An open letter to readers of The New York Times

Dear Friends,

I understand that your newspaper of choice has asked William Kristol, the conservative commentator, to provide an opinion column for the paper.

Since I am the op-ed editor of what you Americans call The Times of London, I have followed the controversy that the appointment has caused with great interest.

And with my mouth wide open.

Apparently many of you are outraged to hear of this new columnist. You have been writing in. And the Public Editor has written a column criticising the appointment.

Excuse me, but what on earth is going on?

A quality newspaper should have columns reflecting a wide variety of opinions, even those uncongenial to the majority of its readers. While the bulk of a paper's columnists may reflect the publication's character and view, there must always be space for an alternative opinion.

Thus, for instance, while my paper supported the decision to invade Iraq (which happened to be my view too), many of our columnists (in fact probably a majority) did not concur.

It would never occur to me when selecting an individual columnist to be concerned that some readers might not agree with some of his positions.

And considering that Kristol represents a large strand of American opinion (even if it is a smaller strand of NYT reader opinion) it is entirely unremarkable that his columns should be commissioned.

A great national newspaper is not a reality television show, subjecting its columnists to a telephone vote before running their columns. Nor is being hired to write a column equivalent to being appointed to the Supreme Court, requiring Senate confirmation.

Even when the column appears, drumroll, in the The New York Times.

The most remarkable aspect of this bizarre controversy has been the performance of the paper's ombudsman Clark Hoyt. Well, it was remarkable to me at least. Mr Hoyt argued that Kristol should not have been appointed (or at least that he, Hoyt, wouldn't have appointed him) because Kristol had been a fierce critic of the NYT, and had argued, at one point, that the paper should be prosecuted for an aspect of its coverage.

The job of a reader's editor, surely is to defend the rights of its readers, all of its readers. It is not to start picking a "Fantasy Columnist" team to reflect his own politics. What of people who agree with Kristol? Do they not deserve the protection of the reader's editor?   

And as for Hoyt's statement that:

This is not a person I would have rewarded with a regular spot in front of arguably the most elite audience in the nation.

Isn't this the most pompous sentence you have ever read in your life?

Anyway, you are fortunate that The New York Times carries many great columns. If Kristol offends you I have a brilliant technological solution.

Turn the page.

I wish you well from this side of the Atlantic.

Daniel

Comments

[adam]

Can't see what the big deal is. I quite liked him in 'When Harry met Sally'.

[Francis]

Wouldn't it be great if American newspapers could be persuaded to stop calling The Times the Times of London. I even saw this formulation used in the Econonmist. The basic problem in unvoidable; that in America The Times means the NYT and it's necessary to avoid confusion. However the way it is written is deeply misleading becasue it suggests that "of London" is part of the title comparable to "The Times of India". Also it suggests that the newspaper is a London newspaper on the model of American regional newspaper while though many readers may feel that it is overly London orientated it aspires to be a national newspaper. Trivial I know but it is starting to irritate me. Surely there is a better way of ensuring clarity. The best I can come up with is "The Times (UK)".

[Alex Swanson]

"Mr Hoyt argued that Kristol should not have been appointed (or at least that he, Hoyt, wouldn't have appointed him) because Kristol had been a fierce critic of the NYT, and had argued, at one point, that the paper should be prosecuted for an aspect of its coverage."

Mmm. Over several years I had emails repeatedly published in "The Times" letters column (on fact, on one occasion the relevant staff complained that I had sent in two publishable ones on the same day!). Then one day I had the temerity to point out that a particular editorial stance was demonstrably untrue, and backed this up with a copy of a letter from the relevant govt dept.

The stance did not change, but since then, even attempts to post comments like this, almost invariably, do not appear on the site.

[James Schneider]

Exactly. Breadth of opinion is vital in an open democracy and an open society. The Times has been getting progressively broader (Hattersly, Aaronovich) over the years and it is better for it.

[Tim Worstall]

Eh?

"This is not a person I would have rewarded with"

Being paid for your work is a reward these days?

[Trevor Butterworth]

While there are many New York Times readers who struggle with the concept of reading conservative views of any sort, I think the problem with Kristol's appointment, as seen by those of us in America's journalism community, has less to do with his views (even if they still involve dreams of prosecuting the New York Times) and much more to do with the banality of his thinking and the dullness of his cliche-laden expression. The slapdash quality of his recent columns suggest someone who is, at best, vastly over-extended in his commitments.

[Cait]

From the U.S. side of the pond, I'd like to thank you for a refreshing dose of common sense and reasonableness. We're a quart low on that in our mainstream media right about now.

[Marcus Cotswell]

Really, Danny, you of all people ought to know better than to get involved in this.

It'll all end in tears, crates of tea being chicked in to the sea (or possibly the Hudson river this time), etc. etc.

Nothing more calculated to put the Septics' backs up than some Limey sticking his oar in - even, or perhaps especially, the liberal fraternity who are always so desperate to show that THEY, not conservatives, are the true patriots.

Insofar as your comments will have any bearing on the situation, it will probably reinforce 'outraged of the Hamptons' in his/her view that Kristol is not the sort of columnist who is welcome in their cosy little world.

[Oliver Kamm]

Re: Trevor Butterworth's invocation of "those of us in America's journalism community".

That is itself a contender for the most pompous phrase I've read today. Journalists are not a "community", and those who feel otherwise should be shocked out of it. Good for Kristol for his provocations.

[Sam Thornton]

It's not Mr. Kristol's opinions that are being objected to; it's his well documented penchant for playing fast and loose with the facts. Mr. Kristol is a well known fabulist, inventing "evidence" at will to support his many odd assertions.

Were he advocating free-love rather than free-fire zones he might be merely amusing. As it is, he's not.

[Rich]

You've chosen a fraction of the critical reaction to criticize, ignoring much better-founded complaints. That page needs a conservative voice, but it needs a better, smarter, more original and more honest one than Mr. Kristol. You, no doubt, would be a better choice, as would a number of others. Yes, the "You musn't hire that right-winger" objection is silly, even dangerous. And I don't accept the "you shouldn't hire him because he criticized you" objection, either. But what of these criticisms that have also been raised: Mr. Kristol already has a full-time job and a part-time job working for your employer, Mr. Murdoch, whose stated intention is to bring down The New York Times, which could not only cause Mr. Kristol to give this new assignment short shrift, it could also create conflicts of interest; and he is a lazy writer and lazy thinker who would rather toss off the casual slur or categorical condemnation without offering any supporting evidence, rather than actually construct a compelling argument.

[skiddie]

Ditto to Sam Thornton -- It is not Kristol's politics (he, after all, joins a number of other conservatives on the op/ed pages of the NYTimes), but the fact that he is not a trustworthy source of information. He is known to lie to promote his point of view.

Additionally, he is a known voice, who already is a very prominent figure in a number of media outlets (he's on TV all the time, NPR (radio) quite a bit, and obviously he has a magazine at his disposal). Why shouldn't NYTimes readers get the opportunity to hear a new voice, rather than the same person in a new medium?

Kristol will write nothing new and interesting in the Times that he hasn't already had the chance to tell us. Why not introduce a new voice to the discussion?

[brendan]

The sheer pomposity of Hoyt's column is in perfect fitting with the arrogance and narrow-mindedness of the paper's readership. These people think their farts smell good.

[SAM NY]

I'm pretty sure he meant to wrote "the most effete audience in the nation".

[Marta Richards]

If Bill Kristol isn't a paragon of journalism excellence, then the NY Times will find that out and decide to trade him out for someone else. But the flak that the NY Times is taking for the appointment isn't based upon his supposed lack of journalistic ethics or credentials--it's purely partisan. For what it's worth, the NY Times has other columnists who are on the left (Paul Krugman comes to mind immediately) whose journalistic abilities and factual grounding can be criticized roundly. Let's not try to pretend that the row is about good journalism and face the fact that the American Left cannot tolerate differences of opinion, especially in the "Newspaper of Record", since there can, in their view, be nothing of continuing value in the views of Mr. Kristol and other neo-conservatives.

[Snapper]

"It is not Kristol's politics (he, after all, joins a number of other conservatives on the op/ed pages of the NYTimes), but the fact that he is not a trustworthy source of information. He is known to lie to promote his point of view."

Should fit in nicely at the NYT

[John]

I'm a NYT reader who is unhappy about Kristol's appointment. Why am I unhappy. Simple this man is not a journalist, he's a shill for a particular point of view and he is quite prepared to lie or suppress free speech in order to further that point of view. Presumably the young Mr Sulzberger has hired this guy in pursuit of maintain some sort of illusory balance in the newspaper which would be fine if Mr Kristol believed in balanced reporting. In reality he has no interest in balance whatever and would be delighted to see the NYT disappear. Finally Mr Kristol has a history of spectacularly poor judgement. We'd need dozens of pages to catalog how many times he's been wrong about US foreign policy and in his first column just before the New Hampshire primary he predicted the defeat and disappearance of Hillary Clinton. How many times do you have to be wrong before readers start to question your probity.

[MacGhil]

My only problem with it is, it's still not diverse enough. They're all big government types.

But the way the NYT sees it, having big government liberals and big government conservatives write op-eds is having a wide array of opinion.

I'll hold my kudos until the NYT hires a small government conservative to opine for their paper.

(I've never understood the BDS (and now KDS) of the left. GWB has more liberal in him than not, and so does Kristol. I, for one, do not hate, but am not a fan of either.)

[Bill]

To all critical of Krystol and his presentation of facts: Are you kidding? Have you not read Krugman? This guy is the worst economic alarmist in the country and his rhetoric and flip flopping has been exposed time and again. I agree that Krystol is not always the most articulate, but his point of view, for a strong US, has plausibility.

[Mike Green - Atlanta]

With such an elite, it's no wonder my country's global reputation has fallen.

[Katya]

I find no small irony in unsupported accusations that Kristol is a "lazy writer and lazy thinker who would rather toss off the casual slur or categorical condemnation without offering any supporting evidence, rather than actually construct a compelling argument."

As for accusations that Kristol lies to advance a political agenda, I find it telling that no clarifying reference to what lies are in question has been offered.

[Richard Finn]

Thank you sir for your stance and opinion. I, as well as many in the U.S. do NOT appreciate the NYT on any level. I have read Mr. Kristols columns many times and do not always agree with him either. However, I do like to hear opinions other than my own and it SHOULD be a open expession in ANY MAJOR PAPER. You have said what so many more than NYT readers think. My sincerest Thanks to you sir.

[Howard]

Francis - The New York Times is also a national newspaper with only a slightly regional focus. Expecting the American press to refer to it as the "The Times (UK)" would be like calling the New York Times "The Times (US)". It would imply that it was the only newspaper in the country of that name, only adding more confusion.

[Jim]

Simple. American "liberals" are fascists. It's refreshing that someone in the UK noticed after all this time.

[Yomin Postelnik]

Right on and excellent points. I wrote the following letter to Hoyt yesterday. Many readers did in fact write in in support of Kristol, but New York Times staff generally only forward the most liberal letters to the Ombudsman. That way he can espouse one narrow viewpoint and pretend to be speaking on behalf of all readers.

Mr. Hoyt,

I find it appalling that you'd hire a man of immense intellectual stature to bring some reputation for some modicum of fairness to your paper and then proceed to trash him in your editorial. I do not believe for a second that only one out of 700 emails was positive. There were many others that your staff simply ignored and never forwarded (I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't one of them), even though your description of him on the op-ed page as nothing more than a "vigorous supporter of the war" was clearly designed to fan the flames among a crowd that has been exposed to one side only and kept ignorant of the reasons for it by one sided editorials and wholesale ignoring of facts, such as UN weapons reports, that favor the other side. It was such a reaction you were looking for, precisely so you could use it to write a hit piece on him under the guise of "representing" the views of a hateful mob whose passions you enflamed after having kept them ignorant with your one sided op-ed page that features nothing more than a daily circus of columnists who can never make a logical case and are therefore relegated to spouting malicious accusations, insults and obscenities to rally the brainwashed to their world view. Still, many others did right in support of your decision, all of whom, except for one, were ignored.

Although your article has valid points (such as how the reaction was anything but liberal in the true sense of the word), your title and lead in said it all and it is these lines that are most pronounced. Many don't even bother to read further. Hiring a columnist and then attacking him in his first weeks, not for what he writes in his opening columns, but for who he is and how he thinks, is beyond the pale and would be viewed as unconscionable by anyone other than a far left propagandist, so hell bent on promoting his views that there's no low he won't stoop to to promulgate them. Your hit job is another in the latest example of the utter lack of class or morals employed by the left, even at the expense of attacking their own paper. It seems that the hatred of the left toward anyone who doesn't share their views, views that can only be supported by trashing those on the other side, knows no bounds. It is unattractive in a paper that enjoys your circulation and for someone in your position, to say the least. Any other self respecting paper would remove you as editor for the crass hit job you did on one of your own columnists and while it is abundantly clear that the Times will never allow an opinion outside of the far and radical left to take hold among its readers, even if it has to trash the one columnist it hired from the other side in a feeble attempt to feign credibility, such actions remain shameful and reminiscent of the tactics employed by leftist totalitarians throughout the world, tactics that the left feels it must use in all of its coverage of the "news."

And yes, you have full permission to print this in your letters section, though printing anything that calls you on your outrageous behavior and propagandist tactics that one would expect from the Pravda of old will clearly never see the light of day in your paper.

[Semion Bronsztejn]

I think that you miss a point here. Moderates in the U.S. have few voices and they always felt that NYT was their voice. After all, in this country most media are controlled by the reactionary establishment. There is no need for one more reactionary voice. They have it all. On the other, moderate voices are few and far between, and there is no need to give one the neocons another horn to blare their message. If anything, why don't suggest that WSJ hire a liberal commentator. The reason you don't is that you know this will never happen.

[Kevin]

I'm an American, and I sincerely appreciate this column, Daniel. The "outage" expressed by the lemmings in the NYT community is yet more proof--as if any were needed--that liberals are in fact some of the most intolerant people around. They preach diversity and tolerance, but they tolerate only those with whom they agree. In the world of the NYT crowd, diversity means having a white guy who agrees with me, a woman who agrees with me, a Hispanic who agrees with me, and a transgender or gay French-speaking wheelchair-bound socialist..who agrees with me.

[Chris Inwien]

Kristol was hired to make NY Times readers think that all conservatives were as dumb and pigheaded as he is. Hence, his appointment was meant to denigrate conservatism, and to arouse public contempt of it. As a conservative, I object to that fraud.

The liberal NYT crowd dislikes the appointment for different reasons. But for true American conservatives, Kristol is a left-wing Republican who wants war war war, forever and all over the world, instead of the small-government, peaceful, friendly and virtuous republic that conservatives advocate.

So the NY Times is actually guilty of false advertising,more than anything else, by featuring the Troskyite Kristol as a conservative.

[X]

Newsflash, it sucks when the elitist of the elites are an ever shrinking pool of circle-jerking sycophants. Ivory towers don't pay for themselves, and the Times certainly isn't adding any new readers based on elitist leftist opinion. I still think the new strategy is a failure too. The Times alienated any conservative readers years ago, and now it will commit suicide by driving away the remaining intolerable drones of "tolerance" with Kristol's hire. I say, so long!

[Ward]

It all has to do with the war, and his supportive stance on entering into Iraq---a war, by the way, that the US now seems to be winning.

[Paul '52]

Bill Kristol is not just a voice, he was a player in the game. See the website of the "Project for a New American Century," the neo-con group, inclusive of Cheney & Rumsfeld, that laid out the path that led us into Iraq. Kristol played a big role.

And as a player in the game, his record is pathetic. No pro team would keep him on.

Making Kristol a columnist is like making the director of some grade Z horror movie a film critic.

[Yomin Postelnik]

Kristol has a writing style that is crisp and to the point. He is the lone conservative voice in the NYT, as even the Ombudsman pointed out, stating that the one other "conservative" is often not conservative at all. It's a shame that "journalists" such as Butterworth and Thornton see the need to smear and malign one of America's foremost writers simply because they disagree with his opinion. They should heed your advice and stick with the issues.

[Larry]

I can understand why you're confused about the brouhaha at the New York Times. You start your letter referencing the New York Times as a "quality newspaper". The NY Times ceased to be a quality newspaper a number of years ago - I've been reading it for 35 years cover to cover. Now I no longer can tell whether what I'm reading is "news" or "opinion". Just this past weekend the NY Times ran a long story about U.S. soldiers who've come back to the States and have committed murder. Nowhere in the article do they put into context the statistics (the murder rate for the soldier cohort is about 1/5 what it would be in the general population). So what do I gather from this - that the article was written out of enmity for our military. Pathetic.

[mesquito]

"..arguably the most elite aidience on the nation," writes the Times' Public Editor. The problem with the New York Times is, they probably believe that.

[John Moreschi]

Isn't the biggest criticism of the mainstream news (led by the NYTimes) that they never expose themselves or their consumers to alternative views?

And, isn't it an affirmation of the desire for the east coast "elites" who read the NYTimes to keep themselves isolated that they bleat so loudly when they are forced to turn their tender eyes from the blasphemies of those they hate?

Surely, they are in no danger of becoming tolerant in any way to heresies offered my Mr. Kristol. I think we can safely assume they will refuse to read him and congratulate themselves for their courage.

[Damien DuPont]

1.You haven't followed as closely as you say.

2. And you are clearly a very biased source. Your real motivation here is not to discuss the supposed 'intolerance" of NYT readers but to defend your ideological compatriot

"Thus, for instance, while my paper supported the decision to invade Iraq (which happened to be my view too), many of our columnists (in fact probably a majority) did not concur."

I'm quite certain this didn't "happen to be" your opinion but that you held it due to other commitments.

Back to #1: Many NYT readers - I dare say most - disapprove of Kristol not because of what you say but because he is a hack; a partisan warrior who has been repeatedly wrong on numerous issues.

As the public editor noted, Safire was a well respected conservative columnist at the NYT for many years. Clearly *you* respect Kristol but that doesn't mean we must.

[JD]

I think you need to be an American liberal to really understand what an insult this is. For years, liberals have been marginalized and ignored in our politics. In the run-up to the Iraq War, the media and politicians largely followed the administration line for fear of being branded a traitor by neocons like Kristol. Five years later it is clear that the liberals were right all along about the war. But the media here still defer to idiots like Kristol for their supposed wisdom about foreign policy. Why not bring on someone who was actually right?

[RF]

To believe that Kristol is less trustworthy than veteran NY Times' columnists Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and Frank Rich requires a noxious combination of ignorance and closed-mindedness.

[Jephnol]

It must be common knowledge that Kristol is a liar, because a whole bunch of people here say he is, right? But maybe, you know if you were going to assassinate the guys character, you could at least site a few instances of his mendacity to support your claims.

[Cal H]

I have noticed that some commenters have said that it is not Mr. Kristol's politics that offend them but the quality of his writing. I believe this claim is disingenuous. The howls of outrage would be just as loud, perhaps louder, if Jonah Goldberg, for example, had gotten the nod instead. The problem is that no conservative would be acceptable to those who consider themselves the "most elite audience" referred to by Mr. Hoyt. What is worse is that this sort of intolerant pompous arrogance is widely reflected in the NYT's news coverage, not just the editorial page.

[lee jones]

I was amused by that "elite audience" phrase, then i realized i sometimes read the NYT, so I was in! Imagine how proud I am! Odd, though, because i usually agree with Kristol. I suppose there was meant to be an asterisk beside that phrase.
BTW, it is interesting to note the success in Iraq, and the refusal of the NYT to admit it.

[Ward]

"Five years later it is clear that the liberals were right all along about the war." How so? In fact, it is the Times (NY) that has been consistently wrong, not only in its "opinion" on the surge, for example, just like all Libs, but also in its disregard of security concerns, publishing secrets on a routine basis, causing much of us to wonder if the NYT is rooting for the enemy (hence the call for prosecution). Its readership is down, as it should be. Go Mr. Kristol!!

[RacecarJohnny]

As I put it to Mr Hoyt in a letter to the NY Times yesterday:

"If you are going to be criticizing a colleague on a position, I think it is incumbent on you to explicate to your readers the entirety of his position. Mr. Kristol called for the New York Times prosecution not because of (as Mr Hoyt called it) the 'international banking transactions of thousands of Americans search for terrorists' but because there was, in such transactions, a direct link between the funding regimes of our enemies and the killing of our soldiers. Your paper overstepped, allowed our enemies time to hide such banking (despite requests by the Administration for time) and thereby aided and abetted the enemy to allow the funding to continue. To call this only 'sifting' of 'thousands of Americans' records is, to use your phrase, 'throwing the cloak' over things."

[Drew]

Wow, just what I, a new york times reader needed: a lecture on the importance of divserified views.

The problem NYT readers have with Kristol isn't that I disagree with him: I disagree with almost everything David Brooks writes, but I happily read his column.

The problem is Kristol is an agent of intolerance, and has always been so. He has been downright condescending of opposing views, starting with his assertion that the NYT "should be prosecuted."

I like to read columnists who can state their point of view, while acknowledging, and arguing against opposing views.

And for the record, there are several NYT liberal columnists who dont cut the cake for me, either, for the exact same reasons. Plus, I agree completely with JD above.

[Edmund Burke]

Yes, that line about the most "elite" audience was among the most pompous sentences I've ever read.

I must say that I've never read the Weekly Standard, although I've seen bits of Billy Kristol's writing and TV commentary now and then. He've very much his father's "neocon" son but also smart, like his pop, and an interesting fellow to read.

One has to understand that the New York Times is read by at least a million people a day -- I'm among them, since 1959! -- but not nearly all of us are in synch with its editorial page and find most of its regular op-ed contributors utterly predictable and mostly very boring. (Maureen Down is an exception, because she has the gift of humor.) But it's downright tedious to attempt to wade through Bob Herbert's deadly prose, Paul Krugman's endless forecasts of doom, Tom Friedman's public hand-wringing, Frank Rich's left-wing bombast, and even poor david Brook's game efforts to straddle the middle well enough to avoid getting a dailt deluge of angry letters.

So most of us don't bother with them. Each has a claque of followers, I'm sure, and collectively, they appeal to that portion of the Times' readers who need daily reinforcement of their own powerfully held opinions. The imes op-ed page is not so much a sounding board as a echo chamber. And I'm sure that the vast majority of people who write letters to the public editor are the echo devotees.

I suspect that the Times hired Kristol because it's getting harder to hold onto circulation and ad revenue and its publisher is worried about the forthcoming aggressive competition from the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal. After all, business is business, even for a liberal newspaper.

[Mike Huggins]

Trevor Buttersworth: "much more to do with the banality of his thinking and the dullness of his cliche-laden expression. The slapdash quality of his recent columns suggest someone who is, at best, vastly over-extended in his commitments."

I'm confused. Are we talking about Kristol, or Herbert, Krugman, Dowd and Rich here?

[slinkybender]

DF --

If that's really the most pompous sentence you have ever read in your life, all I can say is that you don't read "The Times of New York" often enough.

[Marc]

Mr. Finkelstein has missed the point entirely. It isn't an insult to liberals that the Times has chosen a conservative columnist to fill the post. It's an insult which conservative they've chosen. Kristol isn't just wrong, he's shallow, lazy, and lacking in intellectual chops. I'd be happy to have a conservative join David Brooks on the op-ed team, but Kristol was about as bad a choice as they could have made.

[Gabriel]

This has to be the most shallow thing to pass itself off as a news article/opinion piece that I've ever read in a British newspaper. Are you honestly so deft as to believe that Bill Kristol is just another right-wing columnist? This guy is the CHAIR for the Project for the New American Century. This isn't a think tank of policy analysts, this is the group that is now occupying the White House. It is a clear and obvious violation of common sense to have someone who is a de facto shill for the President's policies pass themselves off as a journalist with a reasonable opinion to be heard. Your "just turn the page" retort is childish at best. Giving him a column in the NYTimes lends him journalistic legitimacy that he does not deserve (regardless of his point of view), and also makes the fallacious assertion that Bill Kristol actually represents American Conservatism. Last I checked, American conservatives want nothing to do with the PNAC's Neo-Con agenda anymore (why do you think Cheney is so hated here by lefties and righties alike?).

Please, in the future either bother to take the issue on with diligence or just leave it alone. You're doing nothing but making an argument about something you clearly have no comprehension of.

[Ani]

Imagine..people actually reading both sides of an opinion before forming one of their own, quite a concept isn't it?

[Brian D. Lieberman]

Dear Mr. Finkelstein:

I agree with you and greatly appreciate the principles expressed in your column. It is, to begin with, a debatable point whether the NY Times has "arguably the most elite audience" of any American paper. (The Christian Science Monitor and the Washington Post, among many others, are extremely thoughtful, well-written and influential papers). Even assuming that were the case, I would hope that venerable audience could manage the trauma of a political viewpoint not fully aligned with its own. The NY Times audience and ombudsman don't seem to believe in extending free speech to those who don't run with their crowd. William Kristol, moreover, is a highly respected and intelligent political commentator, whose "Weekly Standard" is itself highly influential and respected. I'm not sure where the allegations come from that he plays fast and loose with the facts. He writes cogently and persuasively---just from the neoconservative perspective. I saw him give a lecture at Pace University in New York City in September 2006, in front of an audience that certainly did not agree with his views; however, they enjoyed his presentation, laughing at his jokes and intrigued by his political analysis. People asked him questions, and they listened to his response. I doubt if any minds were changed that day, but Kristol received loud applause and no one seemed to go away brainwashed. Jefferson lauded the "marketplace of ideas," but I guess the Times' readership doesn't feel the same way.

[Wes]

I have to say the last few comments dramatically shows the vast differences between American conservatives and liberals. When confronted with a differing point of view, conservatives usually say well it's your "right" to have and voice that opinion, and are able to sit down and have a civil conversation about those differences. Liberals on the other hand are personally offended and insulted when confronted with a differing opinion. They feel that anyone we does not have the same beliefs, values, and opinions as them must be un-intelligent, i.e. the "elite audience" comment from the article. Also the "Five years later it is clear that the liberals were right all along about the war" from the above post. They are always right (the left that is), the rest of us are just plain ignorant!! Liberals spout phrases like "Inclusion for everybody", but really mean only if you agree with us that is.

Also the past years have been filled with a blantant liberal bias in the mainstream media. Twisting and turning stories that forward their beliefs and agendas, and attempting to silence all others. This is exactly why so many mainstream media outlets that display liberal bias one-sidedness seem to be on the verge of collapse. The "Grey Lady" is a mere shadow of her former self, and NBC, MSNBC, and CNN all wear their true colors on their sleeves. Liberals hate to be reminded that Fox News' ratings beat all of the mainstreams and cable combined on a regular basis. The reasons for this are simple. Fox does not spin or air stories that only show one side, and they are now the only reliable source of true, factual news. Like it or not liberals, that is the truth from somebody who watches them all.

My advice to liberals is "lighten up"!! Don't take life to seriously, because none of us are going to make it out alive. As much as it may pain you, listen to a conservatives opinion for a change, and I really mean "listen", not spout obsceneties at them.

Take Care Everybody

[Martin A. Knight]

"I think that you miss a point here. Moderates in the U.S. have few voices and they always felt that NYT was their voice."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! It's obvious you're no moderate, unless, as it is apparent, define "moderate" as being so far to the Left, that Hillary Clinton is a Conservative. Newsflash; moderate does not equal liberal.

It's a fact that less than one out of forty of the New York Times newsroom staffers has ever voted for Republican or holds any conservative views. The New York Times, from the ownership, to the management to the reporters are as far to the Left and partisan in favor of Democrats as the day is long. Worse is that they try to deny it.

That the Left is throwing a tantrum and rending its garments over the fact that they hired someone as milquetoast a conservative as William Kristol is indicative of the fear they have that their little fiefdom is seeing something new. Wish it were Mark Levin ...

[Charles Trenet]

The string of left wing diatribes posted here is the most hilarious display of cognitive dissonance that I've seen in a long time. Heaven forfend that a left-winger would advocate for free speech suppression. But that is exactly what they are doing. Allegations that Kristol doesn't "deserve" to be printed in the NYT for reasons other than his "dangerous" ideas are pure rationalization and deception. Admit it, left-wing totalitarians, and you'll be the better for it. You might even win some people's respect, something you've never "deserved".

[Adios el-Kabong]

Daniel -

(1) Bravo. Unimpeachable.

(2) I am enjoying some of the commentary, particularly from the US. It is amazing that those who criticize Kristol conveniently forget that the NYT has had more reporting scandals (reporters making things up) than any newspaper in the world. Yet they cherish their illusions about the paper.

(3) You'll see the undercurrent - the NYT is "orthodoxy", while people like Kristol are outlyers. The guy who said US liberals are fascists may have been righter than he knew.

Selah.

[John Rogitz]

"Idiot"..."hack"..."dishonest" are but a few of the ad hominem labels applied in this blog by defenders of narrow-mindedness to defame Bill Kristol. They object to Kristol not because they are closed-minded bigots who will never listen to a conservative viewpoint without trying to immediately shout it down. They object to Kristol not because they have stopped up their ears to hear any new information or opinion that departs from the liberal orthodoxy with which they have been indoctrinated. Oh no, not that at all. It's only because Kristol is a dishonest idiotic hack, that they object.

Plato said it best. Providence's sentence of the small-minded man is that he is condemned to become more and more like himself.

[Rick]

When the NY Times claims to represent "elite" opinion, they use that term as a synonym for "left".

Each of the twelve Americans who still subscibe to the NY Times no doubt agree with the Times' view of itself. The rest of the country gets its news and opinions elsewhere.

Kristol was a perfectly fine choice as Op-Ed contributor.

[André Kenji]

C´mon. The problem is not Kristol being conservative, it´s the quality of his analyzes. There are better conservative author out there.

[Noreen Mazelis]

One of the above commentators complains that "For years, liberals have been marginalized and ignored in (American) politics." Wow, when did THAT happen? British readers should understand -- I suspect that most of them do -- that when a modern-day American "liberal" says that she or he is being "marginalized" or "ignored", it really means that the liberal is not the center of attention -- and is now going to pitch a hissy-fit. One thing about "liberals": they are hard to ignore, if only because they make so much noise with their incessant whining.

[JD]

If the Times (of London) thinks so much of Bill Kristol, they should hire him.

[tony]

To JD

Liberals have marginalized themselves by turning away from your traditional anti-establishment positions in favor of nanny state government. The classical liberal stance is limited government in pursuit of freedom. The modern day liberal seeks relief from all of life's difficulties through centralized government planning.

[Steve Devlin]

Mr. Finkelstein,
Thank you for your comments.
I have two observations on the reaction comments while I shrink behind a log:
1. On "I think you need to be an American liberal to really understand what an insult this is. For years, liberals have been marginalized and ignored in our politics." --- Are you kidding? What planet did you arrive from?
2. On "Many NYT readers - I dare say most - disapprove of Kristol not because of what you say but because he is a hack..." -- Now this may be true, but what better way to find out that to hear what he has to say.
"A quality newspaper should have columns reflecting a wide variety of opinions,"

[Stan]

It isn't Kristol's conservatism I dislike, it's his stupidity. He's an ideologue, not an analyst. Fareed Zakaria on the right or Juan Cole on the left would add something that's sorely missing in the NYT, knowledge about the Mideast and foreign policy. Kristol adds nothing, except, I suppose, unintentional humor.

[Chris]

I do not understand where people are saying Kristol lied and are not listing any specific notions. Who is making what up? I have seen views I radically disagree with, however if I did not read columns from others I disagreed with, I would likely not have as broad a perspective. I am not claiming to be an American liberal. As this article says, if it drives you crazy, do what grown ups do and turn the page.

[Edward Holman]

Clark Hoyt, New York Times: "This is not a person I would have rewarded with a regular spot in front of arguably the most elite audience in the nation." "This is a decision I would not have made. But it is not the end of the world. Everyone should take a deep breath and calm down."

The Old Grey Hag has been losing readership, ad revenue, and laying off hundreds due to the delusional belief that a) they are elitist, and b) "everyone" understands and agrees with their perfumed outrage. How provincial.

and THIS guy thinks he is fair-minded.

"The liberals can understand everything but people who don’t understand them." - Lenny Bruce (1925–66), U.S. satirical comedian. The Essential Lenny Bruce, “Politics” (ed. by John Cohen, 1967).

[Patrick]

What a joke. The problem with William Kristol is not that he is conservative, its that he is a vicious hack who smears anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun and has spent his entire career shilling for warmongers who want us to invade Iran. Of course, he is employed at Fox News by Rupert Murdoch(who has pledged to destroy the New York times), and guess who owns the Times? Daniel Finkelstein is doing his masters bidding quite loyally, I see. Hope Rupert's butt smells pretty, Daniel.

[JR, Atlanta, GA]

When I was a kid, the NYT held a lionized status in my parents' house. I read it daily. Today, the NYT is more suspect than it is credible. The shrill responses of NYT readers to William Kristol writing opinion columns makes me wonder if these people even know who William Kristol and his father, Irving, are. NYT readers are elite allright (but only in their own minds and in their own ignorance).

[don]

NYTIMES has made an egregious error, reflecting poor judgement and a failure to understand editorial page basics. The editor needs to look for work. Why on earth give Kristol another opportunity to argue in behalf of neoconservative ideas and his personal fantasies? He won't last, but will do damage before he's gone.

[Fred]

Well said! I receive the NYT on Sundays only. I'm a conservative Republican in Massachusetts of all places. I DESPISE 99.9% of what Frank Rich says and 99.44% of Maureen Dowd's writings. And what do I do? Well, I turn the page.

[Mike F.]

Huzzah, sir!

Well done, and agree with you entirely. Cannot believe the NYT. And pompous, yes, indeed. Whatever happened to all the news that's fit to print, or is it as Dennis Miller says: "All the news that prints to fit."

Have a fine British day.

[John Greenwald]

The Wall Street Journal doesn't fit your definition of a "quality newspaper," which you write "should have columns reflecting a wide variety of opinions, even those uncongenial to the majority of its readers." The Journal's columnists and op-ed authors rarely, if ever, express have a viewpoint opposing its editorials. I read more conservative opinion in The New York Times and The Boston Globe in a week than in the Journal in a year. The Journal's opinion editors aren't conservatives but cowards.

[J Hains]

One comment about this article says:
"While there are many New York Times readers who struggle with the concept of reading conservative views of any sort, I think the problem with Kristol's appointment, as seen by those of us in America's journalism community, has less to do with his views (even if they still involve dreams of prosecuting the New York Times) and much more to do with the banality of his thinking and the dullness of his cliche-laden expression."

A better question to ask is: How many readers has the Times LOST because of their knee-jerk ultra-liberal politics occupying the front (and every other) page.

As a native New Yorker, I grew up reading the Times practically since the time I could read in the 1960s. In recent years, though, I haven't paid for a single copy of the Times because it invariably makes me want to puke.

The controversy itself says just about all that needs to be said about the NY Times' ultra-liberal readership: If someone doesn't agree with them, they not only do not deserve to be heard, but they should be prevented from being heard. This is almost as laughable as Al Gore telling us that he won't debate global warming because it is established fact. The fact is, the NY Times is almost reflexively anti-American in almost every aspect, and millions of Americans hate it and its editors because of that.

[Charles Freeman]

Isn't this a business decision? Other than shareholders, who has a basis for complaint? Why does anybody care who gets a column in the New York Times?

[Nick Reid]

Truly, the readers of the NYT and American liberals, in general, are the most pompous of crowds. The Times is coming to realize that their readership is disappearing because their entire paper has become one large left-wing journal of opinion. Why Mr Kristol agreed to be associated with "All the News That's Fit to Burn" is beyond this Yankee's comprehension.

[Frank Bozell]

Interesting that you write for The Times (which is owned by Rupert Murdoch) and you're defending Bill Kristol, who writes for the Weekly Standard (which is owned by Rupert Murdoch) and yet you never disclose that fact.

[JS]

I was also flabbergasted by "The most elite audience in the nation," line, as well. So telling. Thanks for writing about it.

The intolerance of opposing thought from the left is nothing new for anyone educated in history, though. Just pick up a copy of Orwell's 1984, and have your fill of EngSoc (English Socialism) and Big Brother. Thought police, think-crimes, etc... suppression of speech and thought is their trademark.

[Dave Lohse]

What most readers of the New York Times object to is the fact that William Kristol is a political shill with little regard for the truth. He aided the Bush Administration in lying the United States into a horrendous war in Iraq for which there is no end in sight. And those who have watched Mr. Kristol on TV for years know full well that if you don't believe what he believes lock, stock and barrel you are an un-American, non-Patriot, U.S.-hating idiot who should be revoked of their citizenship on the spot. William Safire was a long-time conservative columnist for the New York Times who was universally respected. William Kristol is simply a neocon hack.

[Katya]

"I do not understand where people are saying Kristol lied and are not listing any specific notions"

Run a word search on the page for the word "lie." You will find multiple unsupported allegations in that regard.

[JD]

I wrote:

"Five years later it is clear that the liberals were right all along about the war."

Ward wrote:

"How so?"

Thanks for asking. Most liberals, and in particular the NYT editorial board, opposed to the war from the beginning. In hindsight, most Americans now think that the war wasn't worth it. In short, the liberals were right about the biggest foreign policy mistake in American history. And yet the hawks like Kristol are still considered to have more "serious" foreign policy views.

It's not about censoring anyone. Kristol gets plenty of exposure with or without the NYT. It's about the media giving more respect to antiwar views.

[JD]

I find it pretty funny that the Right is accusing the Left of suppressing speech in this instance. It is Kristol, not NYT readers, who wanted to prosecute a newspaper. Kristol's NYT critics aren't trying to lock him up, just want him to ply his trade elsewhere.

I wonder what conservatives would be saying if the Wall Street Journal gave a regular column to Michael Moore. Kristol is just is absurd to us as Moore is to you guys.

[Ward]

"In hindsight, most Americans now think that the war wasn't worth it." So they are correct now, and were wrong before? Serious foreign policy observers care nothing about polls, nor should they. It's history that counts, and history will show that the war was part of a larger plan to marginalize Islamic fascism. This is reality, not some game with "our team" and "your team." It's survival of Western Civilisation, despite what liberal winds may be blowing at the NYT or CBS or NBC or BBC, et. al.

[spursch]

While it is true that leftist hysterics have gone into overdrive with this nomination (I know, I tend to be one of them), the important objection to Kristol stems not from his views, no matter how irritating I find them, but from the low quality of his thinking. Time and time again, Kristol has shown the reading public that he has little grasp of what is actually happening in the real world. From his analysis, not to mention his prognosis, on Iraq to his recent column in the Washington Post calling President Bush one of the greatest presidents, he has been wrong time after time. I agree that there is certainly a need for another conservative voice on the editorial page of the NYT, but there are many serious, intelligent conservative writers out there whose opinions I would listen to and appreciate--not to mention be influenced by--who have not demonstrated an utter lack principle, actual thought or intellectual honesty. I think you do many "readers of the NYT" wrong to accuse them of wanting him gone because of his views, for many of us, it is a concern for the level of discourse on the editorial page. I want another intelligent, interesting, thought provoking conservative columnist writing for my daily paper, however, William Kristol is none of those things and that is why he is such a terrible choice.

[Steven]

What's all this interest in "TONY" (the Times of New York).Everyone is acting like it's a real newspaper.That honor along with the majority of it's circulation are sadly a thing of the past.Old TONY is now just a pathetic boutique publication that is frightened to death of anything that doesn't fall within their "Never-Never-Land".It's really kind of cute when you see someone still taking it seriously.

[Richard Heckler]

William Kristol is not a friend of or to freedom of speech except his,supports the Patriot Act,supports spying on americans and supports world domination. He is part of the problem
with our economy because he supports 50 cents of every dollar finding its' way to the military industrial complex and he supports the military invasion of the mideast. Kristol is all for bigger government in our private lives. He may well have been involved with the Iran-Contra plan.

Meet William Kristol:
* Stop electing the PNAC Republican war machine to elected positions :
a. http://www.ecapc.org/pnac.asp
b. http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm
c. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
d. all top republican candidates including the house and senate subscribe to this
e. the DLC Clinton /Lieberman types subscribe to this
f. the world has no respect for the republican PNAC war machine

There is room for concern when readers are not aware of his background.