The New York Times appoints a conservative columnist

[Composed Thinker]

The New York Times Appoints a Columnist

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

David Brooks, a frequent contributor to The New York Times and a senior editor at The Weekly Standard, has been named an Op-Ed page columnist for The Times. His column will appear twice a week beginning in early September.

Mr. Brooks's appointment was announced by Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of The Times, and Gail Collins, editor of the editorial page.

Mr. Brooks, 41, has also been a contributing editor at Newsweek and The Atlantic Monthly, and a regular commentator on "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." Mr. Brooks's articles have appeared in The New Yorker, Forbes, The Washington Post, SmartMoney, The New Republic, Commentary and other publications. He is the author of "Bobos In Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There," published in 2000 by Simon & Schuster, which next spring will publish his book about suburban life in America.

After graduating from the University of Chicago in 1983, Mr. Brooks worked as a police reporter for the City News Bureau. He went on to become a writer and editor of the editorial page at The Wall Street Journal. He also edited an anthology, "Backward and Upward: The New Conservative Writing," which was published by Vintage Books.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/25/national/25PAPE.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is good news. Not only will it be nice to have another conservative voice to liven up the debate and keep things fresh, this should hopefully quell some of the conservative criticism about The New York Times editorial page.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cha]

3. Would this be a good time to insert my high esteem for

"the new whore times"?

:kick:

[clarkbarr]

23. Don't you mean the SCREW YORK TIMES

Incredible--a reactionary Nazi apologist rag such as the Screw York Times becomes even more right wing.

The only person with integrity at this miserable fascist rag is Paul Krugman, an it's only a matter of time before they fire him.

[jafap]

31. I suppose Bob Herbert is chopped liver?

Krugman has been a great critic of BFEE, but he is hardly a progressive. He is no John Kenneth Galbraith or Robert Heilbroner even.

[Composed Thinker]

4. Think about it

It's not like The Times is appointing Ann Coulter. I don't really know anything about this guy, but the paper isn't going to pick someone that will tarnish it's reputation. It doesn't need that right now.

Think of it this way: any time a person says that The Times is biased, you can point them to this. It's not like they can deny that he was appointed, although a lot of people will try to spin this.

[Cocoa]

12. he reviewed "Living History" without having read it

Sounds like a small thing, but journalists have been fired for this sort of thing.

I would think the NYT would want to avoid hiring someone who would do this, considering their recent troubles.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/jan-june03/sb_6-13.html

[Composed Thinker]

29. I love

I love how he complains of partisanship when he's devoted an entire segment to dissecting Senator Clinton's reading of her book on tape. I love how he feels that's more important than many other issues.

[leftyandproud]

18. sh!t

if we lose the NYT, we lose everything

[Clete]

2. So another conservative, eh?

Please post when they get a good liberal columnist.

[Composed Thinker]

5. Which

Which columnists don't you like and why?

[Clete]

10. I don't like William Safire.

He's a pompous ass. You'd think too if they have Bush in the White House they would get Molly Ivins on board. Only Texan Molly Ivins knows the Bushes well enough to keep all you East Coasties well informed.

[Crowdance]

6. Paul Krugman

Posted!

[Composed Thinker]

7. Where?

Where?

[Crowdance]

8. that was in response to Clete

But here's a link to Krugman today. (Registration is required.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/25/opinion/25KRUG.html

[Composed Thinker]

9. Ah, right

I'm sorry I was too slow to pick up on that.

I like Kruman very much. He seems to be, well, someone you can like very much, if that makes any sense.

Now, tell me, have you ever read Don Luskin's columns in the National Review when he does his "Krugman Truth Squad" bit?

[Crowdance]

14. Haven't but I will now

It's probably worth a laugh.

[Clete]

11. Okay, that was good.

I usually skip a lot of the money stuff since I don't have any, so pining over my stock portfolio is a waste of time. I also know that no matter what Greenie does, it will take a Bill Clinton back in the WH to get us economically back on track again.

[DrBB]

16. Today's wasn't exactly typical--Krugman a scathing anti-Bush voice

Krugman has been weighing in on the Bush LIES since shortly after Shrump seized power. He's an economist, so he has focussed on that, but he has been absolutely ruthless and forthright in calling these guys out and calling a lie a lie. If you haven't been reading his stuff, go back over it. Even the "money stuff" has been absolutely fantastic in terms of shredding Shrump for his mendacity.

[Clete]

17. I will.

They have an archive at NYTimes.

[JasonBerry]

26. FREE Krugman Archive Linked In This post!

The NYT makes you pay if you're not a member of AOL. And I'm not sure they still have that deal. BUT, you can always read Krugman here at the P.K. NYT column archive:
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/column.html

[w4rma]

13. He is an economist who talks about how politics affect economics

He isn't a liberal political columnist. He's not even liberal (the guy supports unfettered free trade).

The NYT has no liberal columnists. Although, if they felt like hiring one, IMHO, they should hire William Rivers Pitt.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/09/25_Pitt.html

[DrBB]

15. "Good news"? Who gets bumped?

The've got their rota in place, so to add someone new, twice a week, means somebody gets bumped. Who is it? Kristof? Krugman? Herbert? Dowd? Not Safire, obviously, since they're "adding" a conservative voice. But somebody else will have to go. Herbert's their only person of color and that's a valuable perspective, and he tends to focus on more local-level issues than national ones--a good thing, but I don't always find his stuff that interesting. Kristof: he's been instrumental in the WMD/Niger uranium thing. Dowd: she is anathema to the Clintonistas around here, but she's been fairly ruthless about Shrump over the last year or so. And of course Krugman--if they dump him that's it for me, I'll never read the goddam rag again. But one of 'ems going to have to go.

And who the f* says they need MORE conservatives? There are PLENTY of conservative outlets. Just one more right wing shithead to avoid during the week.

[Composed Thinker]

28. I don't think anyone will get bumped

I've researched the history of The Times over the past few years. At times, I believe, there have been more columnists than there are right now. I don't know how the schedule went, but I'm pretty sure I'm right.

That said, I don't think anyone will get the boot. I think that Brooks' column will appear on Satuday, because that's the day Keller used to have his column published on, and one other day. Maybe Wednesday or Thursday?


I won't comment on everything, but I will comment on this:

of course Krugman--if they dump him that's it for me, I'll never read the goddam rag again.

I don't think that Krugman will be fired. I really have no way to prove this, so take my comment however you wish to take it, but I think that Krugman lends a certain credibility, despite what a partisan he can be (not that that's always a bad thing). Now, I'll admit, I usually only read The Times editorials and opinionjournal.com's editorials, so I don't know that much about other colunmnists (although I'll try to change that). But what other paper has an economist/economics professor writing editorials? And if that paper has such a person, does he even have half of the credibility of Krugman?

And this:

And who the f* says they need MORE conservatives

I think they do, if only to ward off conservative complaints. I mean, it's not like The Times will hire Coulter or Hannity; it'll pick someone respectable. Eric Alterman thinks that the paper couldn't have made a better choice.

[leesa]

19. Great! Aconservative rag gets even more conservative

[jagguy]

21. only on DU could the NYT be seen as conservative

gotta love it

[peacetalksforall]

20. Ever wonder if they lead or are lead?

Do the higher ups in the cabal dictate to the NYT?

Ever wonder who it is that sits as Solomon? The born agains come crying to that person about the lack of some Christian issue and demand more abortion traction or something like defunding the birth control intelligence around the world. Then the gun lovers demand that they didn't get a fair price from the Post or Times for their advertisting and since they xxxx, then they should get a $ break.

Then they always have to strike a balance between the various intelligence departments and keep them happy while they replace them with the RIU - Rumsfeld Intel Unit. Then you have all those constitutional destroyers pinching Hatch to get those judgeships through.

On and on. Don't you feel sorry for this favor-master par excellance?

How do they all work - what is the heirarchy?

[Warren Stuart]

22. I believe the Weekly Standard is owned by Murdock

So the New York Times gets a conservative tabloid hack writer to write editorials, and you call this progress?

Sorry, but I don't share your ideas. Brooks is a lying weasel who can be counted on to trash the Democrats.

I got a feeling Krugman is getting bumped to Saturdays.

[Composed Thinker]

30. What

What makes Brooks so bad?

[calimary]

24. Uh - okaaaaaaaaayyyyy - er - good news - um -

Yeah, right, I guess that's JUST what we need. ANOTHER in a nauseatingly continuing avalanche of conservative opinions out there. Great. Where's the champagne? (Sarcasm VERY MUCH on.)

I think the problem is - we have just a little bit TOO MUCH conservative thinking on the air and in print out there. The so-called liberal media exists only in the twisted minds of the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world. There IS no liberal media anymore. I used to be a reporter. I was in broadcasting for 25 years and in the news business for almost that same amount of time. I know what a liberal media is. And we stopped having anything remotely like a liberal media years ago.

Hope you don't mind if I sit out the celebrations about this one...

[JasonBerry]

25. Fine! (As Long As They Keep Paul Krugman)

Paul Krugman is the best! He alone makes the New York Times worth its subscription price.

Krugman Unofficial Website: http://www.pkarchive.org/
NYT columns ONLY Here:
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/column.html

- Edit to include archive link -

[peacetalksforall]

27. How to recognize the truth...

If the cabl has everyone saying the media is liberal, it's only because they have made a business and political decision to change the media to conservative by grooming editors and (so-called) newspeople and making sure the media is owned and controlled by conservatives as well as making sure the cabal guys are puppets, plus changing legislation such as monopoly rules to allow it to happen. THEN, take care of the general public and blind followers by lambasting the airways with accusations that the media is liberal. Make sure Jerry and Pat are on board as well as LaPierre and the vulnerable young military and that element of the public that thinks Rush and Drudge and Imus are idols.

In reality, if the cabal and their troops say it is chartreuse, it is apricot. By their lie, ye shall know the truth. Just reverse what they say. It's easy. Sometimes surprising, but easy. Most of the pieces fit snugly.