The Kristol method

Why is a Murdoch man working for the competition ?
By ADAM REILLY  |  January 9, 2008

080111_kristol_main

Journalistic atrocity or savvy hire?

Ever since word leaked out that the New York Times had tapped the Weekly Standard editor William Kristol as an op-ed columnist (the Huffington Post broke the story on December 28; the Times confirmed it two days later), reaction has tended toward one of these two extremes: those indignant about the alleged defilement of America’s premier op-ed page cited Kristol’s unabashed militarism, poor track record on foreign-policy predictions, and naked partisanship. “Just shoot me,” Katha Pollitt wrote at thenation.com. “This is the man who blamed [A]merican liberals for the Khmer Rouge and the Ayatollah Khomeini (!), who will say just about anything, however bizarre or illogical or wild or (I’m guessing) cynical, to push the only ideas in his head: everything bad is the fault of Democrats and never mind the question, war is the answer.”

For their part, Kristol’s defenders — smaller in number, or just way quieter — wondered why Kristol’s one-year, once-a-week gig was generating so much fuss. Slate media critic Jack Shafer invoked the example of William Safire, another Times columnist who made his name as a conservative operative (in contrast with the Times’ David Brooks, a columnist who also happens to be a conservative). “Kristol — love him or hate him — writes interesting copy,” Shafer argued. “To him, writing is fighting. . . . I can’t promise that he’ll be good, but he’ll be different [and] he’ll be interesting.”

Maybe he will, maybe he won’t. Kristol’s introductory effort was a humdrum affair that panned Hillary Clinton (predictable, that), pegged Mike Huckabee as a good campaigner (which we already knew), and misattributed a quote from Michael Medved (he credited Michelle Malkin). But the more intriguing question raised by Kristol’s new post involves the relationship between the Times on the one hand, and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. on the other. After all, the media world is eagerly anticipating a pitched newspaper battle between the Times and the new Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal. So why, at this particular moment, are Murdoch and the Times agreeing to share Kristol — who edits a News Corp. publication (the Weekly Standard) and is a regular commentator for Fox News, another News Corp. property?

Since the Times, News Corp., and Kristol himself all declined comment for this particular subject, we’ll have to engage in some informed speculation. Let’s start with the Times. The first thing to remember is that, as of September 19, 2007, all the Times’ op-ed content has been available for free online. This was a boon for readers, but it also created pressure on the Times in general — and editorial-page editor Andrew Rosenthal in particular — to generate the sort of page-view counts that will attract enough online advertising to make the move to free content pay off financially.

The hubbub that followed Kristol’s hiring shows how much he should help this cause. Conservatives will tune in to see how a true neoconservative believer comports himself at a paper that’s viewed, on the right, as a bastion of liberalism. For their part, the liberals and progressives who abhor Kristol will make sure to read him as well, driven by a masochistic impulse to see just how insufferable and insulting he’ll be in his new perch. Since it’s an election year, Kristol will have plenty of fodder to work with. Put it all together, and his tenure as a Times columnist seems sure to be one of 2008’s big media stories. And there will be plenty of page-clicks to follow — potentially many more than if the Times had tapped a lesser-known conservative for the post.

1  |  2  |   next >
Related: Fourth-estate follies!, The 100 unsexiest men 2007: 10-1, The Fox and the Wolff, More more >
  Topics: Media -- Dont Quote Me , Barack Obama, Elections and Voting, Politics,  More more >
| More


Most Popular
ARTICLES BY ADAM REILLY
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   BULLY FOR BU!  |  March 12, 2010
    After six years at the Phoenix , I recently got my first pre-emptive libel threat. It came, most unexpectedly, from an investigative reporter. And beyond the fact that this struck me as a blatant attempt at intimidation, it demonstrated how tricky journalism's new, collaboration-driven future could be.
  •   STOP THE QUINN-SANITY!  |  March 03, 2010
    The year is still young, but when the time comes to look back at 2010's media lowlights, the embarrassing demise of Sally Quinn's Washington Post column, "The Party," will almost certainly rank near the top of the list.
  •   RIGHT CLICK  |  February 19, 2010
    Back in February 2007, a few months after a political neophyte named Deval Patrick cruised to victory in the Massachusetts governor's race with help from a political blog named Blue Mass Group (BMG) — which whipped up pro-Patrick sentiment while aggressively rebutting the governor-to-be's critics — I sized up a recent conservative entry in the local blogosphere.
  •   RANSOM NOTES  |  February 12, 2010
    While reporting from Afghanistan two years ago, David Rohde became, for the second time in his career, an unwilling participant rather than an observer. On October 29, 1995, Rohde had been arrested by Bosnian Serbs. And then in November 2008, Rohde and two Afghan colleagues were en route to an interview with a Taliban commander when they were kidnapped.
  •   POOR RECEPTION  |  February 08, 2010
    The right loves to rant against the "liberal-media elite," but there's one key media sector where the conservative id reigns supreme: talk radio.

 See all articles by: ADAM REILLY