All of us at Feministing couldn't be prouder of gal Courtney, who is currently one of ten finalists in the Washington Post's "America's Next Great Pundit Contest."
[These] ten finalists will get to compete for the title of America's Next Great Pundit, facing off in challenges that test the skills of a modern pundit. They'll have to write on deadline, hold their own on video and field questions from Post readers. 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 his or her laptop.
Here's your chance to help put a feminist (and a particularly awesome one, at that!) at The Washington Post. I don't have to tell you the powerful platform that WaPo is, and how needed feminism is in mainstream media outlets. You know this. And now we have an opportunity to do something about it.
Courtney's latest column is here, and voting for the contest starts Saturday. So please get the word out - blog, tweet and Facebook the shit out of this - and help make Courtney WaPo's newest columnist!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Help make Courtney a columnist at The Washington Post!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16972
Oh my God!!!! Courtney at Washington Post!! That's so awesome!!! Sisters and Brothers!!!! Let's do what we can to help Courtney become a columnist!!! Courtney as a treat I will type down your name from a book called "The New Baby Name Survey: What Impression will Your Baby's Name Make?" by Bruce Lansky
Courtney
(English) from the court
Quite a contrast here: Some think Courtney is a tease, and others think she's a goody-goody. Most people describe her as a wild and crazy flirt who's loud, talkative, and always popular with guys. But others think she's a snobby and prissy preacher's daughter. Either way, she's imagined as short and slim.
Well what do you think? This is a game me and my cousins play.
nice. That is so awesome. I hope she gets the job :-)
I don't know, I think in order to be a "pundit" you have to be repeatedly wrong over and over again for a period of years, and refuse to ever acknowledge or discuss your many factual and predictive errors.
I'm not sure Courtney has the kind of track record you need to be a "pundit".
I can't think of a more worthy candidate. I wish her the best of luck and hope she wins. However, I need to make a serious qualification here that really has gotten under my skin and has not gotten a lot of publicity recently.
The original rules of the contest implied that the pundit in question would be a complete unknown without any sort of substantial publication history and certainly would not have routinely written for a website of any substantial audience. Instead, the contest makers have changed the rules without telling anyone. While the author of this entry does make a particularly glib characterization of Courtney's writing style which I take offense to, there is much to be gleaned from the rest of the piece.
If we want to advance that we live in a meritocracy where a complete unknown can become a success by hard work and intelligence alone, not by having the proper credentials to begin with, we wouldn't play fast and loose with the truth.
It is interesting that the other female candidate Zeba Khan is not mentioned here. It is stated on the washington post that "[Zeba Khan] ia a social media consultant for nonprofits. [she] has researched women and minority issues in the Muslim World, Islam in America and counterterrorism finance with the U.S. Treasury Department". She seems to address women's issues and religion. Why not advocate for her.