National columns from local writers

Agree with the bolded.

As far as the second part, I don't see it as saying our readers are too parochial as much as it's admitting that -- in most cases -- it's just a writer with no sources, little insight and a lot of ranting/raving opinion about a national issue ... who's talking out of his ass, and what's the point in that?

Depends on the writer and depends on the subject, but usually: it's sports talk radio -- in writing.

 

I work at a tiny daily in the middle of nowhere.

I'm new to the area, and not a sportswriter. I cover news, but write a weekly sports-themed column.

Because I'm relatively new, I don't write columns about local sports--it's only high school here. Our sports guy runs the "congrats to so and so, and good luck to our local teams" columns...which I hate by the way.

My columns focus on national issues and they are the highest read pieces in the paper--not bragging because it isn't saying much. I put a fresh spin and perspective--I think--on every one of them.

Some people hate me, while others hate me but say, "thanks for the perspective."

No matter what you write, the point is to get people talking about the paper. Word of mouth in a small town spreads quicker than Linda Cohn's legs at a rave hosted by John Clayton.

 

BING! BING! BING! Winner!

Outside of a certain demographic or two, there's just not that much water-cooler talk about preps outside of big rivalries and state playoffs. And in that demographic, they're more interested in seeing their kid's name in the paper (preferably in fawning boldface) than they are in noteworthy, original writing.

 

Columns by local writers should preferably be about local athletes or events, but it shouldn't be limited to that. The biggest part about a column is having the freedom to be objective whether positive or negative. Everyone here knows you can't rip a kid for throwing to the wrong cutoff man or for taking a third strike with the winning run on third. At the same time when a kid does something that may have gone under the radar might be a good column idea. But sometimes local columns can turn into a story with a headshot.

I work at a paper that's within 90 minutes of two major media markets so I've definitely written national columns. That said I haven't written one in a while b/c I haven't felt compelled to. If you're going to write a national column I say that's fine, but be educated about what you're writing about and have some kind of argument.

 

Almost every national column I"ve read by columnists from smaller papers have been superficial with no new insights, showing no more of a perspective than one of their readers sitting at home blogging about it. I fail to see what that adds to that paper's value.

As far as columnists in general go, I have one big complaint, and this is even for the big names in business. More and more in recent years, even when not wrkiting live off a game, they depend more and more on quoting others. They read more like features than they do good opinionated reporting that CAN be done without five or six qauotes scattered throughout.

To me, the best columnists know how to be hard-hitting, funny, controversial, information, even shocking using their own language and insights throughout. I"ve judged contests where I will see a good columnist tun in some great stuff, and then the third or fourth offering is half quotes---for pete's sake, it's a feature---and they lose points big time for that.

Those who disagree with me will say that I"m ignoring trends, contemporary philosophy, etc., but I say good columnizing is timeless.

 

Chances are good that no matter what they write about, it isn't going to be very good. While there are some talented people who stick around, for the most part on smaller papers you have people who are inexperienced or just not very good. I would rather see them write not very well about something that would interest the broadest audience than write not very well about something of interest only to those who are quoted in the column. I was lucky that even at the 17K where I started as a high school kid, I got to cover pro sports. Were there readers who actually thought my stuff was on par with the metro's? I don't know. But the way I see it, we did no harm by running staff copy on the pros, and at least it appeared that we were trying to give readers a complete package. Now I realize that covering the pros like we did is a notch better than just writing about them from afar. But who does it hurt? Are readers really going to suffer from having one fewer column blowing a yokel? There is a weekly around here that has staff movie reviews. I certainly have better sources available for that, and their reviews aren't especially good, but I read them anyway.

 

Frank, in a way you are right. However, and I think that you will agree, the public doesn't need to read what a columnist thinks about Barry Bonds. They can make up their own minds.

 

as a former journalist now just a reader i agree with the basic common sense sentiment expressed above that if you can honestly give your readers something compelling and that they can't get elsewhere, go ahead and write about national sports. otherwise, write about what you cover.

we have this debate about once every two or three weeks here on SportsJournalists.com but newspapers are in trouble. everyone knows that. i think the only way they stay relevant is to go local, local, local. or, obviously, to give people what they can't get anywhere else. the day small town writer wakes up and realize that almost no one reads small town times for generic national stories (black coaches in the superbowl! vegas shouldn't get an nba team!) is the day small town times becomes a better paper.

 

I agree with you Leo. Going small may be the only thing that will keep papers around.

 

Most of what happens in small towns is pretty damn boring, even to people who like living there. And the small-town people who do have interesting stories usually aren't all that eager to have the "interesting" portion of their personal lives spread out for all to see. I grew up in such a place.

Just about anywhere you go, residents will have some kind of derogatory nickname for the local paper. They called the daily where I started working at age 16 "The Farmer's Almanac." The paper was edited by a peevish Ivy Leaguer who, at the time from my uninformed perspective, seemed to like nothing better than running photos of local residents holding unusually large vegetables. Many years later when I was going to interview to be editor of a paper, I tried picking his brain a bit and he bristled a bit at the suggestion we could have been a bit more inventive in how we covered local news. During that post-Watergate glut of J-school grads, he hired plenty of young reporters from top schools who would make their way to major metros, but there was little crime, few disasters beyond grisly auto accidents, fairly gentlemanly politics, and little else all this talent could dig up besides meetings, meetings, more meetings, obits and sports. The most salacious content came off the wire, bizarre tales of lust, greed and violence from around the world. How we envied the reporters in places like that.

Go hyper-local and the only people you won't put to sleep are the people at Poynter. In any market you grab readers by provoking, amusing and titillating them, and if you can't find that kind of stuff locally, you get it wherever you can. Formulas do not work. Put out the most interesting newspaper you can, regardless of where it comes from. If you have a sense of humor and an appreciation for the bizarre, you will make different choices from the wires than 95 percent of the drones who pick A-1 and Web pages everywhere else, so it is not necessarily stuff readers have already seen. Choose wisely and choose provocatively, but ignoring the vast world is dooming you to putting out a product by dullards for dullards. And the smaller the community, the worse it will be.

 

People have derogatory nicknames for big city papers, too.

My point is if someone is writing about Barry Bonds being an asshole, is he comparing him to all the other MLB players he's also never met?

 

Thanks, Frank, for having the insight so many don't.

People here get way too caught up in whether some national figure/issue has been written about elsewhere. Just because people live in Podunk doesn't mean they only care about what happens in Podunk proper. Most people aren't reading five newspapers a day online.

Think small enough, and that's how you'll end up.

Yeah, it's probably a waste to write a Bonds-is-an-asshole column. But why wouldn't/couldn't a small-town columnist weigh in how MLB should "celebrate" his accomplishment? God knows, people on this board have opinions on it. Why wouldn't the residents of Podunk?