Clark Hoyt, the NYT’s public editor, wrote an item in January exploring the paper’s decision to hire Bill Kristol as a columnist, a move Hoyt described as a “mistake.” For his part, Kristol has spent the last two months proving Hoyt right.
In his latest gem, Kristol picks up on the conservative attack of the day — targeting Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright — and tries to connect the senator to a specific sermon.
It certainly could be the case that Obama personally didn’t hear Wright’s 2003 sermon when he proclaimed: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, not God bless America, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. … God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.”
But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That’s when Wright blamed the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much of the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks.
Kristol uses this to accuse Obama of “deceit.” It’s the kind of attack that might even gain traction, if it were true, which it’s not.
Marc Ambinder explained, “The truth is that Obama did not attend church on July 22. He was on his way to campaign in Miami.” There’s even video evidence. Kristol was relying on a report from Newsmax, a right-wing online news site, not exactly revered for its journalistic standards.
Ambinder added, “Now, a simple Google search suggests that Obama spent most of the day in Miami. But a simple e-mail or telephone call to Obama’s campaign might have cleared things up.” True, but Kristol probably put this in the too-good-to-check category.
I’m curious, since when do New York Times writers rely on Newsmax as a reliable source? How is it that NYT editors thought an inaccurate hit-job on a ridiculous website should serve as the basis for falsely accusing a presidential candidate of “deceit”?
For that matter, let’s also not forget Kristol’s inaugural column, two months ago, went a long way in making his critics’ concerns look well grounded by attributing a quote to the wrong person.
Gabriel Sherman recently had a great item in TNR about Kristol’s hire, which, if the paper is not yet regretting, one assumes it will soon. Sherman’s piece included some interesting perspectives from NYT staffers.
Times staffers felt Kristol just wasn’t a very good writer. “Having a robust conservative voice on the page is a good idea. But you want quality,” one staffer said. “In general, he’s mediocre. He doesn’t seem like the best choice, and the first column was crap.”
“It was a very odd choice,” a senior staffer added. “Personally, I don’t think he’s an original voice, and that should be the standard. It’s the most coveted piece of journalistic real estate in the country.”
My initial concern about the Times hiring Kristol was rewarding failure — this guy has been wrong about every major policy issue for years. But these concerns have evolved. The more notable problem, after two months of columns, is that Kristol is just an awful columnist, a weak and sloppy writer, and a boring political observer. (And he’s been wrong about every major policy issue for years.)
How bad is it? Even William Safire agrees with the Hoyt piece that described the Kristol hire as a “mistake.”
When reached by phone, Safire told me: “I saw the excellent piece that the public editor wrote the other day, and that pretty much tells the story.”
Is there anyone outside the paper’s leadership who still thinks this was a good idea?