Got an opinion? Washington Post holds pundit contest

September 29, 2009

In a town (over) loaded with opinions, The Washington Post is looking for a fresh voice.

The newspaper for politics central has taken the unusual step of launching a contest for “America’s Next Great Pundit” on it’s columnist page (bottom right corner in today’s paper). POLITICS ELECTION

The field will be narrowed to 10 who will then go through a rigorous competition of writing on deadline, fielding questions, shining on video.

“After each round, a panel of Post personalities will offer kudos and catcalls, and reader votes will help to determine who gets another chance at a byline and who has to shut down their laptop,” the contest explanation explains.

Sounds like the newspaper version of reality TV.

The winner gets to write a weekly column for the Post print or online editions for $200 a column for 13 weeks (that adds up to $2,600 over three months — don’t quit your day job).

“We’ll set our promising pundit on a path to become the next byline in demand, the talking head every show wants to book, the voice that helps the country figure out what’s really going on,” the newspaper says.

UPDATE: The Post responded to our questions about Why do the contest and Why not hire the winner?  “Washington is a hot spot for political pundits, and we wanted to give our readers a different kind of opportunity to join in the conversation and debate. This is intended to be a fun contest with a great prize, though we’re open-minded about where it might lead,” Kris Coratti, spokeswoman for The Washington Post, says.

For more Reuters political news, click here.

Photo credit: Reuters/stringer (protest in front of Supreme Court over election in December 2000)


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

I would like more information on entering this contest.

Posted by francis acanfora | Report as abusive

I find it interesting that the Democrats would allow a vote in the senate finance committee on the public option plan without a clear majority to pass it. knowing full well that they would not get a single republican vote. A better strategy I believe to have whipped the vote prior to the offering and then used strong armed tactics and out-right bribery if necessary to secure the votes prior to the offing.

With only three (3) dissenting votes on the Senator Schumer’s Plan I find it hard to believe that waiting a few more days if necessary would not have hurt them to try and reel in Sens. Lincoln and Conrad, could have not hurt their cause.

I think the Obama administration and Pres. Obama specifically failed miserably in that regard. If they think for one minute if they fail to get a public option in this legislation they will be rewarded in the 2010 elections, they will be in for a very rude awakening.

Final thought: The Obama administration was able to reel in three (3) republicans to pass their controversial stimulus package….surely they could have found some way to secure two (2) transigent democrats for the public option.

Posted by Willie | Report as abusive

1)Dan rathers is the man!!!no one can take away his good name. 2)Chief Exec. Summer Redstone has no integrity, and is a coward. 3) Let me get this straight: Palin writes a book for 4 months while governor – gets paid
by the people and government; then gets paid for that
book. Where is her integrity oh,that’s right she has
none. Her own party didn’t even find her credible. THANK YOU.

Posted by angeliqueNova | Report as abusive