Christ on a Goddam Crutch
By Mona
.
Thoreau, I know absolutely nothing about physics beyond junior high science, and guarantee I’d earn an F- on any exam you administer. Does your Physics Dept. need any more profs, cuz like, I could use the job; by today’s standards I am very qualified and you couldn’t find better.
.
Which bring me to (as Dr. T. has already spewed about): Bill Kristol is getting a gig as a regular columnist a the New York Times. As my disgusted man Radley puts it:
This would be the same William Kristol who for the last seven years—actually, for his entire life, really—has been wrong about just about everything. Most recently and notably, he’s been wrong to the tune of a few thousand dead U.S. troops, who knows how many dead Iraqis, and what will likely be more than $1 trillion of U.S. tax dollars down the pisser. And he’ll now have the most influential chunk of real estate in journalism from which to trumpet his perpetual wrongness. Makes you wonder, exactly how many major screw-ups does a guy need to make in this town for people to stop taking him seriously? Really. What possible insights could William Kristol have left to fill two columns per week—particularly that aren’t already filling David Brooks’ space on the page?
Comment by Barry —
December 29, 2007 @ 8:58 am
More and more and more, I’m coming to believe that a class-based view of the mass media gives the most truth for the most parsimonious model. That is, there are also social conflicts (i.e., religious conservatives vs secularists, some liberal quibbles whenever the harsher parts of the system come to light, etc.), but that the majority of the viewpoint is based on class. Even in social conflicts, class dominates – the elite media has made ‘religious’ and ‘right-wing’ something close to synonyms. One would have to read a large amount of material very closely to realize that there are centrist, liberal and leftist religious people, also.
In the case of the NYT, that means supporting the military-industrial complex and the Empire is the biggest guiding factor.
As has been pointed out by Radley, right-wingers has to work 10 times harder than an ordinary determined screw-up to get fired. Oppose the Empire, oppose the M-I complex, and one probably doesn’t get the chance to screw up – one is not even under consideration.
Comment by Dave Woycechowsky —
December 29, 2007 @ 10:29 am
What possible insights could William Kristol have left to fill two columns per week
William Kristol is strongly pro-Israel. Maybe that is how he has earned the valuable journalistic real estate. What is important is what is important to the people who run the media.
I can’t believe Mr. Balko, T. and you haven’t thought of this angle yet!
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 29, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
Again, this quote from Orwell’s Notes on Nationalism is apposite:
“Political or military commentators, like astrologers, can survive almost any mistake, because their more devoted followers do not look to them for an appraisal of the facts but for the stimulation of nationalistic loyalties.”
Kristol has a following, and he’ll be linked and pointed to by his other neocon buddies, raising the Times’ readership. It’s not about his accuracy; it’s about his ability to help the Times.
Comment by Happy Jack —
December 29, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
William Kristol is strongly pro-Israel.
Could you point out exactly who in the commentator class that doesn’t fall under this definition?
Comment by Thoreau —
December 29, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Mona-
I’d love to help you out with an academic job, but Bill Kristol and Doug Feith just accepted tenured spots in my department. We’re full.
Actually, I’m only half joking when I say that I could see some of the administrators at my school offering jobs to these guys. Not because of their politics, just because we have some administrators with the same track record for being profoundly and consistently wrong.
Comment by Dave Woycechowsky —
December 29, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
who in the commentator class that doesn’t fall under this definition?
Balko. He has had a dissent thingee at his Agitator site for ages. Sometimetimes you can even tell it by what he says at the HnR.
But, srsly, there is pro-Israel and then there is Wm. Kristol.
Comment by Barry —
December 29, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
To be pedantic, I’d say ‘Krugman’, because the original statement referred to ‘*strong* pro-Israel’. He’s probably pro-Israel, but he’s never exhibited the standard level[1] of the MSM commentariat.
[1] That of not only speaking as if they were citizens of Israel, rather than the USA, but of believing themselves to be citizens of Likud, not of Israel.
Comment by Mona —
December 29, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Derek: Yes, that Orwell quote was my email sig file for a few months, and could not be more apt.
Dr. T.: Well, if, say, Feith doesn’t get tenure and leaves, hire me! For I now know that up is down, and that continual errorr and explanatory theories, predictions, positing of results etc. which are all disconfirmed by evidence, are the linchpin to intellectual success. I’d bring that all your physics dept. every bit as well as Feith. Cross my heart.
You don’t want a physics dept. with lower standards than the NYT, now do you?
Comment by sglover —
December 29, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
Kristol has a following — or more precisely, he says what his paymasters want, and they’re loyal to him. But I have real doubts that this will help the NYT at all. Their demise isn’t happening fast enough for me, but when outfits like the Times or the WaPo pull clown show antics like this, I think they’re alienating a lot more readers than they’re attracting.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
December 29, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
Again, I have to think back to war-bloggers ranting about how the NYT was anti-American and trying to sabotage the GWoT to be given pause at the fact that everyone thinks the em ess em is out to get them.
On the other hand, I think a class-based – or maybe clique-based – metaphor fits. Kristol is a Name, and that Name matters far more than piddly details like accuracy in terms of giving him credibility in the eyes of editors and publishers. It’s not like anyone who matters to the editors and publishers bothers to compare what any pundits say to what actually happens.
Comment by Thoreau —
December 29, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
Again, I have to think back to war-bloggers ranting about how the NYT was anti-American and trying to sabotage the GWoT to be given pause at the fact that everyone thinks the em ess em is out to get them.
There’s a theory out there that this is about “working the refs”, and making the press bend over backwards to prove that they aren’t liberal.
I’m not sure I buy that theory, since it seems just a tad too convenient on a number of levels. Also, I think that the people offering it as an excuse need to think through the implications a bit. If it is indeed true, and the reporters really are bending over backwards just to keep whiners off their backs, what does that say about their objectivity and ability to get to the bottom of complicated events in difficult times?
Still, it’s worth pondering.
Comment by Barry —
December 30, 2007 @ 8:56 am
In addition, remember the context and the history:
To the war supporters, even simply pointing out that things were not going well was treason Later, this could change, but it’d always be risky; probably like pointing out that the war wasn’t going well in WWII Germany, Japan or the USSR.
The NYT’s actions were clearly war-supporting, and scandalous. Judith Miller was possibly the biggest exposed journalistic fraud of the past several decades; that wasn’t enough to fire her. If she had falsified some article on some homeless people or child of a crack addict; she’d have been out on the street. Falsifying articles on a war – no problem (getting the paper dragged into a major criminal case later – problem).
Compare the performance of this administration, and the sheer number of scandals which managed to break into the open with the coverage that the NYT has given it, and it’s clear that the NYT has been favorable. By now, the ghost of Nixon should be wincing at the NYT’s coverage of the Bush administration.
Comment by Doug —
December 31, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
It’s just business, the NYT should be able to hire anyone it wants. Don’t like it? Stop reading it. I thought you were libertarians?