And this growing sphere of opinion has become more varied and vibrant in some respects: Townsley’s research shows that as there has been an enormous proliferation of opinion formats, there has also been an increasing diversity of the speakers opining in them—in terms of profession. In the past professional writers and journalists used produce a far greater share of opinion content; now op-eds and punditry come increasingly from experts in particular fields like government, science and economics.
Yet, these changes have failed to translate to demographic diversity at the top in the nation’s most influential opinion space; instead they have ushered in the gender gaps that exist in other elite segments of society: among the tenured faculty, politicians, business executives, and think tank types who write opinion pieces. In other words, more than becoming less white or less male in recent decades, the pundit class has become more diverse only in the sense of being less journalist.
What kind of diversity really matters?
This picture of the pundit’s new prominence in American media raises broader questions than about the rate at which women’s thoughts appear on the LA Times op-ed page. It’s a matter of which ideas and whose voices are driving debate and shaping public opinion.
“The OpEd section should make you think, challenge your assumptions, be well written, well argued, but beyond that it should make the reader feel that their opinions are represented there,” says Richard Prince, Diversity Committee chair of the Association of Opinion
Journalists, who also writes a diversity column for the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education. “All those reasons are reasons for diversity.”
Every editor I talked with told me diversity matters, the question of how to achieve diversity and what that really means on op-ed pages remains an open question.
Editors told me that though they hope for a gender- and ethnically-balanced page, most said that achieving this is secondary to having an original, provocative and topically-diverse page. Almost all the editors I spoke with bristled at the notion of any sort of diversity ‘quota,’ or the sort of rigid prescription for the op-ed pages like that once applied to USA Today’s front page (For many years, the paper mandated the mention of at least one woman and one person of color above the paper’s fold; and indeed, USA Today has long led newspapers in diversity statistics.)
“It’s not just that you want men and women, you want really different people with really different backgrounds. Aiming at varieties of experience is just as important,” says Trish Hall, the op-ed editor at The New York Times. Hall’s section gets 1500 submissions per week, and she receives many more sent to her personal inbox, but they’re not often from the sort of unheard voices she wants more of; they’re largely from the opinion industry. “The hardest thing to find in this deluge of opinions is something that you haven’t actually read before. There’s not that much original thinking going on.”
That’s a worthy priority; it’s also one we’ll bet is easier to achieve with more voices of women and members of minority groups in the mix.
Correction: The original version of this piece mentioned that Richard Prince was a columnist at USA Today. Prince is not a columnist at USA Today, but is Diversity Committee chair of the Association of Opinion Journalists. The relevant sentence has been corrected. CJR regrets the error.

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