Are these the right reasons to want to be a columnist?

In my pursuit of becoming a columnist at a smaller and worse newspaper, I just wrote the following, "I believe that I have something to say you cannot get from somebody else."

Thanks for the suggestion EE.

 

I think your biggest drawback, Mr. X, is that you are just a little too full of yourself.

 

Right reasons to be a columnist (my version):

1) Three, maybe four columns a week instead of 10 to 15 bylined stories
2) Not calling the local police once a month to find out about Player X brawling at the downtown bars the nite before
3) Not making 15 to 20 calls daily for a month during a coaching search
4) No more standing in the 15-degree cold for five hours waiting for a coach to come outside after he's been fired
5) Calling a spade a spade instead of writing the balanced version even though you would love to cut right through the BS
6) Not going to practice every day to ask/hear the same questions/answers over and over and over again

Of course, that's from a tired beat writer's perspective.

However, I also understand that what you would shed in terms of pressure not to get beat on day-to-day news you would gain in pressure to always be "on." I bounce back quite easily from bad 15-inch stories when I'm writing two more the next day; not so easy, I'm sure, with columns.

 

A lot of us have something to say.

 

I don't understand the people who think columnists make more money.

I have not seen that at small and medium sized dailies.

The advantage, to me, is that you pretty much get to pick your own topic and you can work days if you want.

If I am an editor, my columnist is going to write features, too.

 

The only good reason to be a columnist is if you think, no, believe, no, KNOW you have something to say when you find a story.

 

It has been my (limited) experience that greater opportunity and greater access come because of one's reporting skill, not one's particular role at their paper.

The best columnists usually succeed because they are the best reporters (and, often, the best writers.) Not because their picture runs in the paper. You're fooling yourself if you think you'll automatically get better access or tell better stories just because your mug runs beside your byline.

 

The columnists I like the most aren't those who "have something important to say" or "think they need to balance the world" or "need to be more important than a reporter."

They are those who often don't realize their talent, their voice, but higher-ups see it. And when those talented reporters/writers are handed a column, sometimes against their will, they are scared shitless. So they work hard, report hard, write hard, edit hard, seek outside assistance, double- and triple-check everything because they are scared shitless and have a shot of whiskey after they have filed because they are relieved it's over. Until the next one. And once they get a few under their belt, they have more confidence to, as someone put it, cut through the bullshit. Those are my favorites. And I like to think I can tell the difference between those who start scared and find their voice over those who like to hear themselves talk.

 

Sirs, Madames,

If by "columnist" you mean "pontificator," no, those aren't the right reasons. There are none. Last thing the world needs.

YD&OHS, etc

 

Comfort the afflicted.

Afflict the comfortable.

The rest is vanity.