The World

I am always on the look-out for boring headlines – and I found a good one lying around on a desk at the FT today. It is in a newsletter from Moody’s, the ratings agency – "Belgian political uncertainty no threat to ongoing fiscal consolidation".

The whole question of what makes for interesting reading is the subject of this post – which is provoked not by Moody’s, but rather by an outburst from Steve Walt, a Harvard professor. Walt – who has become famous (or infamous) – as the co-author of a critical book on "The Israel Lobby", has written a piece bemoaning the appointment of William Kristol, a prominent neo-con, as a columnist for the "New York Times".

Walt argues that while the neo-cons policy prescriptions have been disastrous (Iraq etc), they continue to be rewarded with prominent newspaper columns. By contrast his own "realist" school of foreign policy analysis has a much better record in the real world. But it has got zero recognition on the op-ed pages.

A realist he writes – "would provide readers with insights that have been largely absent from mainstream discussion for a decade or more. Realism emphasizes that states defend their interests vigorously and that successful diplomacy requires give-and-take; that advancing our own interests often requires us to do business with regimes whose values we find objectionable; that nationalism is a powerful force and most societies resist when outsiders try to tell them how to run their own affairs; that global institutions can be useful tools of statecraft but require great power support to work effectively; and that even well-intentioned democracies sometimes do foolish and cruel things. Most important of all, a realist would emphasize that military force is a blunt and costly instrument whose ultimate effects are unpredictable, and that it should be employed only when vital interests are at stake."

Important ideas – as Walt suggests – so why are there no takers among America’s opinion-page editors? Doubtless, there are all sorts of conspiracy theories about this. (Our friend Pacifist will blame the Zionist, neocon ownership of the media, I would guess). But I have a simple explanation. The neocon world view makes for interesting journalism and the realist one doesn’t.

Neocons tend to deal in big ideas and sweeping trends – the advance of freedom and democracy, for example. This makes for very readable journalism. I was once advised by an editor that the most successful newspaper columns generally only have one idea in them – and the bigger and bolder the idea the better. Mr Kristol’s first column for the New York Times fitted this formula nicely. It was a rollicking read – published just before the New Hampshire primary – which thanked Barack Obama for finishing off the Clinton dynasty and proclaimed confidently – "There will be no Clinton restoration". Oh well, there is always next week.

As for the Realists, they should stop whinging and come to terms with one of the unspoken, unfortunate mottos of journalism – "It doesn’t matter if you are right, just be interesting."