NYT faces wrath from its base over move toward the center

Thomas Lifson
Although we have been very critical of the New York Times over its journalistic and business failings, there have been interesting signs of change there lately. The paper announced that Bill Kristol will write one column per week on its op-ed page. And yesterday there was a sensible op-ed  by William Dalrymple on the decidedly mixed legacy of Benazir Bhutto.

It is hard to know if there is a move back toward the center-left for the paper, but if there is one, it might well be in recognition of the looming crisis the paper faces as Rupert Murdoch begins fashioning the Wall Street Journal into a general interest daily capable of drawing more readers and advertisers away from the Times' national edition.

American Thinker will soon be publishing a major article by Ed Lasky on the Times-Journal strategic face-off, which promises to a major event in media history.

But in the meantime, having cultivated a left wing readership, the Times is finding resistance in its efforts to move in from the left margin of politics. Jane Smiley, novelist and occasional writer for the Times, pens a bitter farewell to the paper. It seems that William Kristol is just too much for her to tolerate. This is a full-blown case of BDS rage, and it isn't very pretty:

If you think that the Iraq War is a crime, as I do, it is bad enough that he was one of the primary cheerleaders for it, even after every single one of the reasons that the Cheney/Bush/right wing gave for the attack was exposed. But he is worse than that. Until the NIE report, he was actively advocating bombing Iran, preferably with nuclear weapons, even though the civilians in Iran who would be bombed have nothing at all to do with whatever the Iranian government is doing, or as it turns out, not doing to develop nuclear weapons. In Iraq alone, Kristol has the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands. He is unrepentant and eager for more. [....]

Why would the Times hire such a person? Stockholm Syndrome? Some kind if inside-the-beltway joke? An attempt to lure that bloc of American newspaper readers who listen to Rush Limbaugh? Earth to Times! Maybe they can't read!
There's nothing quite like reasoned debate, is there?

Hat tips: Richard Baehr, Herb Meyer

Although we have been very critical of the New York Times over its journalistic and business failings, there have been interesting signs of change there lately. The paper announced that Bill Kristol will write one column per week on its op-ed page. And yesterday there was a sensible op-ed  by William Dalrymple on the decidedly mixed legacy of Benazir Bhutto.

It is hard to know if there is a move back toward the center-left for the paper, but if there is one, it might well be in recognition of the looming crisis the paper faces as Rupert Murdoch begins fashioning the Wall Street Journal into a general interest daily capable of drawing more readers and advertisers away from the Times' national edition.

American Thinker will soon be publishing a major article by Ed Lasky on the Times-Journal strategic face-off, which promises to a major event in media history.

But in the meantime, having cultivated a left wing readership, the Times is finding resistance in its efforts to move in from the left margin of politics. Jane Smiley, novelist and occasional writer for the Times, pens a bitter farewell to the paper. It seems that William Kristol is just too much for her to tolerate. This is a full-blown case of BDS rage, and it isn't very pretty:

If you think that the Iraq War is a crime, as I do, it is bad enough that he was one of the primary cheerleaders for it, even after every single one of the reasons that the Cheney/Bush/right wing gave for the attack was exposed. But he is worse than that. Until the NIE report, he was actively advocating bombing Iran, preferably with nuclear weapons, even though the civilians in Iran who would be bombed have nothing at all to do with whatever the Iranian government is doing, or as it turns out, not doing to develop nuclear weapons. In Iraq alone, Kristol has the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands. He is unrepentant and eager for more. [....]

Why would the Times hire such a person? Stockholm Syndrome? Some kind if inside-the-beltway joke? An attempt to lure that bloc of American newspaper readers who listen to Rush Limbaugh? Earth to Times! Maybe they can't read!
There's nothing quite like reasoned debate, is there?

Hat tips: Richard Baehr, Herb Meyer