“Man. Man. Man. Man. Man. Man.” I had Sue Horton, the Op-ed and Sunday opinion editor at the Los Angeles Times on the phone one morning in early March. She was flipping through her slush pile of op-eds, calling out the gender of each author—a demonstration of her daily odds. “Man. Woman. Man. Woman. Man.” We got to 32, six of whom were women. “Do you want me to keep going?”
Horton receives more than 100 op-ed submissions a day, the overwhelming majority of which are written by men. Her section publishes 21 op-eds per week, many of which she solicits. She has no idea how many of these, on average, are written by women—or minorities. But, she concedes, the calculus rarely strikes the ideal demographic balance.
This, of course, is not a new struggle.
And the Times, of course, has been at the center of the debate before. In 2005, the paper ran a provocative op-ed by Charlotte Allen, who argued that feminism had led to a dearth of female public intellectuals. In response, political commentator Susan Estrich, who had long been appalled by how few opinion page bylines belonged to women, ripped off her own op-ed in which she identified a very different cause—the judgment of male editors, and especially that of Michael Kinsley, a former classmate and then the Los Angeles Times’s op-ed editor.
The debate devolved from there, and Estrich’s byline counts of women on op-ed pages—which, ranging from 10 to 20 percent, truly were appalling —got lost in the very public exchange of ugly words.
Seven years later, Horton is in Kinsley’s place, and the byline counts, though slightly improved, are still dismal.
Women wrote 20 percent of op-eds in the nation’s leading newspapers—The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal—between September 15 and December 7, 2011, according to a byline survey conducted by Taryn Yaeger of The OpEd Project, an organization that aims to diversify public debate. (Full disclosure: Since December, I have done part-time work for the organization).
And women were practically absent in the debate of many hard news subjects, with their opinions accounting for 11 percent of commentaries on the economy, 13 percent on international politics, 14 percent on social action and 16 percent on security. Perhaps just as striking, women produced just over half—53 percent—of commentaries on “women’s issues.”

To see a larger version of this image, click here. (All graphics provided by The OpEd Project.)
Though harder to track, statistics on racial, ethnic, and class diversity on opinion pages are just as jarring. A similar three-month byline survey, released in April by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), showed one-half of one percent of op-eds in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal were written by Latinos; in The Washington Post, it was 0 percent. Asian Americans authored an average of 2 percent; blacks roughly 5 percent (though that rate was lifted by the Post’s 10 percent).
Statistics like these are released periodically, always to mild outrage, vows to do better, and efforts to see the silver lining in the ever-more-empowered minority citizens of the future and the ever-more-empowering social media landscape. This year has been chock full of such episodes and rancorous debate—from the pitiful byline counts in top thought magazines collected by VIDA: Women in the Literary Arts, to the shutout of women in major categories at the ASME awards (no women even nominated!), to the exposure of Silicon Valley’s fratty “brogramming culture.”
Yet, meaningful diversity remains elusive.
What’s going on?
Access and pitching problems

Take a look at the list of Opionmakers for the Orlando Sentinel. The top person
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/orlando_opinionators/about is Jenna Toth who became CEO of Planned Parenthood of Central Florida on March 1. She with the other two women make up 1/3 of the paper's Opinionators!
My hunch is there will be more women before the year is out!
#1 Posted by MaryElizabeth McIlvane, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 01:48 PM
"the calculus rarely strikes the ideal demographic balance.
EXCUSE ME?!
What precisely is the "ideal demographic balance" in consideration of editorial import?
Sweet Jeebus, the liberals are doing their level best to destroy every institution they can find, aren't they?
We have Thimbles here advocating his insane racist stance that journalists should be held to different standards in the expression of their political opinions on the basis of the color of their skin.
And now we have Erika informing us that there is some "ideal demographic balance" to be had in journalism.
Who, precisely, decides which op/ed gender contribution ratio is "ideal"? Who, exactly, says that the current contribution ration isn't ideal? HUH?
The NERVE to presume the authority to demarcate the "ideal balance" for all of society!
What a crock of politically correct leftist crapola!
So now we'll take crappier op/eds from women, and reject better ones from men, in order to strike the "ideal demographic balance"?
Dumbing down for the purported common good... It's the liberal way!
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 02:31 PM
My colleagues in the Association of Opinion Journalists, formerly National Conference of Editorial Writers, had an interesting private discussion of this when we alerted the members' discussion list to Erika Fry's initial query. Views ranged widely, especially among those whose jobs include soliciting-choosing-editing op-eds. I understand that several contacted her by email, and am pleased that AOJ's diversity chair, Richard Prince, is among the thoughtful practitioners quoted here.
--John McClelland, emeritus faculty
Roosevelt University, Chicago
editing The Masthead for AOJ
http://opinionjournalists.org/masthead
#3 Posted by John McClelland, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 04:56 PM
It's truly strange how media liberal orthodoxy works. Men of white offer one kind of liberal opinion they think is superior; women of white offer a better kind of liberal opinion but they've been trampled on. Women of color offer yet another liberal opinion, but not superior to women of white, and men of color remain invisible. But we won't talk about them, will we?
#4 Posted by Chuck Sweeny, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 05:15 PM
Women v men. White v black. Us v them.
The violent, backward, ugly face of collectivism.
#5 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 02:02 AM
Gosh, this is SO frustrating. There are all these fantastic women columnists out there, but every time they apply for a job, the crusty old cigar-chomping white male editor chortles, "Look here little lady, column writing is for MEN!".
And then all the old boys in the newsroom guffaw and slap their knees. A WOMAN? Writing for a NEWSPAPER? THAT'LL be the day!
Oh wait... that's not how things are at all. That's just a comically anachronistic caricature. Just like this article.
#6 Posted by Julie P, CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 09:26 AM
The frustrated editorialists of the fairer sex need help. This calls for a federal program.
#7 Posted by newspaperman, CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 09:57 AM
I've been hearing some version of "we're just looking for the best" as to why women are not hired, not published, not cited for 20 years. It cannot possibly be true, it is statistically impossible for it to be true that well-educated, interesting women writers have just not submitted enough copy, not written well enough or on non "pink" topics or done bad research. It's misogyny, plain and simple. I can prove it:
David Brooks & Thomas Friedman.
Neither of these men has had an original idea, ever. They are consistently wildly, demonstrably wrong in their conclusions, have no interests in facts or evidence, their writing is bland and yet, they have jobs writing for a major news service and even PBS News Hour applauds their inanities. Name one woman with their degree of placement.
It is much more likely that the frat buddy mentality of men hiring men is so pervasive that women aren't even invited to participate. it is also likely, as keeps getting demonstrated in the art world by women who adopt a male pseudonym, that simply having a woman's name means the work is less valued. Much as realtors rename districts for maximum financial gain, "pink" topis are a marketer's device to sell stuff, mostly yogurt.
#8 Posted by Mary McFadden, CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 12:51 PM
@Mary McFadden
You claim that David Brooks is "consistently wildly, demonstrably wrong", yet in a review of accuracy in political prognostication he was rated 7th of 25, which does not seem so bad to me (see paper)! I find your 'proof' of misogyny lacking.
#9 Posted by Jreckx, CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 09:12 PM
Only 9% of Wikipedia contributors --an activity similar in nature to journalism-- are female and there are extremely minimal barriers to entry there, so the thesis of this article that it is "a straightforward question of access" seems unlikely.
#10 Posted by Jreckx , CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 09:21 PM
@ Mary
Maybe it's a vast postal conspiracy.
The mailmen (chauvinist bastards that we all know they are) are ripping up all the op/ed submissions in pink or scented envelopes.
#11 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 10:12 PM
The pursuit of women's human rights have led to the dearth of female intellectuals? Is there nothing that the apologists (including the morons in this comment thread) will stop at to deny that there is still discrimination? Shut up with your smug opining from your position of privalege. SHUT UP.
#12 Posted by belowthelineguffagain, CJR on Sat 9 Jun 2012 at 04:27 PM
YES! SHUT UP MEN WITH YOUR PRIVALEGE!
I don't care about the wikipedia example - this is clearly the patriarchy at work - fiddling the database and rejecting female submissions with their mysterious device - the online gender detector.
For the last time MEN ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMMENT ON GENDER DISCRIMINATION! WOMEN ONLY! WE ARE THE UNDERDOG!!!1111one
#13 Posted by Sackcloth Queen, CJR on Wed 13 Jun 2012 at 04:23 PM
Honestly, most of the female columnists I see today write sexist crap, mommy war drama or inflammatory posts about rape for SEO clicks, so I don't see why as a woman I should support them.
In fact, I read an opinion column by a woman in the New Yorker about the tv show 'Girls' that included the words: horney, provocative, sex, fucking, orgasms, kinkiness, raw, spanking, humiliation, masturbation, dominatrix - all in the first few paragraphs. Yes, it's so sad we don't have more female columnists who can enlighten us about what women think about the major issues of today (sarcasm).
The TRUTH is that today most female columnists pander to horney men, bottom feeders, outraged mommies and "sex-positive" internet feminists because that is what SEO demands - and as a intelligent woman, I won't support that crap. I'd rather read a man's opinion than a woman trying to get men's attention by spamming her opinion pieces with porn keywords any day.
#14 Posted by I expect better, CJR on Wed 6 Feb 2013 at 11:01 AM