Earlier this week, the Washington Post announced a contest to hire its next opinion columnist: “America’s Next Top Model Great Pundit.”
After 10 contestants are selected from a pool of applicants, they’ll compete in challenges “that test the skills a modern pundit must possess.” Those skills include writing on deadline, answering reader questions and “holding their own” onscreen. There’s no mention of other skills that might determine a columnist for one of the country’s most prestigious papers: writing well, say, or reporting.
During those challenges, a panel of “Post personalities will offer kudos and catcalls,” but the ultimate decisions — “who gets another chance at a byline and who has to shut down their laptop” — will be facilitated by reader votes.
Where have we heard that before?
The winner will get a weekly column which “may” be published in print or online, “paid at a rate of $200 per column, for a total of 13 weeks and $2,600.” (Simple math skills not required.)
The contest, not surprisingly, has taken heat from the blog world.
“One school of thought says that your 400 word sample column should contain some deliberately misleading assertions,” writes Matt Yglesias. “Another school says you just turn in clean copy but during your 100 word ‘about me’ graf should just make it clear that you share the sort of casual contempt for the truth and disrespect for the audience that is the hallmark of the Post op-ed page.”
“Definitely an improvement over Mouthpiece Theater,” tweeted Jay Rosen.
From Wonkette: “The grand prize … is an actual opinion column in The Washington Post, which your Wonkette Fact-Checking Desk has Googled and apparently used to be some sort of newspaper, back in the 70s.”
And, from Mediaite, something simple: “WHY. WHY. WHY.”
