The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMichelle Malkin Archive
Selective Moral Outrage at the NYTimes
Kristol Derangement Syndrome.
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Last week, I joked about Bill Kristol’s honest error in misattributing a Michael Medved quote about Huckabee to me. The unhinged Left treated the mistake like the next Watergate. Kristol Derangement Syndrome has reached full-blown status: From the NYT ombudsman Clark Hoyt’s column yesterday:

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.”

While he disavows KDS, Hoyt goes on to whine about Kristol’s hiring–zeroing on comments he made on Fox News arguing that “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. The same blabbermouth story that Hoyt’s predecessor admitted shouldn’t have been published.

Hoyt writes:

…Kristol’s leap to prosecution smacked of intimidation and disregard for both the First Amendment and the role of a free press in monitoring a government that has a long history of throwing the cloak of national security and classification over its activities.

As Scott Johnson at Power Line notes:

The Times is of course a serial offender against the espionage laws of the United States; its story blowing the Treasury/CIA financial monitoring program to track terrorists was its second time around the horn in destroying an invaluable counterterroism tool. The first time around the Times blew the NSA terrorist eavesdropping program.

As a commenter wielding only the power of the pen, it’s a bit hard to see how Kristol would be intimidating in this context. It may puncture the self-image of the Times and its readers to learn that it is not a law unto itself, exempt from the normal operation of the espionage laws that otherwise apply to the citizens of the United States. The people of the United States have the right to protect some information from disclosure to our enemies, as they have done in the espionage laws, and the managing editor of the New York Times is not the highest authority in the land on the subject.

Hoyt adds this snort-worthy jab at Kristol:

This is not a person I would have rewarded with a regular spot in front of arguably the most elite audience in the nation.

Yes, “elite” readers such as the rabid nutballs who can’t bother to spell-check their diatribes against “traiterous” conservatives.

Nearly 700 messages like that one voicing outrage at Kristol’s presence on the NYT op-ed page.

You’d think he was, I dunno, Walter Duranty or something.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: New York Times