Since Abramson's ouster last week, much of the focus has been on her salary at the newspaper — and how it compared to her male colleagues. But Kristol doesn't think she should be treated as a martyr.
“I love the idea that the liberal elite is now very worried about the persecution of Jill Abramson who made only $750,000 a year, last year at the the New York Times," Kristol said during an appearance on ABC's "This Week."
The New Yorker's Ken Auletta reported last week that Abramson's starting salary in 2011 was $475,000 while her predecessor, Bill Keller, earned $559,000 the same year. According to Auletta, Abramson's salary was bumped up to $503,000 after she protested, and then raised again to $525,000.
Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. has insisted that Abramson's pay was not a factor in her firing, telling his staff in a memo that her compensation was not "significantly less than her predecessors."
Kristol, who had a year-long stint as a Times columnist before the newspaper opted not to renew his contract in 2009, said that Sulzberger deserves most of the scrutiny.
"I think you guys should be much more upset about Arthur Sulzberger. He’s the one who’s lost the confidence, if you can have private discussion, with his masthead colleagues at the New York Times," Kristol said. "I don’t think they have a very high opinion of him. Why does he run The New York Times? Because he inherited it. Shouldn’t you guys be more upset about the top one percent?"