There are those who have suggested, by email or comment, that I read and post about some idiotic Kaplan column. Well, along with ditching Politico, I’m not longer linking to the Kaplan editorial page, unless it’s Ezra or Dionne or some kind of special circumstance, i.e. something surprisingly good (Broder did write the definitive Rahm column, IMHO) or, more likely, surprisingly bad (the key word here being surprisingly). But I will link to Jack Shafer’s excellent slam of the operation:
In a perfect world, a publication is edited for readers. In the imperfect world that we inhabit, too many publications are edited for the benefit of their staffs and their friends and associates. The Washington Post op-ed page, which hoards its space for its own, is one of the worst offenders.
An honest question along these lines: who is Richard Cohen supposed to appeal to? As awful as the others are, I can see that there might be an audience for most of it. Maybe not Michael Gerson either, but I can imagine some theocons liking his column (though I suspect most of them think he’s an asshole too). Does anyone like Richard Cohen’s columns?
Update. I don’t mean “do any of you like Richard Cohen’s columns?’, I mean “is it possible that there exists a creature who likes Richard Cohen’s columns”. Assuming the existence of an infinitely idiotic Fred Hiatt, can a Hiatt-hired columnist write a column so inane that Hiatt himself cannot read it?