Issues with column writing

There are too many instances of columns that shouldn't be written. If you don't cover a college or pros on a regular basis, you're just blogging.

 

I'm not talking about calling anyone an idiot, and I'm certainly not talking about addressing college and pro stuff that we don't cover. I agree, that's weak.

What I'm talking about is when a school district or a league or the state association makes news off the field, we report on it with a straight news piece -- and then I think it would be good if we had the freedom to do commentary/analysis on the topic. And I don't mean ranting and raving or calling people out, but reasoned discussion -- almost like an editorial. Something that takes a stance. The paper seems especially sensitive when it comes to the school system.

 

You're right. We did columns on a bunch of topics that generated good discussion, even if not everybody agreed. We wrote about the state's flawed system for picking playoff teams and how local baseball coaches would like to see high schools go to wood bats, we weighed in on the state athletic association ruling against a local school's appeal to drop to a lower division, we gave opinions on possible district realignment, we wrote about how a local team was wasting a kicker who could make 50-yard field goals because they couldn't get the snap and hold down and commended area recruits for not wavering on commitments.

There are tons of great local columns that can be written without ranting and raving about the Red Sox collapse or crossing a line that makes it too difficult to do the rest of your job.

 

I agree preps and colleges and pros should all be covered differently, but big cities have prep sports, too. My views on whether columns should be written by beat writers apply to all three levels, though. The content of those columns should vary depending on the level, of course.

As far as your question, I think you provided the common reason: the veneer of objectivity. I just don't think that's a good reason, and many newspapers are changing their approach in this regard.

 

That's the kind of objectivity we should expect from beat writers and columnists. Expressing a well-thought-out, fact-based opinion shouldn't harm the "veneer of objectivity."

 

If I think your opinion isn't fact-based, is that a fact or an opinion?

 

If you don't think my opinion is fact based, you are just wrong.

 

Here's my thing about column writing at weekly and small town places: Is your opinion valuable and credible?

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's valuable for other people to read. If you are in town a long time and a trusted person in town, then perhaps your opinion carries weight. But, if you are there only a couple of months, or years, is your opinion valuable? Or, is it vanity?

You have to pitch why you think your voice is important and what it will add to the discussion. Also, is your opinion good reading?

I am not saying smaller places shouldn't have columns, I just think from my own experience that columns are overused on the sports side. A writer who is a columnist has a difficult time straddling lines of fairness/opinion. Perhaps the powers that be don't value your opinion?

It's a legitimate question. There has to be need for a column, and, that writer has to have credibility for it to have any kind of impact. If it doesn't have that, then it's just vanity.