The Washington Post's media writer, Howard Kurtz, had a Web-only column posted yesterday in which he touched on the disastrous hiring of serial plagiarist Ben Domenech and conservatives in the news business in general. Kurtz's article was prompted by this piece by David Mastio over at RealClearPolitics.com which lays out the apparent step-by-step method for becoming a reporter at The New York Times or the Post.

From Mastio's piece:

You'd think from all the fury that this was the first time big media had opened up the door for somebody with thin journalism credentials and a strong political point of view. Of course, you'd be wrong. They do it all the time and, usually, they give the young politicos reporting jobs.

The difference is that the beneficiaries are usually on the left and readers don't get a hint that the MSM newbees might have a history.

Take Nicholas Confessore, for example: A few years ago, he was an editor at the left-leaning Washington Monthly. Before that he worked for the hard-left American Prospect. Now he's a supposedly unbiased reporter for The New York Times. Robert Worth, another staff writer for The New York Times was an editor in 98-99 at The Monthly. There are plenty of others.

Washington Post music critic David Segal was an editor for the Monthly in 93-94. Katherine Boo, the investigative wiz for The Post was a Washington Monthly editor in 91-92, launching her Post career a little more than a year later.

There is a literal conveyor belt from left-wing opinion journalism into straight news reporting and editing slots. The New Republic, The American Prospect and The Washington Monthly are the biggest suppliers. That opportunity simply isn't open to those on the right.

Can anyone name for me a current New York Times or Washington Post reporter who was previously on the staff of National Review, The Weekly Standard or The American Spectator? No? Maybe that's because there are none.

Kurtz's response to this charge/observation?

But I would raise this counter-question: How many people from National Review, Weekly Standard or American Spectator have applied for reporting jobs at the NYT or WP?
My sense is this: Young people who go to the New Republic or Washington Monthly do so because it's a way to break into the business, and they then try to move up to bigger newspapers or magazines. At the Post or Times, they would generally be assigned to unglamorous metro jobs, be required to prove themselves as reporters and writers and then try to climb the ladder.

But do people at NR and the Standard want to become "straight" reporters, or do they go to those magazines because they want to practice opinion journalism? I doubt that Rich Lowry or Tucker Carlson (to take two who joined their respective magazines at a young age) aspired to cover Prince George's County for The Post. They put themselves on a punditry path. And if I'm right about that, how are MSM organizations supposed to recruit from such magazines?

I hope that more people with conservative, free-market or libertarian viewpoints decide to go into mainstream journalism to balance those of more liberal persuasions. But we can't force that to happen if that's not their goal.

There are a couple of things that bother me regarding Kurtz's answer. First, would the management of the Times or Post be satisfied with their diversity efforts if Kurtz's final paragraph read: "I hope that more black, latino, gays and women decide to go into mainstream journalism to balance the numerous white males. But we can't force that to happen if that's not their goal."? Now, I'm not saying that we need affirmative action for conservatives -- I find that the stigma that would go along with such a program is too distasteful. (On the other hand, the chance to finally be a privileged "minority" might be nice since I've never been one before.) However, would the diversity number-crunchers at the major media and the professional journalism organizations that represent various minorities be satisfied with reduced numbers of blacks, hispanics and women in the newsroom if the excuse was that "we didn't get enough black, hispanic or women applicants"? That was a rhetorical question -- the answer is "no."

Second, this might not be that big of a deal if there were more identifiable conservatives on the paper's staff. They don't necessarily have to come from Ivy League schools or the "Big Three" conservative magazines to have some journalistic and conservative credentials -- OpinionJournal.com's James Taranto is a talented writer and a graduate of a third-tier public university. Oh, and then there's Don Surber. Not to mention, me!

Third and finally, I know Kurtz isn't in charge of hiring, but the article also rubbed me the wrong way beacuse of this:

From: Matthew Hoy [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 10:48 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: MHE Producer

Dear Sir/Madam,
I’m intelligent, talented, technologically adept (even when it requires a hammer), hard-working, have a great sense of humor and the right person to fill your MHE Producer vacancy.

...

No, I didn't get the job. No, I didn't get called for an interview. No, I didn't even get a courtesy e-mail saying "Thanks, but no thanks." Is the Washington Post getting politically conservative applicants who are interested in "unglamorous reporting jobs" where they would work to "prove themselves" and try to "climb the ladder?"

Another rhetorical question -- the answer is "yes."