Even for some purely political columnists, like Dana Milbank at the Post or Maureen Dowd at the Times, their ideological proclivity is secondary to their real purpose. Milbank is categorized by the Post as left-leaning, as presumably Dowd would be too. But like Dowd he is a career reporter who emphasizes humor, observation, and whimsy in his columns, often mocking Democrats as well as Republicans. When he weighs in on policy, like Dowd, he will tend to come down somewhere in the center-left—but readers do not look to Milbank or Dowd for the left’s viewpoint on the issues of the day. They read them, as one might also read a conservative like David Brooks, to be entertained.
And even among columnists who are more serious, substantive, and ideologically identifiable, their value is derived from what they cover and how they approach it. Bob Herbert and Nicholas Kristof at the Times are both liberal humanitarians. But Kristof draws attention to poverty and sexism in developing countries while Herbert shines a light on poverty, injustice, and racism in the United States. Both Kristof and Herbert are former reporters who approach their columns like reporters; their tactics are very different from those employed by, say, fellow liberal and Politico columnist Michael Kinsley, a razor sharp logician who has a law degree and a keen sense of irony.
A good opinion section will balance all these elements: columnists who specialize in argument and philosophy with those who do shoe leather reporting, columnists who cover different issues, columnists who are conservative in the sense that they believe in low taxes and oppose regulation and columnists who are conservative in the sense that they oppose abortion rights. It will also make sure that major elements of society—business and labor, scientists and clergy, young and old, urban and rural, academics, doctors, lawyers, blue collar workers, and, yes, even those despised civil servants—are represented, if not through the lived experience of one of the columnists then at least through a columnist who talks to them and attempts to understand and explain their views. These metrics cannot be easily categorized like “left-leaning” and “right-leaning” and they do not have organized movements to pressure the Post to represent them, but they are actually more important.

Why does it matter who is a lefty and who is a righty when all are willing to use monopoly force of the central govt to affect political change? The most vital scale would span from authoritarian to libertarian — not just Nancy Pelosi to Lindsey Graham.
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 17 Mar 2011 at 10:29 PM
Greg Sargent is 43, for the record, but 43 isn't calcified like the majority of the OpEd group, so yeah, he fits in with the young Ezra.
Dana Milbank is definitely not a liberal. In fact, he's had a massive man-crush on John McCain for 12 years, voted for him in 2000, Republican Chuck Hagel in 2004, Mike Bloomberg, another Republican, in 2008. He's a rabid Obama-hater, Pelosi-hater, Hillary-hater. He loves him some right-leaning Politico boyz. So how is he a "liberal"? That's just dumb.
Kinsley used to represent the liberal side in CNN's Crossfire, but he's no liberal -- in fact he's a contrarian Son of Broder, Purveyor of Beltway Groupthink, and has no actual place on the left-right continuum. That's not what he *does.*
I don't know what your definition of "center left" is -- looks like, unlike mainstreet America, the beltway's definition of "center left" is defined as better than two standard deviations to the right of median -- what we used to call "very conservative cloth coat Republican" before the extremist rightwing loonies took over. Like, Nixon was far, far more liberal than Milbank and Kinsley. Ike? FLAMING liberal commiepinko!
In fact, Ezra and Greg Sargent are about halfway between exact mean and center left. They aren't even center left. They just look center left to you from where you are sitting, which is a spot in the beltway where two standard deviations to the right of normal is your "down the middle." That means ~~95% of normal red-blooded Americans are flaming liberal, according to Beltway Elite Wisdom. Of course, out here in the real world everyone knows that empirical evidence has a liberal bias. That concept is meaningless in the Beltway Bubble, where it is all about spin and perception.
You need to get out more, Mr. Adler. (But nice piece, nevertheless.)
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 17 Mar 2011 at 11:32 PM
What is it with some of the supposed well-educated managers or writers of journalism??? Just because the "run of the mill" readers prefer celebrity gossip or innuendos over factual reporting and fact-based opinion, they too must follow along??? This looks like what James Fallow suggested in his latest article for the Atlantic about newspaper journalism needing to change to more news without fact or basic information, since that is what sells most.
Some people have always preferred gossip and have spent $50-$200 a year on celebrity magazines, fashions and gossip, tv stars and their innumerable problems brought on mostly by themselves and too much money. Those are not likely to change. Most of those magazines and "yellow journalism" news papers are either still free of charge on the street and either free online or one must subscribe for some articles yet gets others free. Washington Post should know better. It's supposed to the EDUCATION newspaper. Educating the readers in what?? Partisan politics and slander of anyone someone doesn't agree with totally?? They need to look at themselves from the outside--see themselves as others see them. or is their intent only in terms of dollars and cents as James Fallow seems to imply in April's issue of Atlantic????
#3 Posted by Patricia , CJR on Fri 18 Mar 2011 at 03:50 PM
It's particularly baffling to a foreigner, because the split is based on the American definition of left and right, which means the "center" is not only misspelled, it's also somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.
Writers like Cohen and Ignatius are merely echo-boards for the ubiquitous message of the Washington establishment to bounce off. Their purpose is to say "i'm a liberal but..." (Cohen), or "I'm an independent but..." (Ingatius) before repeating the Beltway conventional wisdom about whatever small passing country is the designated next victim.
A far better way to split the columnists would be to put all those who supported the Iraq war on one side, and all those who opposed it on the other. Then readers looking for a track record of being right could ignore the former category. Unfortunately that would include over 90% of the Post's opinion writers.
#4 Posted by Kevin Robb, CJR on Tue 22 Mar 2011 at 11:27 AM