Circulations (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&t=703323&u2=http://www.accessabc.com/):The New York Times, which has raised its price twice in the last year, in addition to shedding unprofitable sales, lost 4.5 percent of its weekday circulation (to less than 1.04 million) and 7.6 percent of its Sunday circulation (to 1.5 million).

Compare that to the national rate of newspaper circulation rate fall in the united states and it pretty much negates the NY Times circulation fall...

Compare that to the national rate of newspaper circulation rate fall in the united states and it pretty much negates the NY Times circulation fall...From the linked articles: "Newspaper Circulation Falls 3%, Audit Bureau Says"
and"The New York Times, which has raised its price twice in the last year, in addition to shedding unprofitable sales, lost 4.5 percent of its weekday circulation (to less than 1.04 million) and 7.6 percent of its Sunday circulation (to 1.5 million)."
Therefore, the NY Times daily circulation drop is 50% larger than average, and their Sunday decline is more than double the average.

The NYT had been level for the last 15 years. That alone constitutes a drop in circulation, since during that time the population in the USA increased by 50 million people (from ~250 million to >300 million).

Thanks, Xnarg. But I was asking for data on "readership", which includes unique visitors to its website as well as the paper circulation. Would be great if you can locate that data and even greater if we can compare it with the data for, say, Washington Post?

I think the only newspaper that can fairly be compared with the NY Times is the Washington Post. WSJ is too focused on financial news where as USA Today is ... well, USA Today. Others are not really "national" news papers. Also since both the NY Times and Washington Post have their online version available for free (unlike WSJ) it'll be interesting to compare their total readerships one-on-one.

For newspapers, circulation pays the bills and is very quantifiable. Ad rates are based on circulation.

Readership doesn't pay the bills, at least not directly, and is very difficult if not impossible to quantify. For example, by visitors reading the quoted article in my post above, does that make them part of the NYT readership?

IMNHO, when horskj said readership, I think he meant circulation, but possibly he could clarify that for us.

Jon Chait wrote an insightful piece about Kristol a few months ago
Link (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ce3791b8-8b1f-4738-a5bf-0ca73275eb47)

There was a time when neoconservatives sought to hold the moral and intellectual high ground. There was some- thing inspiring in their vision of America as a different kind of superpower--a liberal hegemon deploying its might on behalf of subjugated peoples, rather than mere self-interest. As the Iraq war has curdled, the idealism and liberalism have drained out of the neoconservative vision. What remains is a noxious residue of bullying militarism. Kristol's arguments are merely the same pro-war arguments that have been used historically by right-wing parties throughout the world: Complexity is weakness, dissent is treason, willpower determines all.

Kristol's good standing in the Washington establishment depends on the wink- and-nod awareness that he's too smart to believe his own agitprop. Perhaps so. But, in the end, a fake thug is not much better than the real thing.

Kristol has been wrong about just about everything and has greatly harmed the country in the process, but is a DC insider that is a key part of the social circuit. He contributes nothing positive.

....Kristol has been wrong about just about everything...Well, OF COURSE he was wrong! He isn't a paleolib! :D

Was Kristol wrong in saying (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,982006-2,00.html):"The fact that government is no longer going to be so generous with taxpayers' money may be Scrooge-like, but it strikes me as rather responsible behavior.

For too many years, some liberals have felt they were doing good by generously spending taxpayers' money.

Now Americans, want to take a much harder look at what really does good and what does harm."

Was Kristol wrong when he said:"The fact that government is no longer going to be so generous with taxpayers' money may be Scrooge-like, but it strikes me as rather responsible behavior.

For too many years, some liberals have felt they were doing good by generously spending taxpayers' money.

Now Americans, want to take a much harder look at what really does good and what does harm."

You and Kristol have much in common, as Chait revealed. You are overmatched in the war of ideas

Readership doesn't pay the bills, at least not directly, and is very difficult if not impossible to quantify. For example, by visitors reading the quoted article in my post above, does that make them part of the NYT readership? Yes, it does and I think you knew the answer. And, it is very easy to quantify readership.

There are ads on NY Times' website as well. Someone must have paid for those ads and that someone must have looked at the number of page views, unique visitors and every other piece of data on determining the worth of their ads. So, yes, online readers do matter.

Kristol isn't even a conservative. Hes a neo-con. Nohing conservative about spending trillions on oversea wars.


Frankly I don't see how any editorialist nowdays could be pro-bush without coming off as a propagandist. There has been very little good the man has ever done.♠

Jon Chait wrote an insightful piece about Kristol a few months ago

There was a time when neoconservatives sought to hold the moral and intellectual high ground. There was some- thing inspiring in their vision of America as a different kind of superpower--a liberal hegemon deploying its might on behalf of subjugated peoples, rather than mere self-interest.



I associated that position more with the so-called "liberal hawks" than the neocons. I may be wrong or the two may really be indistinguishable in foreign policy.

I sometimes wonder if the next President is a democrat, will we be talking about the 'liberal hawks' just like we've been talking about the neocons for the last seven years?

Frankly I don't see how any editorialist nowdays could be pro-bush without coming off as a propagandist. There has been very little good the man has ever done.♠ ... and that's a FACT, not an opinion? :)

its a FACT. Not a Opinion.

its a FACT. Not a Opinion.


It's an opinion, not a fact. :lol:

Yes, it does and I think you knew the answer. And, it is very easy to quantify readership.

There are ads on NY Times' website as well. Someone must have paid for those ads and that someone must have looked at the number of page views, unique visitors and every other piece of data on determining the worth of their ads. So, yes, online readers do matter.From their 2006 annual report (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&t=703323&u2=http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=105317&p=irol-SECText&TEXT=aHR0cDovL2NjYm4uMTBrd2l6YXJkLmNvbS94bWwvZmlsa W5nLnhtbD9yZXBvPXRlbmsmaXBhZ2U9NDcxNTI4MSZhdHRhY2g 9T04%3d), net income at NYT has not been doing that well:2006: (543,443) (LOSS)
2005: 253,473
2004: 287,631
2003: 294,647
2002: 294,182They explain their results: During the last few years, our results have been adversely affected by a weak print advertising environment.
In their list of "The key financial measures for 2007," in the most recent annual report, they mention: Newsprint cost per ton
while not mentioning internet ad revenue at all.

Paper and ink are still the Times' bread and butter.

From their 2006 annual report (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=105317&p=irol-SECText&TEXT=aHR0cDovL2NjYm4uMTBrd2l6YXJkLmNvbS94bWwvZmlsa W5nLnhtbD9yZXBvPXRlbmsmaXBhZ2U9NDcxNTI4MSZhdHRhY2g 9T04%3d), net income at NYT has not been doing that well:

2006: (543,443) (LOSS)
2005: 253,473
2004: 287,631
2003: 294,647
2002: 294,182

Actually the figures you report are for the cumalitive entity known as New York Times Company. This includes the NYT as well as several other businesses. The loss reported was a result of accounting practices at the New England Media Group, a subsidiary of the NYTC. Basically advertising was down in New England which required the NYTC to write down the value of that entity.

Speaking specifically of NYT advertising, "Advertising revenues were slightly higher in 2006 than 2005..."

To Neo's original readership question is this quote from the report:

"The Times's Web site, NYTimes.com, reaches wide audiences across the New York metropolitan region, the nation and around the world. According to Nielsen//NetRatings, average monthly unique users in the United States visiting NYTimes.com reached 12.4 million in 2006 compared with 11.0 million in 2005. According to NYTimes.com internal metrics, in 2006, NYTimes.com had 14.8 million average monthly unique users worldwide."

Between print and online readership the NYT estimates they reach 18 million people.

It's an opinion, not a fact. :lol:
no its a fact...even taking into account what neocons and loyal bushies think hes done right there are maybe..3 or 4 things...

no its a fact...even taking into account what neocons and loyal bushies think hes done right there are maybe..3 or 4 things...


"Because I said so" would have have been a better response.

Kristol isn't even a conservative. Hes a neo-con. Nohing conservative about spending trillions on oversea wars.




Oh right, because to say he's conservative would cast Saint Paul in a bad light for you.

Grow up...

Oh right, because to say he's conservative would cast Saint Paul in a bad light for you.

Grow up...
Not at all. No conservative in their right mind is for fighting preemptive international wasteful wars in nations that make no sense.

Conservatives try to conserve and smartly spend taxpayers money and decrease taxes and decrease spending with those taxes. Not decrease taxes and then spend billions on a illegal and unconstitutional war with trillions of taxpayer dollars forcing the us goverment in billions of dollars of debt and causing extreme inflation.

I've heard some of the NY Times' critics make this claim but never seen actual data to prove this. Sure the 'subscription' may be down (as people switch from paper to online news) but can you show us some data to show that "readership" is down?

What I found intriguing was why would Bill Kristol, who has his OWN publication, want to join the paper he's so critical off? If people start getting his views through the pages of NY Times why would they buy the Weekly Standard? Or isn't that at least one less reason to by Mr. Kristol's own publication?

I'd be interested in hearing his answer to that ... There's something not right about this. If NY Times have gotten, say, Charles Krauthammer, I wouldn't have been surprized at all.

Ok… if you want to get picky over verbiage fine.

When I say “readership” I am assuming that those who buy the paper, do so to read it, I don’t suppose that there are many folks who are buying the times for the cross-word puzzle, the Bloomindales adds or to line their bird cages. I know that there are those who read online, but that dose not generate advertising or coop dollars, readership in the form of papers sold or circulation if you like that word better.

Additionally those who buy the paper for the most part are doing so because they agree with the views of the paper. Since the country is polarized to a 50/50 split between the left and the right, with the Time very left leaning tendencies (the argument about leaning left is for another thread) they are alienating half of their potential readership.

It is no secret that the scandals at the Times have hurt the bottom line. The stock was trading at 26.90, its 52-week high on February 7th to 16.02 its 52week low on November 28th and is currently trading at 17.33. The stock has had a 35.6% loss over the year. Clearly something had to change.

If you are trying to gain readership, or circulation you choose the word, the Times is going to have to target a segment of the population that they have ignored, the conservatives. No sense in going after the Liberals they are already firmly entrenched.
Bill Kristol is a respected voice on the right. He will be doing an op-ed piece. So all the idealogs on the left can piss and moan about his column and the Times can say well, it’s an op-ed piece. While at the same time shout from the mountaintops, “Hey conservatives come to the Times we have a column by Bill Kristol you will want to read”. They think that they will get to have it both ways.

At the end of the day for Sulzberger and Keller the bottom line is still, how do we get the stock up from 17.33?

I thought you meant Billy Crystal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Crystal)

kristol is a disgusting piece of feces.

for those who think people like kristol are being taken on in a reversal of extreme leftism, it's really because FOX news has been so effective at misleading so many Americans into believing that policies that actually harm them are good for them.

people like to hear these crazies, like kristol, spout lines about how death taxes and wars and cutting social security and on and on are good for the middle and middle lower class. and it looks like a lot of you in here are proving it.

kristol is a disgusting piece of feces.

for those who think people like kristol are being taken on in a reversal of extreme leftism, it's really because FOX news has been so effective at misleading so many Americans into believing that policies that actually harm them are good for them.

people like to hear these crazies, like kristol, spout lines about how death taxes and wars and cutting social security and on and on are good for the middle and middle lower class. and it looks like a lot of you in here are proving it.

Unfortunately, you read too much left wing extreme crap, you are unable to determine what's sane in your political rhetoric. Your extreme views are blinding you from reality.

IMO, Bringing Bill Kristol is a good thing for The Times. If they can provide views from all sides, then their readers only wins from this.

kristol is a disgusting piece of feces.

for those who think people like kristol are being taken on in a reversal of extreme leftism, it's really because FOX news has been so effective at misleading so many Americans into believing that policies that actually harm them are good for them.

people like to hear these crazies, like kristol, spout lines about how death taxes and wars and cutting social security and on and on are good for the middle and middle lower class. and it looks like a lot of you in here are proving it.


And how do you think people view your political beliefs?

kristol is a disgusting piece of feces.

for those who think people like kristol are being taken on in a reversal of extreme leftism, it's really because FOX news has been so effective at misleading so many Americans into believing that policies that actually harm them are good for them.

people like to hear these crazies, like kristol, spout lines about how death taxes and wars and cutting social security and on and on are good for the middle and middle lower class. and it looks like a lot of you in here are proving it.

Fox is no more effective in misleading americans than the los angles times in my opinion.

Are you afraid of diversity and genuine differences of opinion ? It sounds as though you are cocksure that you know what is right for us and what is wrong for us ?

Estate taxes, wars, and welfare programs, it seems to me, should be debateable issues... The New York Times is in no grave danger of becoming a shill for the right. Their leaning, their bias is toward the left and the Noam Chomsky's of the world -- libertarian socialist anarcho-syndicalism... which has never really been adequately explained or tested-- merely the promise of a better world...and a generally heavy damnation of most workable things which support the current world. In any event a bias, a prejudice which does trend toward the left.

The thing I appreciate about fox is that they are willing to take on the blindsides of papers like the new york times. Yes they trend toward the right ... but I think they serve a good function and are not nearly as unobjective as some people claim. The AP, the new york times, the los angeles times... all have a certain slant which is the same and they all have the same holes and blindsides not to mention the same stories ... certain stories and certain topics are always covered in certain ways by these organizations, and in some cases with a great deal of unobjectivity-- this is not healthy in a democracy or to free thinkers.

For example take a look at the way the riots in france were covered by most major news organizations ... almost all were covertly or overtly sympathetic to the rioters and placed blame on the people of france, the government of france, and/or on poverty.-- any journalist who did not cover these stories for the AP, The New York Times and the Los Angles Times in a certain way and did not say things in a certain way would soon not be writing for these papers. These reporters learn through pavlovian conditioning what is and what is not acceptable-- and then it becomes second nature to them-- in short, they believe in it. All I am saying is don't be so quick to dismiss the value of a variety of viewpoints.

The inclusion of kristol is a token concession to the right ... and I would agree with you he is not even that articulate of a voice.

"As far as the mass of the people go, the extraordinary swings of opinion which occur nowadays, the emotions which can be turned on and off like a tap, are the result of newspaper and radio hypnosis." (George Orwell)

This kind of proves the extreme Liberal bias of the NYT. If they had added another Liberal to their Op-Ed line-up, would it be news at all?

Of course not.

Adding a Conservative, however, is news. Why? Because Kristol will be the lone voice of reason in a chorus of anti-American swine. Yes, I think that the NYT is incredibly anti-American, as evidenced by their constant need to publish classified information to help our nation's enemies.

What do zionist Neocons who violate everything the constitution stands for; start preemptive illegal wars; take away the personal freedoms of the american people; destroy habeas corpus; and raise goverment spending by 48% in the past 4 years alone; have a right to say anything about being Unamerican.

This kind of proves the extreme Liberal bias of the NYT. If they had added another Liberal to their Op-Ed line-up, would it be news at all?
Adding a Conservative, however, is news. Why?
It's "news" because I created a thread for it? Because, NY Times prints a piece whenever there is an addition to their Op-ed team. It's kinda important "news" for them, whoever it is that joins them because they think their Op-ed writers are important voices.

Anyway, I have another question for you. Have you ever read David Brooks (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/davidbrooks/index.html)? He's a(n excellent, in my view) conservative columnist who has been writing for the Times for several years now.

You should read his columns.

Because Kristol will be the lone voice of reason in a chorus of anti-American swine. Yes, I think that the NYT is incredibly anti-American, as evidenced by their constant need to publish classified information to help our nation's enemies. So is Mr. Kristol adding credibility to an "anti-American" organization by joining it?

I'm not interested in arguing if NY Times is anti-America or not. I'm only asking if by his move to the pages of the Times, Mr. Kristol will be adding credibility to this organization/publication, in your opinion.

Do you have something to refute or are you just going to use pathetic Ad Hominems all the time?



quote Originally Posted by electronicmaji
What do zionist Neocons who violate everything the constitution stands for;( this one is just to easy, violate everything, you just get dismissed as kooky) start preemptive illegal wars;( how many time do we have to go over this ground, the war is not illeagal, come on get some new left wing talking points) take away the personal freedoms of the american people;(please provide examples of such) destroy habeas corpus;(again please provide examples) and raise goverment spending by 48% in the past 4 years alone;( ahhhh we are at war… I know, I know in an illegal war) have a right to say anything about being Unamerican.

Anyway, I have another question for you. Have you ever read David Brooks (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/davidbrooks/index.html)? He's a(n excellent, in my view) conservative columnist who has been writing for the Times for several years now.
Yes, I'm familiar with David Brooks. I've probably posted one of his columns a time or two here in the Podium.
So is Mr. Kristol adding credibility to an "anti-American" organization by joining it?
I think that the NYT is responding to pressure from their audience who is sick of their far-left editorializing, and I think that they are attempting to add credibility to their organization, just like CNN did with Glenn Beck.

Is it working? It remains to be seen. As it is, they still have one of the most insanely left-wing nuts to ever put ink to paper working for them. As long as Paul Krugman is on the staff there, it will remain difficult for the Times to remain credible.

quote Originally Posted by electronicmaji
What do zionist Neocons who violate everything the constitution stands for;( this one is just to easy, violate everything, you just get dismissed as kooky) start preemptive illegal wars;( how many time do we have to go over this ground, the war is not illeagal, come on get some new left wing talking points) take away the personal freedoms of the american people;(please provide examples of such) destroy habeas corpus;(again please provide examples) and raise goverment spending by 48% in the past 4 years alone;( ahhhh we are at war… I know, I know in an illegal war) have a right to say anything about being Unamerican.

The first thing any elected american politician does before entering office is promise to uphold the constitution. The constitutional says that only congress can declare war. This is not a left wing idea. Any way not declared by congress is illegal, a illegitamate abuse of power, and unconstitutional.

The Patriot Act takes away several rights from american citizens including Habeas Corpus. It's unconstitutional and downright orwellian.

Conservatives do not go to war. There platform for the past 40 years has been to stop waste and stupid wars. It was the posistion of Nixon and Reagan.



Oh and Hawk your just Poisoning the Well.

Yes, I'm familiar with David Brooks. I've probably posted one of his columns a time or two here in the Podium.

I think that the NYT is responding to pressure from their audience who is sick of their far-left editorializing, and I think that they are attempting to add credibility to their organization, just like CNN did with Glenn Beck.

Is it working? It remains to be seen. As it is, they still have one of the most insanely left-wing nuts to ever put ink to paper working for them. As long as Paul Krugman is on the staff there, it will remain difficult for the Times to remain credible.I think you might want to go back and re-read your post. You basically just stated that a right-leaning editorial adds credibility to the NYT and a left-leaning editorial takes their credibility away, as if one leaning was somehow more correct than the other, or even that an editorial somehow reflects the credibility of the reporting. How do the leanings of an editorialist affect the credibility of the entity who publishes their works, unless of course by credible you simply just mean "works I agree with?" And in that case you're using the term "credible" incorrectly.

And while I'm on a NYT tangent, wrt to your "NYT is anti-american" comment; what do you think about the Pentagon Papers? Was publishing those equally "anti-american"? If not, why?

The first thing any elected american politician does before entering office is promise to uphold the constitution. The constitutional says that only congress can declare war. This is not a left wing idea. Any way not declared by congress is illegal, a illegitamate abuse of power, and unconstitutional.
Has the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional?

The Patriot Act takes away several rights from american citizens including Habeas Corpus. It's unconstitutional and downright orwellian.
Provide examples, otherwise this is just more FUD.

Provide examples, otherwise this is just more FUD.

http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/215.html 215 was the most egregious that provided a wide berth of powers that should otherwise be deemed illegal.

Back to the OP, I don't think this will change much, but it does seem like a surprising effort by the NYT to appeal to stockholders (and readers) again. I don't think it will help much for their financial situation unlessthey find a way to increase their revenues on the E-side of the paper.

Has the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional?


Provide examples, otherwise this is just more FUD.
I don't need the Supreme Court to rule on something to know its unconstitutional. Its absolutely absurd to say the Supreme Court needs to rule on everything to make sure its constitutional.

I don't need the Supreme Court to rule on something to know its unconstitutional. Its absolutely absurd to say the Supreme Court needs to rule on everything to make sure its constitutional.

Considering they are the ruling body on what is or isn't Constituitonal, I would have to say, yes on the need for them to rule something Unconstitutional.

And I would certainly believe them over a poster on SD. :nod:

Considering they are the ruling body on what is or isn't Constituitonal, I would have to say, yes on the need for them to rule something Unconstitutional.

And I would certainly believe them over a poster on SD. :nod:
Its absolutely silly to think that a ruling from the supreme court is needed to stop something that is clearly unconstitutional....

Its absolutely silly to think that a ruling from the supreme court is needed to stop something that is clearly unconstitutional....



If it were clearly unconstitutional, than there would be no debate.

If it were clearly unconstitutional, than there would be no debate.
no one debates that its unconstitutional...

no one debates that its unconstitutional...

I'm debating that it is Unconstitutional.

I'm debating that it is Unconstitutional.

me too...

I'm debating that it is Unconstitutional.

me too...


(PSSSSTT: we are mere mortals in the presence of electornicmaji. We could collectively combine our intelligence and we wouldn't even represent 1% of his intelligence)

This kind of proves the extreme Liberal bias of the NYT. If they had added another Liberal to their Op-Ed line-up, would it be news at all?

Of course not.

Adding a Conservative, however, is news. Why? Because Kristol will be the lone voice of reason in a chorus of anti-American swine. Yes, I think that the NYT is incredibly anti-American, as evidenced by their constant need to publish classified information to help our nation's enemies.How do you manage to twist this stuff up so?
Describing Kristol as "the lone voice of reason" is about as accurate as describing Usama Bin Laden as the leading proponent of American interventionism.

• September 18, 2002: (War in Iraq)
"could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East (http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.support.depression/browse_thread/thread/62108070e7c39660)".

• November 21, 2002: (Removing Saddam)
"Would start a chain reaction in the Arab world that would be very healthy (http://correntewire.blogspot.com/)".

• February 20, 2003:
"If we free the people of Iraq, we will be respected in the Arab world....and I think we will be respected around the world".

• March 1, 2003:
"Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/think_again_deal.html)".

• March 5, 2003:
"I think we'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq (http://www.rense.com/general35/lanne.htm)".

• April 4, 2003:
"There has been a certain amount of pop sociology....that the Shi'a can't get along with the Sunni....... there's almost no evidence of that at all (http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2006/07/quote_of_the_day_12.html)".

• April 28, 2003:
"The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/bill-kristol-pundit-superstar.html)".

• March 22, 2004: (Debates over an Iraq Constitution have shown)
"The willingness on the part of the diverse ethnic and religious groups to disagree - peacefully - and then to compromise".

• March 7, 2005:
"The Iraqi elections of January 30, 2005... could become a key moment - perhaps the key moment so far - in vindicating the Bush doctrine as the right response to 9/11".

This one really had me crackin' up, as the 2006 elections have since passed.:P
• November 30, 2005:
"It is much more likely that the situation in Iraq will stay more or less the same, or improve. In either case, republicans will benefit from being the party of victory".

• August 13, 2007: (Invading Iran is)
"Not a bad idea (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/19/kristol-iran/)".

Yes boys and girls, this guy has recently been given one of the world's most prestigious soapboxes from which, it's presumed, he can continue to be jaw-droppingly wrong to a comic degree. Kristol has just been given a weekly column in the New York Times.

Bill Kristol, for those unfamiliar, is perhaps the most pre-eminent pundit, writer, and strategist of the neo-con brand of conservatism and co-founder of the neo-con bible, "The Weekly Standard", which was financed by good old Rupert Murdoch.

Kristol isn't some firebrand. He's cool, calm, and collected, and regarded as the intelectual leader of the political movement that has dominated our country since Bush took office.

When a movement's leader is this spectacularly wrong about everything, what does it say about the movement?

He also founded PNAC, or the "Project for a New American Century" which is infamous for having strenuously argued for invading Iraq long before 9-11, and in effect establishing a new American empire, essentially taking over the world, by sheer military force.

So TR, I have to ask you,
You REALLY think this is a "lone voice of reason"? :shake:
You REALLY believe someone that says the sorts of things he's shown to have said above, is worth listening to for even a second out of the week? :shake:
You REALLY believe in the tooth fairy? :shake:(PSSSSTT: we are mere mortals in the presence of electornicmaji. We could collectively combine our intelligence and we wouldn't even represent 1% of his intelligence)
Take issue with the post, not the poster. There is a subtle difference.

Was Kristol wrong in saying (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,982006-2,00.html):"The fact that government is no longer going to be so generous with taxpayers' money may be Scrooge-like, but it strikes me as rather responsible behavior. He's been one of the loudest proponent of the incredibly wasteful spending called the Iraqi War, and Halliburton, and the Surge... so yes, I'd say he was wrong and hypocritical.

The man thinks we should further ruin our public schools, our roads and our health care system, by cutting a small fraction of the amount we are wasting on the Iraq War. At the end of the day, government winds up spending far, far more money and it is WASTED, because we don't have any educated, healthy people driving on our roads. We just have a bunch of dead people.

And, I don't know if you checked lately, but the Iraq war hasn't done anything to help the US' image overseas, we're hated by more people around the world than ever, especially in the Muslim world. And gasoline costs far more than ever.

So Crystal's policy ideas are stupid, and listening to this guy for ideas about saving money will make you broke, and the NY Times was stupid to hire him, except to express the viewpoints of an idiot.

NY Times, other newspapers continue to struggle (http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/earnings/2008-01-31-ny-times_N.htm?csp=34)

NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Times Co. (NYT) (http://stocks.usatoday.com/custom/usatoday-com/html-quote.asp?symb=nyt) and two other newspaper companies reported weaker revenue for the fourth quarter Thursday as an economic slowdown continued to hammer classified advertising.
Media General (MEG) (http://stocks.usatoday.com/custom/usatoday-com/html-quote.asp?symb=meg) and E.W. Scripps Co. (SSP) (http://stocks.usatoday.com/custom/usatoday-com/html-quote.asp?symb=ssp) also posted weaker results as lower political advertising revenue from broadcasting and a particularly bad economic slump in Florida hurt both companies.
The Times swung to a net profit of $53 million from a loss of $648 million a year earlier, when it recorded a big charge to write down more than half the value of The Boston Globe and Worcester Telegram & Gazette, which have been hit by regional economic weakness and the consolidation of key advertisers.
But the Times' revenue also fell 7.1% in the quarter, or 1.7% without the effect of an extra week falling in the year-ago period, to $865.8 million, missing analysts' expectations. After posting gains in October and November, revenue weakened in December, Chief Executive Janet Robinson said, mainly on poor results in classifieds as well as retail.
Excluding one-time charges in both periods, the Times' earnings came to 44 cents a share, down from 46 cents a share a year ago.

The Sacking of Bill Kristol (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-26/the-sacking-of-bill-kristol)

It must have been a bittersweet moment,” said a New York Times insider about Bill Kristol’s recent invitation to an exclusive dinner that columnist George Will hosted for conservative columnists with Barack Obama on January 13. Kristol was dining with the pantheon of op-ed writers on the right just at the moment he received his proverbial pink slip. Kristol crowed about the event: he and his comrades had gotten lamb chops in elegant surroundings, while a group of ostensibly liberal writers who met with Obama the following morning got coffee in Styrofoam cups. Except, as it turns out, that wasn’t correct either—according to columnist Andrew Sullivan, who was present, the morning gathering hadn’t been served as much as a glass of water.

Still, viewers would hardly have guessed from Kristol’s good humor that the Gray Lady had told him that things weren’t working out. His one-year contract as a columnist in the most prized turf in the American newspaper world would not be renewed. Today, the Times features a signature Kristol piece, discussing the heroic role of conservatism in modern American history and contrasting this with the fecklessness of American liberals. But only one line of the Kristol piece is newsworthy and it comes at the end: “This is William Kristol’s last column.”

A source close to the Times familiar with the decision not to renew Kristol’s contract makes clear that his neoconservative ideology and viewpoints were not a problem—Kristol’s proximity to key Washington players ranging from Bush and Cheney to John McCain (whom he supported in 2000) was considered a distinct plus. His leading advocacy of the Iraq War also added to his appeal. Kristol was viewed as a mover and shaker whose ideas had ready impact on the political firmament in Washington.

The problems that emerged were more fundamental. Kristol’s writing wasn’t compelling or even very careful. He either lacked a talent for solid opinion journalism or wasn’t putting his heart into it. A give-away came in the form of four corrections the newspaper was forced to run over factual mistakes in the columns, creating an impression that they were rushed out without due diligence or attention to factual claims. A senior writer at Time magazine recounted to me a similar experience with Kristol following his stint in 2006-07. “His conservative ideas were cutting edge and influential,” I was told. “But his sloppy writing and failure to fact check what he wrote made us queasy.”

Kristol also regularly commented on political developments in which he was personally engaged—without disclosing the depth of his engagement. The Daily Beast previously highlighted his deep involvement in selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be John McCain’s running mate. In the campaign season that followed, boosterism about Sarah Palin became a staple of his writing, even at the expense of his relationship with McCain and leading figures in the McCain campaign. This conduct blurred the distinctions between being an actor on and observer of the political stage, raising some concern among the guardians of The Times’ credibility.

Tough as this was for Kristol’s promoters, he might still have survived as a columnist had it not been for an attitude of casual and reflexive disloyalty he publicly displayed towards The Times itself. A good example came in an appearance with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show on October 30. Here’s the way Editor and Publisher described it:

“Appearing once again on The Daily Show, Bill Kristol, Jon Stewart's favorite whipping boy (‘Bill Kristol, aren't you ever right?’), on Thursday night defended the McCain-Palin ticket, at one point informing the show's host that he was getting his news from suspect sources. ‘You're reading The New York Times too much,’ he declared. ‘Bill, you WORK for The New York Times!’ Stewart pointed out.”

That, apparently, was the last straw for the Gray Lady.

Despite the pink slip, all the news for Kristol is not so grim. The Washington Post has just announced that it will publish Kristol on a monthly basis. Has the Post made itself into the remainder bin for neocons?

No… the problem with the Grey Lady is she is broke. She had to go south of the border to obtain a loan at 14% interest from a Mexican loan shark.

The Sacking of Bill Kristol (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-26/the-sacking-of-bill-kristol)

The problems that emerged were more fundamental. Kristol’s writing wasn’t compelling or even very careful. He either lacked a talent for solid opinion journalism or wasn’t putting his heart into it. A give-away came in the form of four corrections the newspaper was forced to run over factual mistakes in the columns, creating an impression that they were rushed out without due diligence or attention to factual claims. A senior writer at Time magazine recounted to me a similar experience with Kristol following his stint in 2006-07. “His conservative ideas were cutting edge and influential,” I was told. “But his sloppy writing and failure to fact check what he wrote made us queasy.”

Isn't this more a fault of the editoral staff than the writer? I wonder how many NY Times opinion pieces contain the same amount of errors...

Ross Douthat of The Atlantic (http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/) will now be taking over Bill Kristol's spot. For what it is worth, I think he's a very smart and write quite well (suited to my taste, I suppose).

Why did so many people answer the poll incorrectly?

Why did so many people answer the poll incorrectly?



I find myself asking that a lot myself when I think of the 2008 Presidential election.

What does this say about the NY Times? What does it say about Mr. Kristol? And, what does this say about the "mainstream media"?

The NYT is in its last throes of existence, and it's willing to try anything to re-invent itself, including a move to the right. I suspect the NYT will be bankrupt in 3-5 years. Good riddance.

http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/NYT.aspx

The NYT is in its last throes of dying, and it's willing to try anything to re-invent itself, including a move to the right, because liberal garbage isn't selling so well these days.



So, it's basically like AIDS. You're basically screwed and there are certain things you can do that will exacerbate the situation. However, you reach a point where you're willing to try any potentially life saving/extending procedure that has a shred of medical backing that it may help slightly.

Of course AIDS being the NYTimes, but they're one in the same.

Why did so many people answer the poll incorrectly?
I find myself asking that a lot myself when I think of the 2008 Presidential election.Same here, but fortunately only the minority got that one wrong, probably the same minority that mostly admires Kristol.

Ross Douthat of The Atlantic (http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/) will now be taking over Bill Kristol's spot. For what it is worth, I think he's a very smart and writes quite well (suited to my taste, I suppose).What I don't understand is why the NY Times (and now the Washington Post) hired an idiot like Kristol in the first place when so many fine conservative writers were available.

What I don't understand is why the NY Times (and now the Washington Post) hired an idiot like Kristol in the first place when so many fine conservative writers were available.

you mean people like you who are democrats in conservative clothing?

you mean people like you who are democrats in conservative clothing?

You're learning. :thumbup: