clark hoyt, public editor of the nyt

makes a damn good arguement AGAINST the hiring of bill krisol. and it's NOT what one would think (it's NOT because he's a war mongering, king george ass kissing fool either).

Braking Kristol: 'NYT' Public Editor Hits Hiring of Columnist
NEW YORK In a message that probably is not going down well in The New York Times' front office, the paper's public editor, Clark Hoyt, has called the controversial hiring of William Kristol as an op-ed columnist a "mistake."He also wrote, in his column today, that of nearly 700 messages he has received about the selection, only one praised the pick. Public Arthur Sulzberger, he revealed, "was surprised by the vehemence of the reaction." Kristol made a bad mistake in his very first column this week, attributing a quote by Michael Medved to Michelle Malkin. And he has been criticized by liberals for his arch-cosnervative views and ardent support for the war in Iraq. But Hoyt writes: "That is not why I think Sulzberger and Rosenthal made a mistake, and I agree with their effort to address an Op-Ed lineup that, until Kristol came aboard, was at least six liberals against one conservative who isn’t always all that conservative."What bugs Hoyt, however, is remarks such as the one Kristol made on Fox News Sunday on June 25, 2006, when he said, “I think the attorney general has an absolute obligation to consider prosecution” of The New York Times for publishing an article that revealed a classified government program to sift the international banking transactions of thousands of Americans in a search for terrorists..........

and here's hoyt's piece
He May Be Unwelcome, but We’ll Survive
By CLARK HOYT
..................Of the nearly 700 messages I have received since Kristol’s selection was announced — more than half of them before he ever wrote a word for The Times — exactly one praised the choice.
Rosenthal’s mail has been particularly rough. “That rotten, traiterous [sic] piece of filth should be hung by the ankles from a lamp post and beaten by the mob rather than gaining a pulpit at ANY self-respecting news organization,” said one message. “You should be ashamed. Apparently you are only out for money and therefore an equally traiterous [sic] whore deserving the same treatment.”
Kristol would not have been my choice to join David Brooks as a second conservative voice in the mix of Times columnists, but the reaction is beyond reason. Hiring Kristol the worst idea ever? I can think of many worse. Hanging someone from a lamppost to be beaten by a mob because of his ideas? And that is from a liberal, defined by Webster as “one who is open-minded.” What have we come to?.............

the suburban guerrilla has a great perspective

on the nyt hiring satan william kristol

Quote of the Year
Pinch Rosenthal on the hiring of William Kristol by the New York Times:
“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?”
“Serious.” “Respected.” Respected by whom - the 27% of the true believers who still agree with him? “Intolerant”? How many people have to die in Iraq before the paper of record buys a clue? Gee, I’m sorry that bloggers place such a high premium on truth at the expense of Beltway show business.
Kristol is not a conservative, anyway. He’s a dangerous, radical neocon.
I’m disgusted by the New York Times newspaper (as Jimmy Breslin calls it). These Very Serious war-loving assholes are pathetic and the Old Gray Lady is now a crack whore. ...........