I was uncomfortable with a lot of his assertions. He's been the least reactionary of the public editors thus far, but I couldn't buy this one on several grounds. In fact, I didn't even think that his reason for opposing Kristol, that the man had attacked the paper hiring him, had merit. Or rather, we've all attacked The Times, and he happened to do so using the silly Coulter-like rhetoric that should disqualify from being a columnist regardless of his opinion. 

First, I disagreed that opposition amounted to not tolerating conservative views. As Bill Hartung notes, we felt we opposed him on his merits and on his not adding enough diversity to Brooks's kind of conservatism. In fact, it disturbed me that Hoyt made no effort to argue for Kristol's distinction, other than that he was conservative.

Second, the Safire example disturbed me. It may be because Safire was indeed the dissent from a distinguished crop of liberals like Anthony Lewis, James Reston, Tom Wicker, and Russell Baker. It may be because I wouldn't have hired anyone whose background was PR for crooks, and that reminded me of how the supposed liberals like Dowd have to rise up from reporting experience while conservatives just have to have a few connections, write speeches as hacks for hacks like Quayle, or simply be conservative. It may be because Safire's libertarian beliefs are more independent than Kristol's. It may be because I can't agree on how Safire grew on one; his snarky insider tone was Dowd avant la lettre. 

Third, I'm afraid I got apoplectic about the unanimity of liberals apart from Brooks. The most liberal and most analytic writer, Krugman, served in a Republican administration as well as academia, so he'd paid his dues fair and square.  Cohen writes only on foreign policy, advocating the use of American force. Will Kristol oppose Bush foreign policy? Dowd hates everyone and arguably has her share of the blame for Bush's election. Will Kristol deride the GOP nominee this fall? Friedman's unrepentant support for trade agreements and war have obviously made him particularly disliked by liberals. I suppose his liberalism consists in wanting energy independence? If Kristof has an opinion on anything other than that someone should do something or other about Africa, or maybe that everyone should visit China and talk to average people about something or other, I have yet to discern it.  Collins is still an unknown to me, and I'm waiting to see more than personality pieces on the campaign. I'll acknowledge Herbert as a liberal (although boring as heck) and Rich of course. And again I'm grateful for Krugman.

And we can't mention the magazine section's editorial selection (Caldwell, Merkin, Heffernan, ... with Matt Bai the token liberal who hates liberals). Or Tennenhaus's book section?  

Finally, the idea that more balance is needed puzzles me. I guess it helps sell ads relative to the Tom Wicker days, but no one's crying because the WSJ editorial page matches the views of the editors. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

I think it's revealing that the NYT's idea of a conservative worth hiring was someone who was already famous and had plenty of platforms. (It reveals that they have no concept whatsoever of the bench strength on the conservative side, and hired practically the only rightwinger they'd ever heard of.)

I also think it's revealing that people in the chattering classes still think it matters a shit who writes editorials for the New York Timesasaurus. I mean, Jesus, the whole bunch of them went away for a year behind a pay wall and nobody even noticed they were gone. Frank Rich and Bob Herbert being out of the national conversation is indistinguishable from Frank Rich and Bob Herbert being part of the national conversation. Haven't you got other things to fret about?

I enjoyed the cherry picking of messages that the Times received, along with the rather astonishing fact that of over 700 e-mails the Times received, ONLY 1 was in favor of the hiring of Kristol.

Perhaps that margin of difference should give the Times pause. Not that editorial decisions should be made by majority vote, certainly, but that's an overwhelming number of people who took the time to weigh in and an overwhelming majority found the decision troublesome.

I would hope that this provokes some reflection and consideration on the part of the public editor, rather than the cherry picking "mob rules" sort of response evident in yesterday's column.

So-called and self-styled "consvervatism" (i.e., corporate crypto-fascism) in America has crawled up its own congenitally constipated ass and died. Bill Kristol, in any media forum, simply embodies the hardened little piece of credulous crap that occasionally manages to squeeze out of America's morally rotten "journalistic" rectum. The Times might just as well have promoted Judith Miller to the Op-Ed page in order to achieve a little "gender" balance."

Whatever happened to the Truth? In former times, credibility rested entirely upon it and not on a presumed phony "balance" between competing lies.

Kristol is intellectually lazy and sloppy with his facts, that is, when he actually uses facts.

How someone lacking journalistic integrity like Kristol can make a living as a wordsmith is beyond me.

That other bastion of integrity and truth, FOX, must pay Kristol one helluva salary that allows Billy boy to indulge his vices, like pretending he can write.