[wolverine876]

> Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens, and David Brooks are the NYT's token "palatable to liberals" conservatives, meant to keep their opinion pages from being a complete echo chamber.

What is that based on? Can you provide evidence? The evidence so far says otherwise; dismissing it with a characterization doesn't change the facts.

IMHO, it covers a wide range, from Douthat (certainly not palatable to liberals) to Brooks, more centrist. Bret Stephens was the WSJ editorial page editor before coming to the NYT, and you will see almost zero non-right opinion on the WSJ (seriously, find one opinion piece that supports Democrats and post it here).

[tablespoon]

> What is that based on? Can you provide evidence? The evidence so far says otherwise; dismissing it with a characterization doesn't change the facts.

The contention was that they make the NYT editorial page somehow "right wing," which is obviously false to anyone who actually reads it. It's clearly left wing, and if it feels to you like it isn't, you might be one of those people who is so far to the left that everything else is to your right.

IIRC, all three that I listed are Never Trumpers. Douthat is probably the least palatable to liberals, but he's often pretty indirect and soft in his columns (compare to the more liberal columnists, who can regularly put out red meat for liberals). The impression I get is he's also probably the least capitalist of the bunch. IIRC, Stephens openly voted for Biden and is strongly for gun control. Like you mentioned, Brooks is quite centrist, probably to the point of being a moderate Democrat. I'd be extremely surprised if he hadn't voted for Biden. For conservatives, they're all fairly moderate with at least some prominent heterodoxy, and I don't think anyone right-of-center would get hired as an NYT columnist without those qualities.

IMHO, the tension created by their positions makes them far more interesting than most opinion columnists. Columnists that are on friendly ground (e.g. conservatives on WSJ opinion pages, liberals at the NYT) are usually just boring and predicable (especially the WSJ).

[wolverine876]

> The contention was that they make the NYT editorial page somehow "right wing," which is obviously false to anyone who actually reads it. It's clearly left wing, and if it feels to you like it isn't, you might be one of those people who is so far to the left that everything else is to your right.

I don't recall that contention, but certainly the NYT opinion pages aren't right wing. However, you dismissing anyone who disagrees without as having a distorted, extreme perspective isn't evidence - other than evidence of your perspective.

I think the NYT's opinion page is diverse, but feel free to support your claim: Count up the columnists and their positions.

> Douthat is probably the least palatable to liberals, but he's often pretty indirect and soft in his columns (compare to the more liberal columnists, who can regularly put out red meat for liberals).

I think this characterization of Douthat is way off. Douthat is direct and puts out absurd BS 'red meat'. I think he puts out more brazen BS than any other columnist I've read there, but I seldom read any opinion pieces. And note I say 'brazen' BS; there's plenty more that is just less brazen. The opinion pages are an embarassment of deceit and manipulation to the NYT and other publications; the deceit, from all parties, is obvious if you are informed. I can predict what many will write based on the political navigation: e.g., for Stephens, 'how do I attack Dems without supporting Trump or sounding irrational?'