NYT readers do really have to ask themselves

Blogging at Media Matters for America, Eric Boehlert notes the discrepencies between what NYT conservative columnist David Brooks says about Sarah Palin (represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party) versus what he writes in his columns (She is a dazzling political performer. And she has experienced more of typical American life than either McCain or his opponent.)

Boehlert also notes that while the NYT has a stated policy forbidding journalists from even informally advising political campaigns, the McCain campaign has told McClatchkey reporters that Kristol was an advisor to the campaign.

Update I below

Boehlert's article concludes:

[W]hen reading a Brooks campaign column, Times subscribers really do need to ask themselves whether the dispatch reflects the writer's true opinion, or whether he's pulling his punches in order to help the RNC.

And when reading a Kristol campaign column, readers need to ask if he's acting as an opinion columnist or working more in a role as a quasi-campaign consultant.

Because right now, it's hard to tell with the both of them.

Update I While reading throught the comments to Maureen Dowd's October 15 tripe, I came across this from a reader:

Surely Ms Dowd is aware that Mr Kristol is hardly a disinterested observer in all this; he's the one who pushed for Governer Palin's selection in the first place.

I just find it incredible that NYT is paying Mr Kristol essentially to further his career as a Republican political operative. Mr Kristol should be paying NYT for giving him free space to advertise himself.

I heard at the start of Mr Kristol's tenure that this would be a one-year experiment. Well, the year is almost up. I look forward to no longer seeing Mr Kristol's name on the pages of NYT.

— June15, Philly