Leave it to my readers to give me the heads up on some journalism news I had posted, but remained ignorant of: John Tierney, the most boring columnist in America, is leaving the New York Times Op-Ed page.
He made the big announcement in yesterday's Times column, which I posted in the Catch Of The Day, but as I often do with John Tierney columns, did not even bother to read. He just puts me to sleep, ok?
This is my last column on the Op-Ed page. I've enjoyed the past couple of years in Washington, but one election cycle is enough. I'm returning full time to the subject and the city closest to my heart: science and New York. I'll be writing a column and a blog for the Science Times section.
Oh, so libertarian politics is not the subject closest to John's heart? Gee, after two years of John throwing the most uninspired, hashed-up nonsense into his twice-weekly column, I never could have guessed John just didn't care!
I have never read any columns in the Science Times section. I will read his, to see if there are any new signs of life.
One wonders why the most prestigious Op-Ed page in the country hired a half-hearted libertarian like Tierney to fill one of its two "conservative" slots. The other "conservative" is David Brooks. It may surprise the Times, but Mr. Brooks' support of gay marriage, abortion rights, and gun control makes him a social liberal, even if David himself doesn't want to admit it.
One of my readers, Mr. Ed, commenting on Tierney's leaving, asks a good question: which conservative will the Times hire to replace Tierney? My hope is that they actually hire a conservative.
I have found the past several years of watered-down, "acceptable" conservative writing on the Times' Op-Ed page rather patronizing. I want to hear from real conservatives, and I want them to make strong intellectual arguments for their radical positions on the tax code, deregulation, restricting abortion, banning gay marriage, continuing the war in Iraq, etc. This is the American conservative movement. Not Brooks, and not Tierney, non-conservatives whose real position is that they just don't like the Democratic Party.
If it makes the liberals in the Times press office queasy to be around honest social conservatives, then they should write about that, too.
11/16/2006 12:02 PM
MrEd wrote:
I agree that the Times needs to find a real alternative voice. Yes, a real conservative could work, but it might also be interesting to hear from someone in the evangelical community, considering the large swath of the country they claim to represent. Reply to this
