Mariotti strikes back

Howard Cosell was Cliff Huxtable compared to Jay Mariotti.

Being confrontational is one thing. Going out of your way to be a flaming asshole in every conceivable circumstance is another.

 

Am I the only one who thnks this all has a Vince McMahon feel to it and Sun-Times management is now encouraging this public "in-house" pissing contest as a possible way to drive circulation, Web hits, etc.?

 

That's the conventional wisdom, but if I've heard Mariotti's rants all over TV and radio, why do I need the newspaper? It's just a written transcript of the stuff he's already spilled. I would argue that all this broadcast exposure makes the actual newspaper less essential.

 

At a minimum, if two of your columnists are going to have a newspaper feud, which I do not necessarily think is awful, you have to make them do it in the newspaper and the newspaper only. Smasher is right, don't give the controversy away.
The idea of the star columnist was (and I agree with Frank that I'm not sure they have an effect) he or she would be must reading. "Did you READ what Mariotti/Columnist X wrote today." not "did you HEAR what Mariotti/Columnist X SAID today."
Were I a publisher, god forbid, nobody in the sports section could do talk radio or TV, period. I'd pay 'em good, but if they wanted to a no-work multi-media empire, they could call Bristol, Conn. and look for work.

 

Agree with your second paragraph, absolutely, VLM.

In fact, I would offer that one way for the Sun-Times to make a major splash -- if only for a few weeks or months -- would be to dump Mariotti in the most public way possible and then hire an anti-Mariotti. By that I don't mean some lap dog for the local franchises -- I mean a writer who also can be touted for his fairness, his consistency of opinion, his likable personality, his willingness to do leg work and actually "report" for his columns. Show the audience that the Sun-Times is about better things than simply harboring and unleashing a pit bull on one of the areas in Chicagoans' lives that is meant to be fun and light (sports). Better to unleash the hounds on City Hall, corporate bullies, etc.

With some semi-clever marketing, the Sun-Times at this point could get as much mileage, or more, by shedding the one-note Mariotti than it ever got by creating him. And save a bundle of dough from Mariotti's future contracts.

 

No columnist in his/her right mind would go to the Sun-Times right now.

 

THey're not going to dump Mariotti now. They just locked him into a new contract.

 

Every major metro should have a Mariotti (or at least a toned-down version); the irreverent piss-and-vinegar contrarian who throws cold water on the parade of happy-happy joy-joy pumped out by the PR flacks employed by the various franchises.

But as one voice among several, NOT as the unchallenged lead voice of the sports section. When all you pump out is piss and vinegar, the mixture slides more and more to the "piss" end of that formula, until all you get is piss, piss, piss.

 

If what you say is true, why do the New York Post and Daily News do better than many broadsheets? And why are the broadsheets that attract high-end readers and advertisers buying out laying off writers and copy editors left and right, while the Post has a full-time writer to do a minor league baseball notebook?

The goal should be to get the most people to buy your paper, period, regardless of how much money they make or what things they buy. If your product captivates the readers better, they'll come to you. And the advertisers will either have to do the same or not reach as many potential customers.

Don't give a damn whether readers love you or hate you. Just make sure they read you (ie, buy your paper).

 

The New York Post loses more money than almost any other US newspaper. It is subsidized by Rupert Murdoch's money-making operations for reasons known only to himself. Never, ever cite the Post as an example of a paper that is doing things right economically.

 

I stand corrected on that. But the Daily News has two baseball columnists (Harper & Madden), an NFL columnist (Myers), an NBA columnist (Lawrence), a media columnist (Raissman), a college columnist (Weiss), at least four general columnists (including a surely expensive Mike Lupica) and all those beat writers and general assignment writers. How can they afford all that? Do they lose money like the Post does?

 

Yes, but less. They are subsidized, to a lesser extent, by publisher Mort Zuckerman who enjoys mouthing off in public and owns the News as a means to that end.