After reading several columns by Kathleen Parker, I noticed a pattern in her writing that reveals the benefits and drawbacks of columnists in the media. As for the drawbacks, Parker gets stuck in the routine of covering similar topics in a very similar format. She frames her most of her articles around an absurdity in the world then attempts to explain it pragmatically. The structure leads to uncreative articles that become repetitive over time. Along the same lines, columnists often end up reporting on very similar issues, issues that are important and interesting to them, but not necessarily a wide range of readers. Parker exemplifies this criticism with her emphasis on patriarchal society and confronting death. These themes hit home for some readers, but an ambivalence towards them leads a columnist into obscurity.

This post should not be read as a complete criticism of Kathleen Parker, in fact most columnists are guilty of similar flaws. My favorite, and most famous, example of this is Thomas Freidman of the New York Times. While some of his articles are unique and interesting, many of them focus on the same economic themes of globalization and the Arab-Israeli conflict. He often writes pieces that are disconnected with the average reader of the New York Times, but appeals to a much smaller public. This can, however, be an advantage for journalists and the media. In my recent paper I argued that the American public needs an authoritative news source that is able to weave news stories with expert opinions. In this sense, both Friedman and Parker can be viewed as experts on their respective topics and provide readers with valuable insights into the issues that columnists deem important.

This is where Kathleen Parker’s use of a common pattern within her writing becomes valuable for her and her readers. I found that I disagreed with most of her views towards the beginning of her articles. The absurdities she mentions and attempted to justify, originally seemed, at least to me, unjustifiable. But then, Parker pragmatically explains the rationale behind such extraordinary events. For example, in her September 18^th Cyborg Romney piece, Parker successfully explains what limitations caused Romney to make the claims that he did regarding 47 percent of the American population. Her practicality and relative neutrality offers insight into otherwise politically charged issues. Although I was generally unconvinced by her arguments, she provides a tremendous framework of how to make sense of otherwise unintuitive events.

I believe that it is the transparency in her writing that makes Kathleen Parker so effective and respectable. She argues in a September 7^th column on MSNBC that the answer to the media’s problems stems from transparency. Because objectivism is nearly impossible in journalism, it is necessary to explain where a journalist is coming from before the consumer can pass any judgments on the issue at hand. Parker’s emphasis on explaining rationales and justifying beliefs offers the readers understanding of how she (and others who share her beliefs) arrive at her (their) opinions. Instead of attempting to hide subjectivity, I believe that the American public needs more journalists like Parker who are honest about their journalistic limitations.