Washington Note: More on Kristol: Out for Lousy Fact-Checking?

[laststeamtrain]

More on Kristol: Out for Lousy Fact-Checking?

Blurring edges is not necessarily an exclusively neoconservative trait, but Scott Horton reports it is something that began to really irk New York Times editors about seemingly hurried columns that Bill Kristol rushed to them.

Horton reports that Kristol's ideology and pro-Iraq, pro-Palin, pro-more wars stance was a net positive for the paper's op-ed page, but lousy fact-checking was what did him in.

And then there was this, as reported in Horton's interesting Daily Beast column today:

"Tough as this was for Kristol's promoters, he might still have survived as a columnist had it not been for an attitude of casual and reflexive disloyalty he publicly displayed towards The Times itself. A good example came in an appearance with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show on October 30. Here's the way Editor and Publisher described it":

"Appearing once again on The Daily Show, Bill Kristol, Jon Stewart's favorite whipping boy ('Bill Kristol, aren't you ever right?'), on Thursday night defended the McCain-Palin ticket, at one point informing the show's host that he was getting his news from suspect sources. 'You're reading The New York Times too much,' he declared. 'Bill, you WORK for The New York Times!' Stewart pointed out."

That, apparently, was the last straw for the Gray Lady...http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/01/more_on_kristol/
*

I have a memory (is it true?) that Cheney got subscriptions to the Weekly Standard for dozens, hundreds (?) of people in the white house. Our tax dollars at work?

I hope that's over.

It must be a blow to the financial viability of the Weakly Substandard & their delirious neocon swill.

[Idealism]

1. How does this sentence make any fucking sense

"Kristol's ideology and pro-Iraq, pro-Palin, pro-more wars stance was a net positive for the paper's op-ed page..."


How would those views EVER be a "net positive" for the NEW YORK Times?

[laststeamtrain]

2. Answer: a segment of the readership in NYC. Validation. n/t.

[Idealism]

4. I was led to believe that much of the GOP voters in NY were upstate

Perhaps I was led astray?

[Radical Activist]

10. You can't have liberal bias.

Cries of liberal bias are cover for getting lairs and fools like Kristol more exposure.

[Idealism]

14. Apparently so. n/t

[bushmeister0]

3. The "Weakly" Standard is going down!

Who the hell is left in Washington to read it? The same goes for the Washington Times, come to think of it. But the Reverend Moon can always pump money into it from his exploding gun sales, I guess.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Same goes for the Weekly Standard - Murdoch can subsidise it

If he thinks it's worth keeping the wingnuts on welfare until the time they can worm their way back into power of some sort. He's rich enough to be able to afford it as a 'lifeboat' for them, even if their influence will be zilch in the next few years.

[BOSSHOG]

5. Lousy fact checking is a conservative value

its on display monday through friday on the PUBLIC airwaves.

[emilyg]

7. All this time I thought it was

a NYT trait.

[TahitiNut]

13. Who needs 'facts' when they have 'faith' and 'belief'??

'Facts' are mere tools of the Devil (and the Axis of Evil) to test Faith!!!

:evilgrin:

[Nickster]

6. Convenient. Any idijit could have told you that he has zero fact checking ability before he was

hired, but conveniently, he is employed and given a platform to spew his political garbage right in the heat of one of the most important Presidential elections and then just as conveniently "dumped" right after the election.

Color me crazy, but it's almost as if he was employed to do political work by one of the papers of record and then he finished his assignment and so is now leaving.

[whistle]

8. If William Kristol said it, it's a lie

[Winterblues]

12. Kristol once made the statement on the Daily Show

"I am not in Washington now so I can tell the Truth" That has always stuck with me..

[zbdent]

9. Dan Rather had infinitely more credibility that Kristol ever aspired to have ...

[aldo]

11. Why would a practitioner of the "Noble Lie" bother with fact checking?

The Neocons are almost all the ends justify the means types.

That's funny on the NY Times. Didn't the editor get the memo that it was supposed to keep taking the fall as representing the "liberal media" -- that's a good laugh for that lying rag?