Bill Kristol's Year Up at 'NYT': Will He Get Axed?

[acmavm]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003925149

By Greg Mitchell

Published: December 26, 2008 12:20 PM ET

<snip>
NEW YORK Exactly one year ago this weekend the Huffington Post broke the news that, as Jim Morrison might have put it, the Kristol Ship was about to sail at The New York Times. Much uproar ensued across the blogosphere. Some pointed out Kristol's call for the paper to be prosecuted, on Fox News in 2006, after its big banking records scoop: "I think it is an open question whether the Times itself should be prosecuted for this totally gratuitous revealing of an ongoing secret classified program that is part of the war on terror."

<snip>

"The idea that The New York Times is giving voice to a guy who is a serious, respected conservative intellectual -- and somehow that's a bad thing," Rosenthal added. "How intolerant is that?"

The paper, however, noted in its own announcement: "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.'"

<snip>

Hoyt concluded the column: "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.... If Kristol is another Safire, he has the chance to prove it. If not, he and the newspaper will move on, and the search will resume."

Now, a year later, the Times indeed has a chance to "move on."

[MaineYooper]

1. My God, one would certainly hope so.

Seldom has a pundit been so utterly, spectacularly, and unrelentingly wrong about so many things, and yet continued to receive the exposure that Kristol does. That quality, in itself, should have been enough to prevent his hiring or now prevent his extension, but he compounds the matter with his smarmy, blithely oblivious and ignorant personality. We can only hope that the Times staff will now continue to find a conservative voice who is at least capable of forming internally consistent and factually correct essays.

[Doctor_J]

2. ummm...

We can only hope that the Times staff will now continue to find a conservative voice who is at least capable of forming internally consistent and factually correct essays

Good luck with that