The parlor game is already underway, with lists of potential replacements being drawn up for Howard Kurtz, who will be leaving his well-worn perch as The Washington Post’s chief media writer to become the D.C. bureau chief of The Daily Beast.
I’m calling Kurtz a media writer because he usually punts on the role of a media critic. At the title would imply, that job requires someone to make arguments and guide readers to conclusions about the strengths, faults, and impact of a given article, media figure, or outlet; to sound the alarm about disturbing trends and tendencies in and affecting the press; and to explain and challenge the culture, traditions, and delusions of journalism.
And those roles require someone who is willing to, as the case warrants, state opinions, poke fun, call sides, and make enemies. There are plenty of media writers who do that work exceedingly well—David Carr, Jack Shafer, Jason Linkins, the Chicago Reader’s Mike Miner. Suffice it to say, Kurtz’s traditional output of profiles and write-ups of the latest media scandal don’t put him in that group.
Now that the position is open, it’s time to ask what the next person will make of it. The job is an unusually prominent one, observing the media entities that, from day to day, shape, distort, redeem, and expose doings in the capital—especially given the clichéd but true observation that old media is being challenged and supplanted in new, revolutionary ways.
That makes this staffing decision, and the brief he gives to whomever takes the job, among the most important acts that have faced Marcus Brauchli since he became editor of The Washington Post in the summer of 2008. And his pick will say something about the wayfinding taking place under his still-maturing tenure.
In Scott Sherman’s recent CJR profile of Brauchli, the editor told him that the paper had settled on a journalistic and economic strategy: “to be the indispensable guide to Washington, really to be for and about Washington.”
There’s that word again—guide. A good Washington guide would tell you what sights are worth seeing, what restaurants you should skip, and what forces conspired to shape the city. Something like a critic.
The Post, like most other media outlets looking to keep their voice relevant and their readers’ attention, is struggling to find the line between appropriate and inappropriate comment. (See Weigel, Dave.)
This environment calls for more than sunny profiles, which means the new media writer will need not only the inclination to stand for something, but the support of the editorial brass to do so. Let’s see what the Post can do.

No one is more consistently annoying, yet as mind-bogglingly brilliant and on-spot, than Jack Shafer. One day he drives me crazy and the next day he thinks of angles that could only be idiosyncratic products of Shaferian genius.
Hiring him would guarantee that 2 out of, say, 5 columns would have me apoplectic and screaming. Yet even those would have to be acknowledged as uncommonly perceptive.
Nerver have I learned so much from, and been so regularly provoked by, someone who -- frankly -- I'd be scared to join in a room without hired security.
Hire him. There's no better. I bitch about him to friends, go home, and secretly wish I had half his wisdom.
Just give me several weeks advance notice so I can recalibrate my meds and be prepared for the anxiety attacks, uncontrolled rage, and full body tremors that are only possible when you read someone whose brilliance makes you sick with jealousy.
#1 Posted by Rupe, CJR on Tue 5 Oct 2010 at 06:31 PM
Should the WaPo hire expensive, older talent like Jack Shafer, or should they save money and hire a younger, much cheaper analyst? I don't know.
#2 Posted by Justin, CJR on Wed 6 Oct 2010 at 08:31 AM
Jack Shafer is fairly credible. William Powers is good. Since the choice will have to be drawn from the conventional-media talent pool, these guys are about as good as can be hoped for.
#3 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 6 Oct 2010 at 11:54 AM
Sure. Great. Absolutely. The Post should hire another white guy in Howard Kurtz spot. Brilliant. The new "media critic" can then carry out the idiotic and suicidal tradition of promoting, validating, and brown-nosing other white men in the news biz.....while the looming majority of people of color (consumers and in the blogosphere) look elsewhere.
Or, no here is an alternative....hire a WHITE woman. Who will be Howard K or Jack Shaefer in a skirt.
Yes, that is just what the Post will do.
#4 Posted by Rel, CJR on Thu 7 Oct 2010 at 10:09 AM
"That makes this staffing decision, and the brief he gives to whomever takes the job..."
Sorry, "whomever" should be "whoever," as the pronoun "whoever" is the SUBJECT of the noun clause "whoever takes the job," Not the object of the preposition "to." The OBJECT of the preposition is the NOUN CLAUSE in toto.
Joe LaRocca
North East (Erie County), PA
#5 Posted by Joe LaRocca, CJR on Fri 15 Oct 2010 at 05:45 PM