Pin the tail on the Anders

Mpls.St.Paul’s Brian Lambert writes that Katherine Kersten’s column died for ex-editor Anders Gyllenhaal’s sins. It’s the ultimate lefty-journo summation of the rise and fall.

Kersten sorta “re-started” it by posting a link yesterday to a two-year-old “Think Again” item tweaking Lambert for his Rake magazine profile of her. Lambert says such sore-picking is evidence of the right’s unending victimhood — then backhandedly sympathizes with Kersten’s loss.

In other words, a must-click for the journalism chattering class.

PS: I’m pretty sure C.J. is staying in her current gig.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (4)

  1. Submitted by Beryl John-Knudson on 12/18/2008 - 08:05 am.

    Who’s singing the blues for KK? She has so many job alternatives.

    She could try modeling. She could easily pass for a new stand-in for the Betty Crocker image. Or even start an instant mix of her own; a new cookie line like ” Kay’s Conservative Fortune Cookie Mix.” Good fortune messages would be a little bigotry in every bite, for those who can still swallow it.

    She could even protest her alternative competitor, The Pillsbury Doughboy, heralding his nudity as a faithless flasher.

    Or she could simple fill her quality time needle pointing The Center for the Ameican Experiment’s now frizzled “Minnesota Blueprint” on her sofa pillows. Oh yes, she has so many jobs before her.

    Kersten’s no victim here; but wise readers were, too often. She’s no martyr either…just because she’s been getting her hair spray and her underarm deodorant mixed up in the morning lately, doesn’t make her a viable crucifix.

  2. Submitted by Dan Kitzmann on 12/18/2008 - 10:59 am.

    This faux saga is indeed grist for the chattering classes. I am no fan of Kersten and always thought her a second-rate writer at best. Her mostly confused, occasionally small-minded, political views offended me less than her bombastic, pedestrian prose style. (I feel similarly about Coleman, who I think was too desperate and incapable in his attempt to imitate Mike Royko.)

    Still, its seems perverse to take pleasure in the Strib’s cashiering Kersten. To dance on her column’s grave is tactless, and, I surmise, exhibits the same kind of overweening moral superiority that many of her critics tell themselves is the reason they hate her column.

    Although its tone is too snarky by half, Lambert’s piece raises a fair point or two. It strikes me as a misguided conception of the role of a Metro columnist to turn the section into a cartoonish, hyperpartisan Point-Counterpoint opinion exchange. Gyllenhaal showed poor judgment here.

    I also question Lambert’s assertion that only after Kersten was hired did Coleman come off his leash. If memory serves, his foolish, embarrassing pissing contest with the Powerline clowns about blogging predated Kersten’s hiring by several months. In my opinion Coleman took an obviously partisan turn for the worse after he left the Pioneer Press and returned to the Strib.

  3. Submitted by Jim Camery on 12/18/2008 - 12:26 pm.

    Tactless, yes, but I do have no reservations about dancing on her grave. Coleman and Kat were not just politically opposite versions of each other — Coleman got out of the office and did some actual investigation while Kerstan repackaged what she was told by her handlers.

    Its very hard to forgive how she instigated all hate directed at the Islamic school. I never read an apology from her once the facts were determined to be not what she reported. I don’t remember Coleman ever getting a situation so wrong. At least Nick could take a swipe at his side from time-to-time.

  4. Submitted by Dan Kitzmann on 12/18/2008 - 01:13 pm.

    I don’t feel the least bit bad that Kersten lost her gig. I don’t know her personally and thus to express sympathy via a blog or email post would be meaningless sentimentality. I just don’t feel particularly gleeful about it.

    I agree that she was a lousy reporter, played loose with facts, and that Coleman was at least a “newspaperman” in the traditional sense. And I will not forgive her repeated gay-baiting (not that she would care a whit about my forgiveness one way or the other).

    Though Coleman did now and again go after his own side, I believe our very reflex to talk about columnists in terms of “sides” is sad and a large part of the problem. One could also argue that Kersten went after her “side” when certain figures (e.g., Pawlenty and other RHINOs, St. Thomas and religious schools) strayed from her narrow interpretation of the true faith.

    I guess I just don’t see the point in picking who was worse, Coleman or Kersten. Both were berzerkers. By comparison, although Doug Grow’s politics were decidedly liberal, in my view he at least was rational and coherent and consistently seemed able not to make an ass of himself in his column. Perhaps it is just a matter of taste. Evidently a lot of people liked the red meat and rage of Kersten’s and Coleman’s approach.

Leave a Reply