Ask The Post

This Week: Susan B. Glasser , the new assistant managing editor, Outlook, was online Wednesday, Feb. 15, at noon ET to discuss the future of The Post's Sunday Outlook section and its analysis and commentary on politics, cultural issues and current events from local, national and international perspectives.

The transcript follows.

____________________

washingtonpost.com: Thank you for joining us. This discussion will begin momentarily.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Congratulations. I thought the Outlook section on Sunday looked and read better than it has in years. It was lively and fresh and provocative. What else can you do to compete with the Internet and all the other ways we get commentary and analysis these days?

Susan B. Glasser: Thanks to everyone for all the great ideas about Outlook -- it's one of the great pieces of real estate in the Sunday Washington Post, and I'm honored to have the chance to help shape a section that helps shape the Washington conversation. In the coming weeks and months, we'll be experimenting with many new ways of bringing different voices and views into Outlook and also thinking of new ways to make Outlook online reflect the new world of commentary on the Internet.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: I noticed you had a Slate columnist on your pages Sunday. Is this going to be an ongoing feature? I love Slate and would enjoy seeing some of their work in the paper.

Susan B. Glasser: I too am a big fan of Slate, and thrilled that they have become a part of the Washington Post corporate family. It's a sharp, witty, provocative online magazine that touches not only on politics but culture, technology, science, the arts. So part of the Outlook experiment will include working with Slate writers. To start, that will be Dahlia Lithwick, Slate's keen-eyed legal affairs writer, and Will Saletan, who has a terrific eye for the offbeat and writes regularly on science and technology and how they are reshaping policy discussions.

_______________________

St. Simons Island, Ga.: I want to compliment The Post on Outlook. Your predecessor did an outstanding job and I wish you well. My question relates to the current state of political discourse. Your predecessor expressed disappointment, which is consistent with the conventional wisdom. I see it much differently. Today's discourse is tame compared to the political discourse during the time of our Founders, who were notoriously thin-skinned. My goodness, the VP, a Republican, disliked the opposition, the Federalists, so much he resorted to homicide! What do you think?

Susan B. Glasser: Thanks much for the observation -- in defense of partisanship! Actually, you've stolen one of our story ideas... Washington conventional wisdom often tends to lament the lack of civility and bipartisanship, pining for the good old days when everybody on Capitol Hill went out for a drink at the end of the night. There certainly is a case to be made for a real clash of ideas as the foundation of the American political system; then again, I'm not sure today's partisan antics would meet that test. (Too wishy-washy? well, we haven't written the piece yet...)

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Will you be planning any changes in the political or sociological philosophy of "Outlook?"

Susan B. Glasser: I'm not sure that Outlook has a political philosophy. Indeed, my philosophy for the section is that it should aim to provoke thoughts, stimulate discussion, and spur the conversation with novel reporting and analysis from a variety of viewpoints. I'm happy to publish viewpoints that differ from my own; what I don't want is for a section that seems predictable (in any political direction) or that fails to deliver top-notch, original writing and thinking.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: What's it like as a woman to work at The Post? I read a report online, authored by an in-house diversity committee, which I believe is authentic (Is it? It was dated Dec 2005). The resulting portrait of The Post is that of a back-biting, hierarchical environment where some reporters are designated stars and others are ignored. There seem to be some things that will give you a leg up, the report seems to suggest -- primarily, being a white guy who went to Harvard. As a nosy reader, I'm curious about the settings in which our news is produced. From the article about your move to Outlook, it seems that you've done well in winning promotions - are you an anomaly among the women on staff, and what's the reason for your success?

Susan B. Glasser: Thanks to the nosy reader. Indeed, there has been an important diversity report just written internally at the Washington Post. I suspect that the conclusions about a back-biting hierarchical staff are common among all large institutions. The great value of this report, though, is that it challenges us to be creative -- creative in promoting diversity on our staff, in the voices and views we publish in the paper. For Outlook, that will mean an aggressive rethinking of who we go to for commentary and reaching out to writers and thinkers who haven't been part of the section in the past.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Susan: Many congratulations on your appointment, and to The Washington Post for bringing someone to this position who will make a difference. It seems important for the Outlook section to have its own niche i.e. something that is value-added in the massive amount of media that we all read and see. Specifically regarding coverage of the Middle East, we need more dialogue, more back and forth, particularly with those on the ground. First, do you agree? Second, how to create this dialogue?

Susan B. Glasser: Value-added is a good way of putting it. We know there's never been more competition for our readers' limited reading time. I'm curious to know what you think about the section? What's missing from your Sundays that belongs in Outlook but isn't there? What kind of dialogue would catch your attention enough to stop and read in?

_______________________

Blogosphere: When you were appointed, you were quoted saying that in the Internet era "opinions and controversy have become the currency but reasoned commentary and analysis are sometimes missing from that new digital equation." Do you mean to say that the MSM has a monopoly on "reasoned commentary" and the blogosphere only offers cranks and idiots?

Susan B. Glasser: No question there are cranks online and off. I think Jim Brady's piece in our issue this Sunday made an important point -- there is no such thing as "the blogosphere" or the MSM; it's merely a wild oversimplification. When it comes to the role of Outlook, the goal is to offer reasoned commentary and analysis, both on the Internet and in the print edition.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: How do you think Outlook is or should be distinctive from the New York Times' Week in Review section?

Susan B. Glasser: Outlook isn't limited to the Week in Review rubric -- we can look ahead as well as back, and outside the ebb and flow of weekly events. The section also has the unique benefit of being conceived as a sort of public common -- where the voices of our staff writers are published side by side with those of a broad array of outside contributors.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: I noticed that there seem to be a lot of Washington Post writers contributing to Outlook on Sunday. Will we see more of your own staff in the section regularly from now on?

Susan B. Glasser: Washington Post staff writers have always been important contributors to Outlook -- and I hope to attract many of our best writers to the section. It's a great opportunity for them to write about different subjects or in different ways. We're also launching a fellowship for a Post staff writer to write exclusively for Outlook for six months at a time, an exciting chance for people from around our newsroom to report and write distinctive pieces for us.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Since Dana Milbank appeared on MSNBC wearing an orange safety vest and hat, can we assume he will have more time to write funny op-ed pieces for both your section and the weekly opinion pages of The Post?

Susan B. Glasser: Dana -- orange outfit or no -- has a standing invite from us.

_______________________

Orange, Va.: I was surprised by the prominent display (first page of Outlook) given to Jim Brady's "Why Is Everybody So Mean To Me" column on Sunday. No doubt he's entitled to that sentiment but such a column seemed a little too navel-gazing compared to the usual stories/columns featured prominently in the section

Susan B. Glasser: We published Jim's piece because it seemed a valuable moment to take stock of lessons learned; washingtonpost.com and other important news media web sites have the technological ability as never before to integrate outside opinions and comments from potentially millions of readers worldwide. What happens when a few hundred bad actors pollute that public space with vile language and outrageous personal attacks?

_______________________

Upper Marlboro, Md.: What criterion is used to determine who will be published in the Outlook section? Can a non-politico, non-A lister without a Ph.D. or other extremely prestigious title have an interesting opinion published? I note that most of the writers have several degrees in their field, or are long-time pastors, or reporters, or "Dr. Soandso from Harvard", or a Cong....you get the picture.

Susan B. Glasser: Assembling a section like Outlook is by definition a subjective enterprise -- there's no checklist for who can write a piece. And certainly no Ph.D requirement (if there were, I suspect you wouldn't see many pieces by the Post staff). We are overwhelmed by submissions to our email Inbox, by regular readers as well as Harvard professors. We simply don't have space to print the vast majority of them.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: What about humor? Sometimes the newspaper seems so deadly serious, I look for something more light hearted on Sundays to relieve the steady drumbeat of bad news.

Susan B. Glasser: We are in favor of funny. Definitely in favor of it.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: I thought that your articles, "Why Russia Still loves Stalin" and "Blog Rage" were both great this weekend.

What I like most about the Outlook section is that you can present events in depth and length without trying to manufacture an exaggerated pulse that resembles breaking news from the A-Section.

My favorite (for obvious reasons) are world news stories, where I think that you're one of the best around.

Many thanks. It's an incentive to scrounge up the latest issue of The Post.

Susan B. Glasser: Thanks for the kind words -- and close reading of the section. We're hoping to make it even easier to find Outlook content online when you're a reader in Germany, or anywhere outside our print circulation area. And having just returned from nearly four years as a foreign correspondent for the Post based in Moscow, world news is certainly on the top of my list as well.

_______________________

RE: Blogosphere : To the poster, not that Susan needs anyone helps defending her. She did the use the word SOMETIMES in her quote, did you even see it? Further, do you realize "sometimes" doesn't mean all the time?

..."you were quoted saying that in the Internet era "opinions and controversy have become the currency but reasoned commentary and analysis are sometimes missing from that new digital equation."

Susan B. Glasser: Good point...

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: In terms of the value-added that Outlook can bring to its readership on any given Sunday, there are two areas that I would suggest. Both will take some outreach to find. First, whatever the topic (I have used the Middle East), one needs to get some of the more balanced (or perhaps sometimes not) and/or insightful writers from Egypt and Jordan and Saudi, who DO exist, to submit articles. And then to provide an equally balanced response or counterpoint (from the region, not necessarily U.S. voices). Second, it would be helpful to survey who has been writing what for Outlook in recent years. If men are writing for Outlook on the Middle East mostly, get some opinions from one of the many qualified women writers. If women are writing mostly on topics of psychology or family or whatever, need to make a concerted effort to get male writers. And perhaps more dialogues with US decision-makers on how the U.S. will be proceeding on various policies, foreign and domestic, in the near term. Dialogues which give more texture, depth and context to where the country is going.

Susan B. Glasser: A lot of important points in this reader's comment. First of all, the urgent need to find writers in the Middle East who can contribute in a reasoned way -- this, of course, is not as easy as it sounds in theory. Second, do we choose women writers to write on historically 'soft' subjects, like home and family? answer is yes, of course, dictated in large measure by the fact that many more women than men pitch stories on those topics. Do we want women writing on the Middle East and men on the mommy track? Absolutely...

_______________________

Radford, Va.: You say "both on the Internet and in the print edition." Does that mean you plan to do more with Outlook on the Web site?

Susan B. Glasser: Definitely. The advent of the Internet era has spurred many thoughts of innovation here at the dinosaur print edition -- and one of mine is to try to find as many creative, innovative ways as possible to work with our cousins at washingtonpost.com. We'd like to think in terms of Outlook online as well as Sunday Outlook.

_______________________

Pollute that public space: Yes, but just last week you couldn't look at the blog postings on the baseball stadium without being informed that D.C. residents are all "crack smoking thuggish darkies", or "queers protecting a gay Disneyland", and no one from The Post's civility police did a bloody thing.

It seems like some targets of comments are more equal than others when it comes to this issue.

Susan B. Glasser: Is the reader suggesting these hateful postings were on our web site or on 'blogs'? Does the reader want the civility police blocking all insulting speech, or just speech that insults that particular reader? These are not easy lines to draw...

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: When you put together Outlook, do you look for a certain mix? Is a certain amount of space devoted to international, politics, humor etc. - or do you just go with timely, well-written pieces rather than content balance?

Susan B. Glasser: Good question. Since this is just my second week here, I can't say I've got a fixed view on this yet. I suspect the goal is a mix over time rather than making sure each issue hits every note.

_______________________

London, United Kingdom: What is the relationship between Outlook and the editorial pages? Since they appear in your section on Sundays, does that mean you edit them that day of the week?

Susan B. Glasser: Important point: Outlook is entirely separate from the editorial pages. Here at the Washington Post, the newsroom and the editorial pages are completely independent operations. And Outlook is a part of the newsroom. Fred Hiatt is the editor of the editorial section and reports directly to our chairman. It's understandably confusing to readers, though. As Len Downie, our executive editor, likes to put it: Outlook is the door in the wall that separates editorial from the Post's newsroom.

Thanks to all for the many questions and thoughtful comments -- I look forward to hearing from you in the future as we continue to experiment with Outlook and think of new ways to shape the section.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.