The Tampa Jewish Federation presents a look at four influential New York Times columnists

Despite protestations to the contrary, the New York Times remains the most influential and important source of news in the U.S. Sure, The Jayson Blair and Judith Miller scandals left scars on the paper's reputation that may never completely heal, and drops in advertising revenue and circulation continue to be major concerns for the paper. (According to the Audit Bureau of Circulation, the Times weekday circulation this year fell 7.3 percent, to about 928,000 — the first time since the 1980s that it has been under one million.) But in the Internet era, during which it seems that everyone with a modem is issuing an opinion, there are public commentators whose influence is still magnified by their media platform. Even in this diversified media landscape, there is still no higher perch than the paper that used to be affectionately called "the Grey lady."

According to Andrew Silow-Carroll, the editor in chief of the New Jersey Jewish News, several of the Times' Jewish columnists are representative of the different Jewish perspectives on political discourse regarding U.S. and Israel policies in 2009. In a speech presented by the Tampa Jewish Federation and delivered at Congregation Kol Ami in Carrollwood last week, Silow-Carroll spoke for a half hour on the topic, "A Nation of Pundits: How the Media Shapes Jewish Opinion." For his presentation, Silow-Carroll selectively chose four Jewish columnists from the Times to work his metaphor.

I say "selectively" because one such writer that he did not use as part of his discussion was lefty favorite Paul Krugman. But Silow-Carroll said that the former Nobel Prize winner "doesn't engage in Jewish issues," and thus didn't make his final cut. In Krugman's stead, Silow-Carroll selected the late William Safire, a former Nixon speechwriter who became a staple as the conservative voice on the paper's op-ed pages for decades. Safire left the Times in 2005 (though he continued to write a column on language for Times Magazine until he passed away this September), but Silow-Carroll said his perspective from the "right-wing pro-Israel desk" was for decades the voice of a certain segment of Jewish leadership — and certainly of Jewish Republicans in the U.S.

Silow-Carroll used a considerable portion of his speech to talk about David Brooks, the man considered Safire's conservative replacement on the op-ed pages when he was hired back in 2003. Silow-Carroll said that he considered Brooks, a versatile pundit well known for analysis on NPR and the Lehrer News Hour on PBS, to be a more independent voice. He also said that Brooks has "a little evangelical envy — what he envies is their fervor."

Of course, Brooks independence is not welcome in some circles of the GOP. His comment recently on ABC's This Week program that Sarah Palin "was a joke," lit up the conservative blogosphere. But the controversy was nothing new for Brooks, who a year ago said that Palin "represented a fatal cancer to the Republican Party." As regular readers of the Times know, if the Republican Party does have a civil war on its hands, Brooks will not take a place in the Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity/Palin camp. Silow-Carroll pegs Brooks' stances as similar to what he sees from many young Jewish Republicans: "Definitely conservative, but not comfortable with social conservatives."

Silow-Carroll also spent a considerable amount of time discussing the Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning Foreign Affairs columnist, Thomas Friedman. Also a bestselling author (The World Is Flat), Friedman has been a fierce critic of the Benjamin Netanyahu government for their intransigence on the issue of Palestinian statehood, and on the failure to stop building settlements in the West Bank. Silow-Carroll called Friedman a tough-minded critic of Israel, and said his columns were a reflection of the debate within Israel itself.

Someone Silow-Carroll did not have much insight into was Times culture critic Frank Rich, a writer who occupies prime real estate on the Sunday editorial pages. But he did have plenty to say about Roger Cohen, one of the paper's lesser-known writers. Cohen is a long-time foreign affairs correspondent and former editor at the International Herald-Tribune whose columns began appearing in the Times in 2006. Silow-Carroll said of him, "If you want to find a Jewish voice designed to annoy American Jews," Cohen is your man.

Cohen's depiction of Jews living in Iran earlier this year (before the disputed election and repression took place) was the source of fierce criticism from some columnists and other activists. The Jerusalem Post said he was "misled", while Atlantic Monthly called him "credulous." Silow-Carroll said many of Cohen's columns begin like Thomas Friedman pieces, but then generally veer into criticizing Israel while always leaving the Palestinians off the hook, which he called "condescending." In the British newspaper The Guardian, Cohen said he had been stunned at the vehemence of the critical response to his reports on Iranian Jews, saying, "I was surprised at the anger and intensity of the reaction … I expected a reaction but did not expect it to blow up into a whole furor."

As newspaper readership decreases and media organizations like Fox News ascend, some new media avatars enjoy reveling in what they say are the last days of the elite mainstream (and liberal) media. But at least for one night, it was fascinating to hear one newspaperman describe how important these four writers were and are, and why print media still matters.

This article appears in Nov 18-24, 2009.