Are Mitch Albom, Mike Lupica and writers of their ilk...

still as relevant in today's landscape? As an aspiring reporter, I try to read as many journalists from as many newspapers/web sites as possible. However, it's tough to devote my time on the writings of Lupica and Albom. Is this wrong? I respect there work and if I lived in the library I would probably read their earlier works, but it may be just a generational thing?

 

Songbird with the softball shot over the left field fence. Take a curtain call, buddy.


Seriously, there is a reason why they got where they are. But you'd be better off reading the beat guys from those shops instead of the superstar columnists.

 

They may not be as revered as much anymore, but I wouldn't disregard their work, styles and accomplishments. Any aspiring journalist would be wise to look at the work of accomplished colleagues, past and present.

 

They remain decidedly short. And loud.

 

And we're off!

 

Sorry, FB, it's just how I roll. LOL

 

Doh! OK, it's a message board. THEIR work is admirable. But whenever I read something about them - mostly blogs - it's usually negative. Lupica's too busy writing about politics, Albom makes up his stuff to make it more emotional, stuff like that.

 

Detractors of Lupica will have their say, no doubt. But whether you agree with that or not, he is worth studying because the way he puts words together is so orderly and unambiguous that anyone who can read will understand exactly what he is saying. And he varies the rhythm very well: short sentence, short sentence, short sentence, long sentence, short sentence, short sentence, long sentence. Easy, like watching a pitcher with smooth delivery, or a guitarist who uses no more notes than he must. Now you can say Clapton recorded shitty songs in the 1980s (although I'd disagree), but he played them very well. And you can say Lupica made better points 20 years ago, but if you didn't know about his old stuff, if you were just discovering him now, you'd still think this guy is very easy to read. And that's why he is worth studying: clarity and cadence. If the other stuff bothers you, try to ignore it and look at the structure. Usually each sentence flows right into the next, and not everybody can do that as consistently as he does. What he says might turn off some people and they may stop reading for that reason, but no one's going to get lost in there. Everyone has bad days, but if you read him a lot, it's usually a well-maintained trail through the forest.

 

“The average newspaper, especially of the better sort, has the intelligence of a hillbilly evangelist, the courage of a rat, the fairness of a prohibitionist boob-jumper, the information of a high-school janitor, the taste of a designer of celluloid valentines, and the honor of a police-station lawyer.”

 

well said, mr ridgeway