A little self-reflection is in order... what are the numbers for the LA Times? Are you offering the LA Times something unique that couldn't be provided by someone with a different gender or race? Care to give up your semi-regular space on their op-ed page?

You've got a successful career ahead of you?

Why not skip all the hand wringing over race, gender, and even age and simply ask for interesting writing? I frankly do not care one whit about the "identity" of the person I'm reading -- I'm much more interested in their ability to write good prose, see to the core of an issue, and think independently.

Let's take an example. Bill Kristol sucks not because he's an old white guy, but because his prose is stilted, he's utterly predictable, and never seems to write about anything in new or creative ways.

There may be some correlation between having an interesting perspective and being a part of some minority group (or whatever). But don't underestimate the ability of the Washington Post to find blacks, women, etc. who are EVERY bit as horrible as their current writers.

So please -- please! -- don't frame this in terms of identity politics but rather invigorating thinking and writing.

The Post's ombudswoman addressed this (without resolution, of course) recently: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052302308.html

As opposed to the main voices of the blogosphere who are... er, white, and male. Cue another amusing story about the "DC flophouse."

What Matt S. said.

While identity politics might be a part of what's wrong with the punditocracy, a the biggest problem is their belief in their own Renaissance-man infallability. Why, in a lightweight article about brain imaging in this month's Atlantic, I read the dread phrase "David Brooks, who is writing a book about the brain..." Like a papal encyclical on human sexuality.

Perhaps there is a level of ego associated with this type of political commentary that attracts more men into this particular field? I'd be interested in the gender breakdown in some of the more thoughtful monthly columns and public affairs journals.

Why not skip all the hand wringing over race, gender, and even age and simply ask for interesting writing?

This seems to be missing the point. (No offense, though; your comment is still a lot smarter than the "quotas are socialism" nuts in the comments to the Nation link.) Ezra could speak for himself, but I think the hand-wringing is the goal. The people jumping to a solution or blaming the messenger are missing that.

Don't be fooled by an occasional Hispanic anchorwoman on the local cable news show; our view of politics and the world really is filtered through the eyes of middle-aged-and-older rich white men. Forget about whether complaining about this would lead to quotas and stuff; maybe it's completely inevitable. Wealthy people of the majority demographic group, after taking a decade or two to establish their careers, are running things — surprise, surprise. But how does that affect what filters down to us? What's going on that we would care about but we never find out about because the op-ed writers are older and richer and more WASPy than the vast majority of us?

Also, you acknowledge the possibility that a member of a minority group would have an unusual, valuable perspective, but I think you underestimate the likelihood of that. That's just quibbling, though.

Ditto, Amy, weboy and others- seriously pot meet kettle.

Ironically the main identity gap difference between blogs and MSM are age - which is probably the least absurd. Yes people at the top of their journalistic careers are old. So are president's and CEO's. It's called seniority.

Matt S is overwrought. It's always funny seeing someone say "hey 90% of the powerful are from one group. But who cares? I'm sure it's just coincidence, and we shouldn't think too hard about the causes or effects of that monopoly".

I don't think it has the effect of misinforming the public, so much as splitting us. Minority groups are unlikely to take seriously cultural institutions that wholy unrepresent them.

Far be it from me to defend the Post, but I count two black columnists: Eugene Robinson (who is awesome) and Colbert I. King, who is, er, adequate.

Oops. I see that the total was 19 not 17. Nevermind. Is Zakaria the third not-white columnist then?

Let's see: David Brooks, Paul Krugman, Roger Cohen, Tom Friedman, William Kristol, Frank Rich, Richard Cohen, Ruth Marcus, Anne Applebaum, Charles Krauthammer, Jackson Diehl, David Ignatius, Harold Meyerson...nope, no minorities there.

The story here is gender, not race/ethnicity.

12-13% of the US population is black. With 10 columnists in the NYT, it is actually just about right to have 1 African-American.

For 19 columnists at the WP, 2 African-Americans is closer to the national proportion than is 3 columnists. So what is the problem here?

Regarding ethnicity, the only real criticism might be that Hispanics are under-represented, and I haven't counted all the columnists to know if that's true.

On the other hand, the ratio of men to women is extremely out of whack. That's a fact that requires some explanation, and even a little affirmative action.

Regarding ethnicity, the only real criticism might be that Hispanics are under-represented

Did my list, just above your post, suggest nothing to you regarding ethnicity?

Herschel for sure has zeroed in on all those crusty old WASPs holding down the cushy commentariat jobs, hasn't he?

http://www.cheap-lotrogold.com

Mac TOD Converter,
TOD Converter for Windows

i dont know say what,but i like your new,thank you for your postugg outlet

wholesale nike shoes