NY Times hire of Kristol exposes the NeoCon cancer at the gray lady

The recent history of publishing Bush administration and pro-war NeoCon propaganda as news by Judith Miller has been explained when Charles Kaiser explained the NeoCon nepotism that got Bill Kristol his undeserved perch on the New York times editorial page. There is a Conservative cancer at the heart of the New York Times that is destroying its reputation for journalistic integrity. The hire of Bill Kristol (while letting him continue to write for the Rupert Murdoch Weekly Standard) clarifies what has happened to the New York Times.

From Charles Kaiser at RADAR:

Last week, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. managed to enrage practically everyone who still holds the Times to that higher standard by anointing Bill Kristol as the paper's newest op-ed columnist.

Many Times readers consider Kristol a third-rate neocon apparatchik, a stark symbol of the steep decline of the Washington culture—and arguably the most consistently mean-spirited and wrong-headed pundit of our time. [Snip]

Outrage was followed by bafflement after editorial page editor Andy Rosenthal described Kristol as "a captivating writer and keen observer of the political landscape."

Rosenthal added, "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. How intolerant is that?" Well, it is true that Kristol is a conservative.

Kristols and Rosenthals go back a long way together. Bill's father, Irving, and Andy's father, Abe—both charter neocons—were good friends, and Irving Kristol was a proud member of the "Rosenthal for President" lunch club, which also included Bill Buckley, Dick Clurman, Bernard Kalb (known as Bruno Frescobaldi) and Arthur Gelb. And when Andy Rosenthal covered the Bush I White House with Maureen Dowd, Bill Kristol—then vice president Dan Quayle's chief of staff—was a source for both Times reporters.

Kaiser quotes from an email sent by John Schwartz

Rosenthal either (1) has no understanding of what the criticism re Kristol actually is, or (2) does understand but feels it's his job to lie about it. Moreover, Rosenthal genuinely not understanding the criticism is arguably worse than him lying, since it would demonstrate he's completely detached from reality.

Obviously anyone angry about this knows that in Rosenthal's circles, Kristol is "respected" and considered "serious" and "intellectual." That's why they're angry.

Bill's appointment to the editorial page of the New York Times simply clarifies the rot that has grown in the New York Times as conservative ideology has replaced journalistic integrity and ability in the management at the Newspaper. Kristol has not been correct in any of his significant opinions as a pundit, but his track record is unimportant to Rosenthal and the NeoCons. Rosentahal and the NeoCons hold up Bill Kristol as an exemplar of what a 'conservative' should be. Bill's father was Irving Kristol and he has - no, he represents - the 'correct ideology' and puts a great deal of energy into convincing others hoe correct that ideology is. It simply does not matter that he is consistently wrong. What is important it that he is 'One of us.' That't what a true conservative 'should be' - ideologically correct and from a trusted conservative family, thus 'one of us.'

That's how the conservatives are killing the New York Times as a journalistic organization and converting it into a propaganda arm of the conservative movement. They see 'journalistic integrity' as a bar to converting America to the 'right ideology.' They will, of course, run the converted conservative America because they come from 'the right families.'

[ h/t to Glenn Greenwald. ]