Make room for better debate

You've gotta know that I respect the New York Times as a journalistic institution. I've defended its journalism even as I join in the mocking of its trend stories. Shrug. The trend stories--at least the fluffy ones--are harmless and amusing. The more serious ones questionable (a trend story on the struggles of low-income students should be based on more than two cases). But what really bothers me--what's always bothered me--is Room for Debate. It's a vapid waste of space. For a while, I thought it was just me, but this morning, the Times issued definitive proof that the section adds nothing to public discourse. You're the paper of record; do you really need to ask questions of people off the street--or, perhaps, people with credentials who add nothing more the the conversation than people off the street? The Style Invitational just published the following definition of a blogger: "someone with high self-esteem and a keyboard." Does anyone else find that the contributors to Room for Debate are just random people given column space?