Term Limits for Columnists?
Op-Ed columnists at the major newspapers provide two kinds of benefits. First, there's the benefit attached to their particular columns, which may draw attention to underappreciated problems, spark public debate on an issue, clarify some confusion, etc.
Second, there's the benefit attached to the individual columnist. Over time, after reading a body of a columnist's work, the reader gains a sense of the unique perspective the columnist represents.
The second sort of benefit diminishes over time and eventually has severely dimished marginal returns. Once we come to understand where the columnist is coming from -- his unique perspective -- reading further columns does little to deepen one's general point of view. At that point, the benefits of further reading of his op-eds are of the first type, and so whether it's worthwhile to keep reading depends on how effective his columns are at providing the first type of beneift.
I happen to believe that the benefit we locate in op-ed columnists should be primarily of the second type. The principal good op-ed columnists should be expected to provide is to deepen our perspective on the world or in a field of affairs and to lead us to see things differently.
If I'm right, then we have good reason to place term limits on columnists, so that we regularly have the opportunity to read new writers who provide a fresh perspective on things. Thus, unless the columnist is exceedingly skillful at providing benefits of the first sort (e.g. those who are excellent writers or who have expertise in a difficult subject, such as business or economics), he should be given a limited time to write, before passing the column to another writer.
Let's face it: at this point, do we need even to read a column by Nicholas Kristoff, Bob Hebert, or Tom Friedman to know what they think about X? No, we can predict what they think, because we have read enough of their columns to know their general perspective.
Thus, whether or not to keep them as columnists should depend on the question whether it's worth reading how they express the thoughts we expect them to have about the issue. Will we learn anything fresh or new from their columns that we couldn't learn by reading about it elsewhere? Will be derive special enjoyment by the way they say it?
Pick any prominent columnist and the answer is probably no.
5:54:47 PM 
|
