Jay Mariotti resigns

These days?

Carnival acts get paid.

Legit newspaper people? Not so much.

 

Ugh. Sad but true.

 

Without commenting on Jay's writing in any way, I must say that I think the whole "generates buzz" rationale for big money columnists, which may once have been valid, is dead, dead, dead as a business practice.
Jay's "buzz" is available on TV and radio so often, why make a point of buying a paper to get it? I love Michael Wilbon's writing, but knowing I can watch him on TV every day makes me much less likely to seek out the Post-even for free online.
If I ran a paper (God forbid), my columnists would work to a simple rule-we pay well, but we buy exclusivity for our money. No radio, no TV, no separate Internet presence, or no you.
The whole point of a business is to offer a product people can't readily get anywhere else at the same price.

 

Re Michael's accurate post...

The big names appeal to advertisers.

 

21, maybe so. But evidence continues to increase that nothing in the newspaper appeals to advertisers.
My personal opinion is that big names appeal to management and management alone. It's "doing something" to hire Mariotti. And if it doesn't work, at least you failed in a conventional way, meaning you are less responsible for the failure.

 

Agree with all your points, Michael. I'd sooner have my beat people doing on-the-air work, since the opinions they would offer aren't what the paper is paying them for (that would be a separate sticky wicket, though). They don't dare break news in moonlighting gigs, though, because that's for the day job. Same thing with columnists and opinions. That's what the paper pays for. They shouldn't be selling it twice, to competing media.

Otherwise, if they're such multi-media darlings without owing the paper exclusivity, let them bundle their various gigs as 1099 workers and spare the paper from shouldering full-time money and benefits.