National columns from local writers

Because that's exactly what it is: an opinion, too often a self-serving one that isn't backed up by anything of substance. It's no different than a listener who calls in to sports talk radio or some guy spouting off at the end of the bar. Why should my opinion mean anything more than theirs, when my "background research" consisted of likely the same thing theirs did -- watching ESPN, browsing the Internet, etc.?

That's not to say that a small-town writer shouldn't have a chance to weigh in on big issues. But you've got to really pick your spots, and have something to say. If you've got something to add to the "MLB-celebrates-Bonds" issue, then by all means.

But if your column consists of a compilation of lame jokes and insults that you shouted at the TV during the 6 p.m. SportsCenter ...? Don't waste your time, or your readers'.

 

Frank has nailed it dead on.
I used to have a weekly column at the small paper I was at and I would write about whatever the hot topic was, I would compare it to what people were talking about at the local bar.
My columns were not features, they were true opinions and some were humorous.
If there was a decent local topic, HS, JUCO or the D1 program up the road, I would write about it and state an opinion.
But how many of those chances do you get in a year? I'd estimate 20-30, so the rest were national columns.
And they were well taken and I'll boast one year I took APSE top 10 in columns with the clincher being a Ted Williams death piece.
People love commentary and in a small town, the local columnist, if they stick at it, becomes a known commodity.
I got more feedback on columns (national and local) then anything else I wrote (game or feature) because they appealed to all of our readership.
So, anyways, this hotshot exec ed, tells me no more national columns, local only.
I told him if there's a good compelling local topic, I would write about it like I always had done but our readers also care about national topics. He said, that's why we have Litke and Dahlberg.
But does any local reader know who they are? Or care?
Well, that was the end of the column because I was not going to write glorified features. Again, I say, columns are opinions, not features.
We had a former SE who was here for 35 years and then continued his weekly column another 20+. Rarely were they local columns, but he had an 80 percent readership, the only things higher were obits and the police blotter.
People knew him and wanted to know his opinion. Sometimes you have to look through the forest to see the tress.

 

So why should a Dan LeBatard write about Bonds?
Or a Bob Ryan on a non-Boston topic?
If you go by that, a metro columnist should only do columns on their market.
I bet if you took 4 quality Podunk columnists and put them on "Around the Horn," they would just as well as Mariotti, Adande, Colinshaw and Paige on any topic outside their metro area.

 

Um, because there's a good chance that they have talked to Bonds or at least to a lot of people connected with Bonds. Usually, an opinion is greatly strengthened or weakend by the intimacy of the information you have, or the lack of such. I will grant that a small paper columnist commenting on a national issue isn't as much of a waste as when the Orlando Sentinel covered a Texas high school football story.

 

Well, if you're going to just assume the guy doesn't know how to write a column, then don't have him write anything.

I'm with patchs and Frank here.

This local-local-local stuff is the Kool-Aid du jour, and it's big selling point is that it's cheap. If people only cared about local, they wouldn't tune into ESPN. They'd watch the local sportscasts, because ESPN ain't giving them the local high school scores.

 

The point isn't that people want only local. The point is that ESPN is not giving them local news, and your local paper can own that franchise. And if a local columnist can't make local sports news interesting for readers to discuss and chat about, then that's another issue altogether.

 

No, not that they can't write -- that, often, they don't have anything to say. Something unique, something to add, something to think about. Anything to think about.

If they do, then fine; they can write about whatever they want. But I don't see the appeal -- to readers or to the paper -- in regurgitating what people hear all over sports talk radio and continuing that level of discourse about the national issue du jour.

A columnist's focus should be this: have something to say. And too many small-town writers who opine about Barry Bonds or the uber-popularity of the NFL, just because they have the forum to do so, don't have a damn thing to say.

 

But I think this is where the big-time local emphasis misses the point: the local paper, unless it's a real rag, already owns the franchise. It's almost like having the predomiant seafood restaurant in town and cutting out the steaks so you can sell codfish cakes. Again, unless the paper blows, they already get the important local stuff covered. The question now is how low do we set the standard for newsworthiness, and will it bring in more readers or just diminish the product?

And hyperlocal, at least as I've been exposed to it, is another beast. There the emphasis is on "community correspondents", i.e. free copy from biased sources. I honestly think the goal of the hyperlocal publication and/or website is to eliminate the paid, impartial reporter, or at least reduce greatly their presence.

None of which has a lot to do with the topic at hand, so here goes: Most small-town papers, daily and non, don't NEED a columnist. Worry about covering the stuff that needs to get covered, and if you have someone on staff that can write a good column, then let them at it. But most people there CAN'T write columns, be they local, national or international. There's other ways to serve and entertain your readers.

 

How is having your columnist comment on the local sports scene in a way that puts things in perspective and elicits strong comments "diminishing the product?" If mere competency is the issue, there are probably some metros that shouldn't be running columns.

 

There are a lot of large papers a good distance from major sports that they don't cover. Can columnists from Buffalo, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Jacksonville, New Orleans, San Antonio, Las Vegas and Portland never opine about MLB? Does a columnist in Buffalo have better access to MLB than a columnist in Glens Falls, and will his opinion necessarily be more informed? I don't think so. I think it depends on the talent of the writer.

 

If they do it in such a way, yes. But how many columnists at sub-50K papers would you expect to do that? And how many more columnists are going to go the "go team go!" route? Every time I've seen local columns at small papers, they tend towards pandering and cheerleading.

Besides, my complaint is this idea that going extreme local is going to help "own the local franchise" that they already should own. I'm talking staffing youth baseball like it's the World Series and the Lions Club meeting like it's the State of the Union, that sort of thing.

 

But people have been making the point that small-paper writers are unqualified to opine about Barry Bonds because they haven't met Barry Bonds. Well, plenty of big-city columnists haven't, either.