Pundits

By Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor

I know it's usually the winner who bounds on stage to offer thanks, but now that America's Next Great Pundit has been chosen, I'd like to preempt Kevin Huffman with a few thanks of my own.

First, to everyone who participated -- reading and watching the contestants, commenting on their work, voting at each round. Thank you! Many of you put a lot of thought into the judging, and, as Marisa noted, we'd love to hear from you one more time: What did and didn't you like about the contest? Should we do it again next year? And if so, how might we improve it? 

Second, to the 4,800 people who submitted entries -- thank you as well. Narrowing down to 10 was the hardest part of this contest, because so many of you wrote well and had good ideas. It was inspiring to see how many people really wanted to use this opportunity to be a force for good in the world.

Third, to Zeba Khan, our runner-up, and the other finalists. What we asked you to do is hard -- writing and blogging on deadline, coming up with ideas, responding to questions in real time on video. Hardest of all, of course, is to put yourself out there to be rated and critiqued. I thought you all had impressive strengths, and I was glad we left the final winnowing to readers, because I would have had a hard time choosing. So thank you, too.

Finally, to Kevin. You didn't lead the voting in every round, nor were you the judges' pick every time. But you were consistently talented enough in every format to survive each round, ending with an impressive victory among voters in the finals. A good columnist has to both have something original and useful to say, and give readers a sense of his or her personality. You did both, coming across as someone who is smart, incisive and -- this was the key -- funny without being mean-spirited. I'll save the thanks for you until you have delivered what I expect will be three months of stellar writing.

No pressure, though.

The results are in.

Kevin Huffman wins the title of America's Next Great Pundit, and along with it a three-month contract with The Post and a launching pad into the world of punditry.

Kevin received 4,622 votes in the final round of voting. Runner-up Zeba Khan received 4,062.

Back in October, when editorial page editor Fred Hiatt hosted a Q&A with readers about the pundit contest, someone asked about his feelings toward humor submissions. The answer:

I'm for it. I also think it's very hard to do. As someone who reviews scores of oped submissions every day, I can tell you that humor is frequently attempted, only rarely successful.

Kevin Huffman tried for humor anyway. Several times over during the course of the contest. And most of those times, he was pretty successful at it -- prompting a number of readers to comment that he made them laugh out loud. Part of what makes Kevin a promising pundit, though, is that beneath the humor he is fluent in politics, comfortable delving into a range of topics and has a knack for teasing out fresh insights and drawing interesting connections. We look forward to reading what he comes up with when he starts to write regularly for Post Opinions.

For now, we must say thanks and goodbye to Zeba Khan: who entered the contest with little opinion writing experience but who demonstrated an ability to write clearly and persuasively. We'd love to see Zeba relax a bit into her writing style. But we have no doubt we'll be reading and hearing more from this smart young woman.

And so we bring the inaugural season of America's Next Great Pundit to a close. And we leave the final word to you. What did you like, or dislike, about the contest? What should we do differently if we do it again? What would you look for in an initial entry to help predict whether a contestant can produce more than one strong piece? How much should readers or judges be able to influence the outcome? We'd like to know what you think.

By Autumn Brewington, assistant editorial page editor

For their final column assignment, both writers took on a daunting topic in the news, and assessing these last efforts was tough.

During this contest I have been impressed with Kevin's range and his writing. He has been amusing and even laugh-out-loud funny, and conveying humor in writing is not easy. So I was ready to be entertained by his column -- and then I wasn't sure what theme was supposed to be the comic relief: Sarah Palin's Facebook posts? That Kevin's being dragged away from football?

At first I thought the point of the column would be the controversy over the new mammography guidelines. Then I wondered what Texas's tort reform had to do with mammograms. From Kevin's use of facts and figures, I eventually got that his point was about the broader health-care debate and cost controls. Readers shouldn't have to work that hard.

It was stylistically good that he came back to the missed football at the column's end, but it was so far from the original hook that I found the reference jarring.

Kevin aimed high, and I liked that he had links to back up his data points, but I agree with Gene that the tongue-in-cheek style did not serve him well here.

Zeba's effort was less complicated, and she did a better job of hitting her target. She stuck to a basic tip in journalism: Write what you know. (She has done that in previous assignments, such as her blog post on Detroit and her initial entry, on social networks and women of the Web.) So, points for picking a topic that broadly reaches people and making it personal.

But the column moved way too slowly! She spent 108 words -- about 15 percent of a 700-word column -- on the first paragraph. It's not a good sign when I'm mentally striking out extraneous words as I'm reading (Which clause of this sentence doesn't say the same thing as the other two? "I am a 'live within my means' kind of woman, have never run up my credit cards and have always loved finding hidden treasures on the racks at Goodwill.")

I liked that she introduced information about the Freelancers Union and stuck to her theme -- high health-insurance costs for freelancers. But I wondered, as Gene did, whether President Obama had "frequently" repeated that specific line about the Democratic health plan. And I wished Zeba had spent more time answering her own question: "So why, then, is Freelancers Union founder Sara Horowitz angry at the Obama administration and Congress over the health-care proposals meandering through Washington?"

I'd say Zeba's serious column was ultimately better than Kevin's, but she aimed lower than Kevin did and her effort was a bit clunky.

By Joel Achenbach of the Achenblog

I've got to go with Kevin Huffman in this pundit contest, even while noting, with clenched jaw, face twisted in a death's-head grimace, that both of the contestants have exposed their weaknesses.

Huffman's column has Mobius-strip reasoning that makes the reader work too hard. Once again he has polyurethaned his prose with satire and snark. It's too clever by half, or maybe three-quarters -- or perhaps I just haven't woken up yet. In general, you don't want the main reaction of your readers to be, "What is he saying????"

But thematically the column works, as it jabs the conservatives for their perverse rejection ("death panels!") of evidence-based, results-oriented medical treatment. Of course, I'm pretty sure that the liberal Democrats and administration officials were equally reluctant last week to embrace the scientific recommendations for fewer cancer screenings. The simple fact is that no one in this town is willing to tell voters that they can't have everything they want. We're pain-averse to the point of pathology. With no cure in sight. (Though we do have a good screening process, known as elections.)

Zeba Khan comes at health care from a more personal angle, detailing her troubles as a freelancer who lacks insurance and needed dental work. But there is no momentum in her narrative and the prose stylings are not yet equal to her obvious intellect. So there's room to grow there.

For a pretty good summary of what it takes to be a pundit, check out Andrew Rosenthal's discussion in the Times yesterday (scroll down midway in this Q&A), which was triggered by some reader blowback over a MoDo column. Excerpt:

'Most of all, columnists are not only free to express their personal opinions, that is the primary part of their job. We pay them to have strong opinions and to express them sharply and with great style. They can choose any subject they want to write about, within the bounds of decency and appropriate journalistic inquiry (although we do ask them, with varying degrees of lack of success, to avoid directly endorsing a candidate for office)....

'While columnists must adhere to The Times's high standards of factual accuracy, they are allowed great latitude in characterizing events, people or issues in a way that expresses an opinion. They are free, for example, to say that they believe that the Catholic Church's hierarchy treats nuns unfairly, even if the members of that hierarchy deny it. They are not even required to include that denial in their columns. Columns are not required, or intended, to be fair and dispassionate accounts of events. They are by nature one-sided. Columnists may find it useful to give the opposing views on any position they take, or they may not, and it's entirely up to them.' .

By Eugene Robinson, Washington Post columnist

This is a close call. I'll get to my leanings in a minute, but first a little critiquing is in order.

If there were justice in the world, Kevin would get points for degree of difficulty. Writing a whole column with tongue planted so firmly in cheek is exponentially harder than it looks. If your name is Gene Weingarten or Jonathan Swift, then go ahead, you can pull it off. If not, it's best to try some other approach. Any other approach.

Given that he sets such a high bar for himself, Kevin does pretty well. He picks a newsy subject, covers a lot of ground, manages to work in plenty of facts and figures. But he throws in so much that he weakens the point he's trying to make, which is...  which is what, exactly? That conservatives are being hypocritical and forgetting their espoused values? That's a fair observation, but if I were arguing with Kevin I'd point out that reaction to the new guidelines seemed to cross party lines. Were liberals who didn't like the proposed change being inconsistent with their purported values as well? Or is the point that it was only conservatives who wanted to demagogue the issue?

The bit about football season doesn't work at all. Seems just random. And I assume the kicker - "You betcha" - is a Palin reference, but I had to figure that out. There's just an awful lot going on here, and in the end there's not as much impact as I'd have hoped.

Zeba lays out a simpler task for herself: telling a story. She takes her sweet time about it, IMHO - the long first paragraph covers a lot of ground before I understand that this is going to be a column about health care. There was a time when columnists could expect their readers to stick with them through long, discursive, anecdotal lead paragraphs. That time is long gone.

But I do appreciate the simplicity and directness of Zeba's way with words. You don't get the feeling that she's dancing as fast as she can, and that's a good thing. I doubt, though, that President Obama has "frequently" uttered the paragraph-long quote she attributes to him. He might have frequently made that point, but I'll bet he varied a word or two.

Zeba makes only one point in her column - and I know what point she's making, even if it's a bit vague. (I could have used another quote from the head of the freelancers' union explaining exactly how the group is prejudiced by the health-reform legislation.) It's not the most incendiary column, but it does seem actionable: Our officials should take this growing segment of the workforce into account.

So... I'm giving the nod to Zeba. As I said, it was close. But I find her piece more persuasive, and her voice sounds fresh to my jaded ear.

The results are in. After watching our contestants face off on a video panel, readers voted for Kevin Huffman and Zeba Khan to move on to the final.

Over the past three weeks, we've asked our contestants to demonstrate their versatility as pundits: to prove that they can write traditional op-ed columns, blog on tight deadlines and on a range of topics, field difficult (and sometimes snarky) questions from readers, and present confident opinions on video. We believe all of those skills are essential for an influential modern pundit. But since the launching pad we're offering is the chance to write a weekly column, we've asked both Kevin and Zeba to write one final column for the contest. We'll publish those on Monday. And we'll ask for your final vote on who should win the title of America's Next Great Pundit.

Now, based on reader votes for this past round, we have to say thanks and goodbye to Courtney Martin. Courtney was one of our most polarizing contestants. Some Readers Who Comment took to her personal, evocative writing style immediately. Other commenters said they had trouble connecting with her. We saw in her someone with a passion for ideas and a love of language. Courtney, we look forward to reading and hearing more from you.

The official round four tally is below.

CM - Courtney Martin (991 votes)
KH - Kevin Huffman (1436 votes)
ZK - Zeba Khan (2539 votes) 

Editorial writer Jonathan Capehart gave the final three pundit contestants a little tough love after their video panel challenge. Watch his critique below. And cast your vote for which contestant should advance to the finals. Polls are open 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. ET.

For a larger version of the video, click here.

The results are in. Readers voted for Kevin Huffman, Courtney Martin and Zeba Khan to move on to the next round. We're bringing our remaining three contestants to Washington, where they'll come face to face for the first time and compete in a roundtable debate. Check back Thursday for the video, and cast your vote for the contestant you think should advance to the final.

Also based on reader votes for this past round, we have to say thanks and goodbye to Jeremy Haber. Jeremy impressed us with his energetic reporting. The round two judges suggested he could be America's Next Great Reporter. And round three judge Gene Weingarten declared that Jeremy had the best answer of the Q&A: "There is a leadership vacuum on both sides." (Responding to a question on the Middle East.) Jeremy, we look forward to reading and hearing more from you.

The official round three tally is below.

CM - Courtney Martin (1166 votes)
JH - Jeremy Haber (297 votes)
KH - Kevin Huffman (1622 votes)
ZK - Zeba Khan (962 votes) 

By Post columnist Dana Milbank

Sorry to be late with my scoring. I was at a terrific event outside the Justice Department today in which Christian conservatives were hijacked by gay-rights activists. Men kissing men! In the presence of the Rev. Rick Scarborough!

I agree, as always, with everything Gene Weingarten said. Waaaaay too earnest. But I've gone about the scoring a bit differently, more like an ice skating judge, or a Dancing With the Stars judge. I believe this contest must have a certain amount of quantitative rigor, so I've gone through the chat, without paying attention to the names, noting where points should be added or deducted.

First, a point deduction for all exclamation points. The punctuation equivalent of an elbow to the ribs, and too often a show of earnestness. Kevin loses 9, Jeremy and Courtney each loses 5, and Zeba gets docked 3. 

Kevin loses a point for sucking up to Wilbon and Dr. Gridlock.

Courtney loses a point for using her middle initial and the word posole, which I had to look up.

Courtney loses a point for thinking about "important ethical considerations." Pundits and ethics don't mix.

Zeba loses a point for writing "I appreciate the sarcasm, Santa Fe." Sarcasm is a given. Appreciate it silently, please.

Kevin gains a point for writing "What is this 'blog' of which you speak?" Disagreeing agreeably.

Jeremy loses a point for writing "a good pundit should be more newsman than showman." Easiest thing in the world is to criticize the declining standards of the business.

Kevin gains a point for his unequivocal stand for Zeba.

Courtney loses a point for writing the phrase "enlivens civic dialogue." My eyes glaze over.

Kevin gains a point for dissing Fox News. Cheap, but always welcome.

Courtney loses a point for writing "I think of punditry as a public service." This is not the Peace Corps.

Courtney gains a point for writing the phrase "cut through the crap." THAT'S a public service.

Zeba loses a point for writing "With so many IDPs." Google gave me "Intern Development Program" and "Insurance Data Processing" before I got to "Internally Displaced Persons."

Jeremy gains a point for his answer to the health-care questioner. He disagreed and took it to the questioner, the way he should.

Kevin gains a point for "Dumbest-decision-of-all-time-but-it's-bellichick-so-maybe-i'm-missing-something."

Kevin scores a point for his family calling to read him the negative comments. It is a pain we all share.

Kevin scores, again, for dismissing the always overrated Twitter.

Courtney loses a point for writing "the power of engaging with those unlike us." See "enlivens civic dialogue" above.

Kevin loses a point for second mention of Brand X's Collins.

Courtney loses a point for writing "the radical potential of love" and "blatantly misogynistic" in the same unfortunate sentence.  Feels like an overwrought argument in college.

Courtney loses a point for writing "I have deep empathy" and "I care so deeply."  Do those who take a different view not care?

Kevin gains a point for his Twitter line "I need yr vote pls zeba is bcmng a jggrnt."

Courtney:  "I'm deeply committed." 'nuff said.

Jeremy loses a point for singling out Kristof for praise. Can't have too much sucking up (see above) but a little doesn't hurt.

So, will the judges please reveal their scores?

Kevin:  96
Zeba: 95
Jeremy: 94
Courtney: 88

--

Agree with Dana? Disagree? Cast your vote. 

Thoughts from Post columnist Gene Weingarten on the Q&A challenge with readers:

Bottom line: Kevin kicked ass.

Please note, all four of you contestants, what I just did there. I was quick, direct, unabashedly opinionated, I cut to the chase, I took a risk of offending, and it was kind of funny. Y'all need more of all that.

Reading this chat was fairly tedious; it is as though the four of you were competing to be mature and earnest and thoughtful and inoffensive. Nothing wrong with the first three, but that last is death for a pundit. It causes you to fail in what I consider the single primary mission of a chatter/columnist/pundit, which is to be interesting. Everything follows that. I don't care what you think if you can't deliver it in a way that holds my interest.

Not once in reading this chat did I sit upright and think, yeah! She's right; I love her! Or: no, he's dead wrong! Screw him! Both are equally valuable reactions. I have never agreed with Charles Krauthammer on any single issue, not on one individual phrase or clause or word, but I love his column. He gets me so mad. But mostly, you four are writing with a lot of waffle words, a lot of on the other hand and then again and to some extent, as though you are trying to be all things to all people. Bad, bad impulse. You are not competing to be liked. You are competing to be listened to.

My prediction is that the winner of this contest is going to be the one who manages to break away from the pack during the last two tests, and dares to offend and outrage. Someone who decides it's okay to be mean, but fair; outrageous, but supportable.

And, finally, the biggie: Where's the humor, people? Some of you acknowledged the need for it, but for 99 percent of this chat, it was entirely missing. I don't just mean my brand of humor -- any humor. Where's the sarcasm, whimsy, satire, snark? Humor is the lifeblood of successful criticism -- among other things, you can get away with much more outrageous opinion if you couch it in humor. Believe me, I know.

On the all-important issue of humor, here are your grades:

Courtney: F

Zeba: F

Jeremy: C-minus.

Kevin: B-minus.

It's lousy to win with a B minus, but we take what we can get. Kevin was mostly as earnest as the rest, but showed some chops with his answers about Facebook, and a couple of others.

The tone for this chat was set right at the beginning, with that rather excellent question about which one of your opponents would be the best pundit. The IDEA was to force you into a difficult choice; that was the whole POINT; a good pundit doesn't run from that challenge. The cleverest answer would have been to humorously damn all your opponents with obviously, patently faint praise. The most cowardly, and least interesting response was to go into some goody two shoes, boring, gosh, they're all so darn good response, which is what three of you did. Courtney was the worst. She lost me there for the rest of the chat. I just didn't respect her anymore.

Grades on this question:

Courtney: F

Zeba: D

Jeremy: C

Kevin: B.

Okay, he did it again. Won with a B. But you see a pattern developing here, right?

I'm running out of time here, but if I went on for another hour, this would all fall the same. Time and again, Kevin showed the most juice and spark, though less juice and spark than, in my judgment, he needs. To me, he's the next great pundit, but he needs to work on juice and spark.

My vote for the best single answer was Jeremy's, though. This is the guy who almost completely lost me with his incomprehensible, dense, wonkish answer having something to do with unemployment insurance being the most important issue facing America, but he redeemed himself with this, very simply, near the end, on the Middle East:

Jeremy Haber: There is a leadership vacuum on both sides.

If you have to ask why that was good, you haven't been reading carefully.

--

Agree with Gene? Disagree? Cast your vote. 

The results are in. Readers voted for Zeba Khan, Courtney Martin and Jeremy Haber to move on to the next round.

For the next challenge, our top vote-getters will be joining Kevin Huffman, the second-round winner, for a live Q&A with readers Monday at 11 a.m. ET. Submit your questions -- for the group of them or for individual contestants -- before or during the session. And starting at noon, you'll be able to cast your vote for the contestant you think fared best. 

Also based on reader votes for this past round, we have to say thanks and goodbye to Maame Gyamfi. Maame was our judges' pick for winner of round one. And during her brief time writing for us, she developed some devoted fans among Readers Who Comment. We look forward to reading and hearing more from you, Maame.

The official round-two tally is below.

CM - Courtney Martin (979 votes)
JH - Jeremy Haber (321 votes)
KH - Kevin Huffman*
MG - Maame Gyamfi (231 votes)
ZK - Zeba Khan (1101 votes)

* Judges' pick: automatically qualified for next round