Term Limits?

Ross suggests term limits for the major op-ed pages. I think it's a pretty good idea. Most of all, though, I'd like to see The New York Times abandon its twice-a-week frequency. The Times' current practice seems implicitly based on the idea that the number of truly worthwhile columnists is so tiny that it's better to accept the hit in quality that comes from making the columnists write so frequently than it would be to water-down the page.

But surely the reverse is the case. It's a great big world out there, and having the columnists write less frequently would let all of them write better and open up the space for a greater variety of voices. Instead of David Brooks twice a week, Brooks once a week and an interesting libertarian like Virginia Postrel once a week. That kind of thing. It seems like no-brainer to me. Surely this is a sufficiently desirable job that they could have their pick of writers from all throughout the country.

Comments

Absolutely. And while they are at it they should make Friedman a beat reporter at city hall and make him work his way back up the ranks.

Posted by d | November 13, 2007 9:16 AM

You're misunderstanding the role of the columnists. You think that they are supposed to inform and provoke. They do that occasionally, but their main role is to comfort and confirm people in their prejudices - by helping readers fit the news into pre-existing narratives. Repetition and familiarity are more important than interesting ideas. Think of the op-ed page as the comics without pictures.

Posted by bloix | November 13, 2007 9:18 AM

Postrel is even stupider than McMegan.

Posted by Joe Klein's Murdered Conscience | November 13, 2007 9:20 AM

How about Dowd and Friedman once a month?

Posted by SLC | November 13, 2007 9:43 AM

Howzabout Brooks once a decade so that he could really work up a coherent piece?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 13, 2007 9:48 AM

Postrel is even stupider than McMegan.

Really, after the pasting she received in One Market Under God, Postrel should have just retired from pontificating.

And that's the real issue here: shouldn't op-edders have an '[x] strikes and you're out' rule? Yes, it goes against the commercial principle of having print trolls three days a week to ensure that the letters page keeps ticking over (bloix's point) but a publication that regards itself as serious shouldn't get away with printing Cabbagemallet for years on end when he is just fucking ludicrous.

(Tangentially, it's time for the term 'troll' to shift media, because there are print trolls and broadcast trolls as much as there are internet ones.)

But the shift in reading habits really ought to doom the classic op-ed format, which is set by the constraints of print most of all. 700 words is a mongrel template, more than needed to make a single point forcefully, but not enough to make a proper argument.

How about this deal: yer Big Paper op-edder gets the standard 700 words once a week, but gets as much space as s/he wants to file something online as follow-up?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 13, 2007 9:49 AM

How about only posting columns when they actually have something interesting to contribute? Now, admittedly my enthusiasm for this proposal is based in no small part on the conviction that this rule would eliminate Dowd and Friedman entirely, but I'm somewhat serious. A regular posting schedule implies that the columnist will have 2 column-worthy ideas in a week, on a regular schedule. I certainly don't work that way, and judging from the output, neither do they.

Posted by Glenn | November 13, 2007 10:22 AM

I think the point of the frequent columns is to turn their columnists into recognizable brands. We can all probably name more members of the Times roster than any other paper, and more importantly we have a much better sense of their points of view. It may not produce the best output, but it seems like a good way to keep people reading the Times Op-Ed page.

Posted by l e o | November 13, 2007 10:43 AM

Glenn:
Why isn't anyone mentioning the WaPo? They have a lot of dead weight too. Will. Craphammer. Broder. Ignatius. And that is just for starters.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | November 13, 2007 10:47 AM

hey matt - when is your next LA times op ed going to show up? I'm sitting here reading this jonah goldberg crap about the poor, put upon top 1%. And no less than 3 letters denouncing him will be published tomorrow, just like every week. In fact. I have never seen anyone defending one of his articles. I believe you should take his place on the weekly rotation.

Posted by el feo | November 13, 2007 11:19 AM

Re Joe Kleins' conscience

How about shithead Robert Novak never. He's a lot worse then dead weight.

Posted by SLC | November 13, 2007 11:19 AM

hey matt - when is your next LA times op ed going to show up? I'm sitting here reading this jonah goldberg crap about the poor, put upon top 1%. And no less than 3 letters denouncing him will be published tomorrow, just like every week. In fact. I have never seen anyone defending one of his articles. I believe you should take his place on the weekly rotation.

Posted by el feo | November 13, 2007 11:19 AM

What the big-paper op-ed pages really need is some sort of free-for-all competition. Every paper has a website, and each such website could host an all but unlimited number of op-ed writers. People could submit columns, and the paper's staff could do a basic screening to make sure they were of about the right length, appropriate for a daily paper, and relevant to the issues of the day. Then the readers could read and rate them, along with the columns of the established writers.

Every few months, based on the ratings, a writer would be dropped from the dead-trees version of the paper, and one would be added from the website's expanded op-ed page. After awhile, the op-ed pages would improve substantially.

Of course, bloix, above, lays out the reason why this won't happen.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | November 13, 2007 11:20 AM

Instead of David Brooks twice a week, Brooks once a week and an interesting libertarian like Virginia Postrel once a week. That kind of thing. It seems like no-brainer to me. Surely this is a sufficiently desirable job that they could have their pick of writers from all throughout the country.

Well you have to consider the economics involved as well. Each columnist is surely paid several hundred K per year. Would they take half for half the columns? Maybe, or maybe they'd go elsewhere. If not, then you just have twice as many columnists to pay.

Let's not forget that they do have other op-ed columns, so other voices do make it through.

Posted by right | November 13, 2007 11:52 AM

there is no point to op-ed columnists at all anymore, and sooner or later some intelligent publisher (thereby ruling out idiot sons pinch sulzberger and donald graham by definition) will realize that no one is still buying their paper for the op-ed pages.

as matthew has often noted, blogging is a form, not a style, and because the form exists, anyone who has something to say can, in fact, say it.

Posted by howard | November 13, 2007 1:04 PM

also, given that the times has finally gotten wind of these internet and blog-type thingamabobs, they could print one column a week from any columnist while allowing (even mandating) them to keep blogs on the times' website. so you'd get more content from more columnists and you'd only have to print the single-best thing they wrote all week. not bad, if you ask me.

Posted by Max B. | November 13, 2007 3:56 PM

Uh, Matt, I know this is just babbling about nothing you control, but think this through. You urge support for unions, then advocate that newspaper management randomly change staffers' jobs.

Many columnists are syndicated. Others, however, are employees of newspapers, some of which are unionized. At those shops, there are rules regarding promotions, demotions, job changes and the like. Changes to the employment agreement like term limits on op-ed columns would (I presume) have to be negotiated with unions at unionized papers.

Posted by former newspaper guild shop steward | November 13, 2007 5:20 PM

Isn't this a matter of taste? Who gets to decide what counts as a "strike"?
One of the commenters mentioned George Will as dead weight. I still consider Will to be one of the best (and most unpredictable) columnists around.

Posted by but... | November 13, 2007 5:28 PM

In Bob Herbert's case, it's essentially the same column twice a week, week after week. All I need to do is read the title and I know exactly what will be said. Maybe the NYT should just go Pavlovian, and instead of printing the article, just display the words "BOB HERBERT" and people will get their fix for the day. Saves time and paper.

Posted by Jack | November 13, 2007 5:33 PM

While we are re-engineering the Times op-ed page, here's my idea. Get rid of the journalists. Well, not quite get rid of them. But limit their numbers to say 25% of the op-ed slots. I'd rather see the leading op-eds penned by people with some special experience and expertise other than reporting or political speech writing? I think a great deal of the lack of substance and depth (e.g., Friedman (pseudo substance in Friedman's case) and Dowd) on the Times op-ed page is attributable to their common professional origins--they are journalists with no particular field of trained and developed expertise. I particularly like and learn a lot from Krugman's columns, for example. Why don't we have more professional economists, political scientists, physicists, arms specialists, labor lawyers, big-firm lawyers,etc. with permanent gigs on the op-ed page? Wouldn't this lead to more insightful and information-filled commentary on political, economic, and social events?

Posted by SS | November 13, 2007 5:37 PM

Bob Herbert's column today is Exhibit A of why many of us liberals love the guy. No, he's not snarky and "clever" like Maureen Dowd. No, he does not write spectacularly wrong-headed columns about world events in mellifluous prose like Christopher Hitchens. Yes, he could easily be replaced in his job by thousands of people --- just like any of us, I might add. But Herbert writes with passion, conviction, and integrity. And he is demonstrably right far more often than he is wrong (see what Herbert has always written about Iraq, and hold it up against the literary masterpieces of Hitchens, Tom Friedman, or David Brooks). Today, in plain English, he says exactly what needs to be said about recent attempts to obfuscate and rationalize away the racism of Ronald Reagan. Bravo Bob!

Posted by Geoff | November 13, 2007 7:38 PM

I agree about Bob Herbert, Geoff. Also, his work on hidden stories in places like Tunica, Mississippi has been masterful.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E2D7163EF935A25756C0A96F958260

Posted by bob | November 13, 2007 8:16 PM

I add my three cheers for Bob Herbert. He ain't flashy, but he's one of the few consistently sane voices out there, and he he regularly highlights important issues that few others are paying attention to (human trafficking, drug sentencing disparities, the persistence of racism, etc.). I paid for Times Select mostly to read him and the Krug-man.

Posted by Invigilator | November 14, 2007 6:49 AM

I'd like to add one more thing to praise about Herbert: He does REAL REPORTING! Something that is woefully lacking in 99% of the blogosphere. The likes of Andrew Sullivan can sit around and blog all day, linking to others sites, etc, but Sullivan and others who trash Herbert simply do not know reporting when they see it. Because they do not know how to do it. They just regurtitate what they've read on other blogs. They live in a high-tech, elitist echo chamber and, unlike Herbert, rarely spend any time off of their duffs and out there interviewing real people.

Posted by Geoff | November 14, 2007 8:47 AM

Yes, I think the twice-a-week frequency is too much as well. Also, with a web site, you aren't limited anymore by length. I think the NYT and WaPo should allow for longer versions of columns on-line, and should also allow columnists to have links and footnotes and graphics. Paul Krugman essentially started blogging with a terrific column on Slate.com called "The Dismal Science". It was about every other week, and there weren't limitations on length, and it also allowed linking and footnotes. I think it took a while for him to learn how to write short columns twice a week for the NYT. He's improved a lot, as he has on TV interviews as well, but I still think he is hobbled by both frequency and length restrictions. Somebody (MSNBC probably) should give him a regular TV slot. Say once a week.

Posted by amorphous | November 14, 2007 3:41 PM

Bob Herbert is the liberal's Cal Thomas.

Posted by pablo H | November 22, 2007 5:27 AM