Blogs and Stories
Kristol Gets the Pink Slip
Scott Gries / Getty Images
The famous neoconservative published his final New York Times column today. Scott Horton, who broke news on Kristol's involvement in the selection of Sarah Palin, reports on the real reasons the Gray Lady didn't renew his contract.
The New York Times’ decision not to renew Bill Kristol’s opinion column was because of the conservative writer’s sloppiness and uneven quality, according to a reliable source with first-hand knowledge of the decision. Today, the Times features a signature Kristol piece, discussing the heroic role of conservatism in modern American history and contrasting this with the fecklessness of American liberals. But only the last line is newsworthy: “This is William Kristol’s last column.”
Kristol was informed of the move sometime around January 13, when he was invited to a dinner with Barack Obama that included other conservative columnists and took place at George Will’s house. “It must have been a bittersweet moment,” said the Times insider. Indeed, Kristol crowed about the Obama dinner: he and his comrades had gotten lamb chops in elegant surroundings, while a group of ostensibly liberal writers who met with Obama the following morning got coffee in Styrofoam cups. Except, as it turns out, that was a typical Kristol miscue—according to columnist Andrew Sullivan, who was present, the morning gathering hadn’t been served as much as a glass of water.
A source close to the Times says Kristol's ideology wasn't the issue. The problems were more fundamental.
The source makes clear that the decision not to renew Kristol’s contract is not related to his neoconservative ideology—Kristol’s proximity to key Washington players ranging from Bush and Cheney to John McCain (whom he supported in 2000) was considered a distinct plus. His leading advocacy of the Iraq War also added to his appeal. Kristol was viewed as a mover and shaker whose ideas had ready impact on the political firmament in Washington.
The problems that emerged were more fundamental. Kristol’s writing wasn’t compelling or even very careful. He either lacked a talent for solid opinion journalism or wasn’t putting his heart into it. A give-away came in the form of four corrections the newspaper was forced to run over factual mistakes in the columns, creating an impression that they were rushed out without due diligence or attention to factual claims. A senior writer at Time magazine recounted to me a similar experience with Kristol following his stint in 2006-07. “His conservative ideas were cutting edge and influential,” I was told. “But his sloppy writing and failure to fact check what he wrote made us queasy.”
Kristol also regularly commented on political developments in which he was personally engaged—without disclosing the depth of his engagement. The Daily Beast previously highlighted his deep involvement in selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be John McCain’s running mate. In the campaign season that followed, boosterism about Sarah Palin became a staple of his writing, even at the expense of his relationship with McCain and leading figures in the McCain campaign. This conduct blurred the distinctions between being an actor on and observer of the political stage, raising some concern among the guardians of The Times’ credibility.
Tough as this was for Kristol’s promoters, he might still have survived as a columnist had it not been for an attitude of casual and reflexive disloyalty he publicly displayed towards The Times itself. A good example came in an appearance with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show on October 30. Here’s the way Editor and Publisher described it:
“Appearing once again on The Daily Show, Bill Kristol, Jon Stewart's favorite whipping boy (‘Bill Kristol, aren't you ever right?’), on Thursday night defended the McCain-Palin ticket, at one point informing the show's host that he was getting his news from suspect sources. ‘You're reading The New York Times too much,’ he declared. ‘Bill, you WORK for The New York Times!’ Stewart pointed out.”
That, apparently, was the last straw for the Gray Lady.
Despite the pink slip, all the news for Kristol is not so grim. The Washington Post has just announced that it will publish Kristol on a monthly basis. Has the Post made itself into the remainder bin for neocons?
RELATED BY SCOTT HORTON: Kristol Was Palin's Talent Scout
Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national security affairs for Harper's Magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Sonia Scores a KO
Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national security affairs for Harper's Magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.
Torture Prosecution Turnaround?
Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national security affairs for Harper's Magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.
Where Iran's Regime Learned Its Tricks
Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national security affairs for Harper's Magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.
Remainder bin for neocons? Oh, Mr. Horton, your bias is showing.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
They sacked him because he got everything -- EVERYTHING -- wrong.
Good riddance. He comes across like a whiny and petulant child just about every time I've seen him. And his campaign for Sarah Palin both behind the scenes and in the pages of the NY Times was deceitful and disgusting.
Look out WaPo, you and your editors and fact-checkers have your work cut out for you.
The problems that emerged were more fundamental. Kristol's writing wasn't compelling or even very careful. He either lacked a talent for solid opinion journalism or wasn't putting his heart into it.
They had no problem with the fact that he's all the time.
Always.
Forever.
It was his "style".
Gotcha.
But if we don't get Bill's suggestions, how will we know what the wrong thing to do is?
"His conservative ideas where cutting edge and influential"--what a laugh. The fact that this hack is influential is mind boggling and frightening. Cutting edge refers to lack of nuance, poorly reasoned, and myopic I take it. I was grateful to read his bunk in the NYTimes for the last time this morning. With thinkers like Bill Kristol the Republicans and conservatives hardly need enemies.
"A give-away came in the form of four corrections the newspaper was forced to run over factual mistakes in the columns, creating an impression that they were rushed out without due diligence or attention to factual claims."
WHAT! The NYT is NOW concerned about factual corrections??? What about the last eight years? Typical MSM spin; they sacked him cause they hate conservatives. Anyway, they don't need him as they have finally found a God they can believe in; who needs a different opinion?
I'm a conservative, but I found Kristol's Times column dull, sloppy and lazy. As many have said, it seemed he was phoning it in.
The Times op-ed page could use more diversity, and more liveliness, but there are many better choices among conservatives. Someone with a fresh take who writes well is needed--Kristol offered neither.
Ideologically, I am with Kristol, but I have to agree that his columns are simply limp and not at all compelling even to those who agree with him. Now, what is the excuse for Bob Herbert?
The left doesn't like disagreement, the Times least of all. But I suppose we can take comfort in the fact we don't yet have re-education camps where Kristol and his kind could be sent to bring in the harvest.
If what goes for neo-con and Republican philosophy depended on facts there would be none. The touchstone of conservative thought, argument, and reasoning wholey relies on myth, fantasy, sophomoric antidote, and revistionest history.
Neo-Cons not using facts to make an argument? Hello!!! You have to be dimmer than a small appliance bulb to not understant that FACT.
Jim Russell
Western Springs, IL
Another neo-con deposed for stupidity.
LOL. The Times is simply demonstrating its intolerance for views that diverge with their uber-liberal publisher.
The NYT Public Editor has repeatedly called out Krugman's inaccuracies, but that is fine with the Times. They don't care about accuracy. They just want their liberal propaganda to stay pure.
It is said that "misery loves company" but I bet this guy isn't gonna suffer quite like the rest of us out here in small town America.
A paper that publishes Dowd & Krugman has zero to negative credibility when it claims that it fired Kristol because of sloppiness & factual mistakes. And Scott Horton damages his own credibility by repeating this claptrap unchallenged, and of course unattributed.
A better explanation: As the NY Times loses its circulation, ad dollars & influence, it has decided to pursue the MSNBC approach: Forget about pretending to serve the nation as whole as a general interest newspaper, and instead reinforce its appeal to a die-hard rump constituency of ideological liberals.
Might work as a business strategy, but it means the Times will have to downsize aggressively & fire a lot more people, to ever turn a profit again.
He's a few blonde hairs shy of Ann Coulter. I apologize for my harsh words but I speak the truth.
Buckley's avauilable-- you know it will be a while before the Gray lady will recover from the running debacles of Plame and Jayson Blair.. kind of double whammy and add to that a couple other totally flabby writers in the arts and music dept and the nytimes could go a mean is lean diet or lean is mean diet and get healthy. Buckley is not such a bad idea... as for washopost, lines are for hanging the linens, but also used for lynching, so maybe it's a bit more like reform school there... and only once a month, so they have 3weeks to rip the article apart before printing it.
To keep a platform like the NY Times, you have to be right at least once a decade. Kristol is 0-for-the-21st Century.
Doesn't the WaPo recognize a virus when they contract it?
The truth about this slug is that he's got nothing on his own - no talent, no intellectual accomplishments - so he's ridden his accomplished father's coattails all the way. He got access because of his father's name, and he got work because of his father's name. That he's failed so miserably at everything he's tried underscores how bereft of gifts this clod is. But he had access, so I suppose that counted and got him work.
Now, his access is to no one with any influence, no one who matters, and so - naturally - the Washington Post, to which I subscribed for more than thirty years, picks him, thereby insuring its continued slide into the slushpile of defunct newspapers. What ARE they thinking?
His arguments and ideas have become so lame they don't even make me angry any more.
Is anything sadder than a conservative that liberals feel sorry for?
If sloppiness is a disqualifier, how on earth does Krugman still have a job? He is a deceitful writer whose rabid partisanship has led him to completely abandon whatever ethics he may have once had.
I'm not displeased that William Kristol has walked the plank at the NYT, but I believe he deserves credit for what he is good at, even if that doesn't incude his column.
Kristol's strengths -- especially showcased all those years on ABC -- are his urbanity and wry humor. He has uniquely been a good-natured camel's nose for the intolerant beast (sorry) of conservatism.
So Dr. Horton has it dead wrong, I think, about Kristol's appearance on The Daily Show.
When I watched the show, I immediately gave credit to Kristol for skillful use of humorous irony, with a twist that played off Stephen Colbert's running gag as an anti-NYT zealot/guest columnist. It disarmed Stewart and, at worst, gave a friendly elbow nudge to the Times.
Has Dr. Horton checked with the Times about that Daily Show episode's effect on Kristol's job security? Doubtful. There's no way the Times could have taken genuine offense.
Here in Los Angeles, we used to have an institution called "the Garry Owens Home for the Hopelessly Literal." Dr. Horton didn't get the joke, so he may need some time there.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0wRJjXvyZ1I/R3XoFAdmv9I/AAAAAAAABJU/6cPUCaVrHGE/s 400/Kristol_Clown_2.jpg
Maybe they should have found out he was an idiot BEFORE they hired him!
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.