National columns from local writers

Yeah, I'm sure Bob Ryan has never met Barry Bonds and/or has not met numerous people who are familiar with Bonds. And no, I'm not going to buy my local paper if it's not going to give me something I can't get elsewhere.

 

I don't buy the nearest daily because it bores the shit out of me and does a pathetic job of covering news outside the county. It's a joke. Of course I can get the other stuff somewhere else. But I want to read a real newspaper. So I do the opposite of what everyone says. I glance at the local piece of shit for free online, and we subscribe to a real daily.

 

By the logic used earlier in this thread, he apparently shouldn't be writing on him.

Of course the local paper is going to give you something you can't get elsewhere - local copy. But just because it is a local rag doesn't mean it shouldn't acknowledge what is going on in the rest of the world. It is asinine to think otherwise.

 

But let's say that paper gives you a parade of Lions/KofC/Rotary/Ruritan meetings, standalones of 8-year-olds blowing bubbles in the park, 40-inchers on the Pinewood Derby at Tinytown ES and submitted family letters? Because the trend towards hyperlocal is going to give you a lot more of that than it will the hard-hitting local journalism you hope for.

It'll be something you can't get elsewhere. Question is, will you want it?

 

Calm down. The reason to do your work well at a young age at a small publication is to learn your craft and to compile some work that might help you move on. You are not well-paid. You are usually overworked. You hope to be more in life.
Writing the occasional column on a national issue is fine. You might entertain the readers, but you will definitely learn something about the writing. Some day, it might pay off. Some day, you might get where you want to go. This happens.

 

Um, I guess I should have typed my first sentence in blue, Angola, tho I thought the sarcasm was obvious. And no, local papers don't have room to do a big national/world report. Or at least they shouldn't. Somewhere, someone has to cover the neighborhoods. And Meat, I'm not talking about tripe like that. If that's all your paper has, it's not doing its job.

 

I don't think anyone was using the logic that a small paper shouldn't acknowledge the outside world. I can't speak for others, but my point is: a columnist who opines on a national issue simply because he has the forum to do so is not serving any purpose other than his own ego.

Some people are taking this too literally, that if you haven't "met" a guy you can't write about him. That's not what I'm saying at all, although, again, I can't speak for others.

It depends on the columnist, more than anything. And it depends on the issue.

In most -- not all, but most -- cases, a "local writer" has nothing to add, nothing to say, and has no business writing a column about Barry Bonds-type issues.

 

Jay Mariotti does it quite often. Every time he writes something, actually.

 

Sometimes it's more than appropriate for someone who is a local voice, who knows the local pulse, to frame a national issue within the context of the local mindset, if not any specific impact upon the locals that differs from that upon any other Podunk, USA.

Sometimes the local mindset needs a fresh take from afar, and of course it's always possible the new point of view could come from up the street. Again, making rules in a vacuum makes little sense.

 

Don't know if Ryan has met Bonds, but I'm sure he had plenty of interaction with Jim Rice and Thurman Munson and other difficult major leaguers to have some perspective on how Bonds fits into all of this.

Earlier in the thread there was talk of getting favorable reader reaction to national columns in small papers. I'll bet if you write that Bonds' home runs should all be disallowed, you'll get a lot of people agreeing with you. Of course, the position makes no sense, but what does that matter?

 

A columnist should write about subjects with which he has experience. If an SE from Tinytown, CA has past experience covering the 49ers, then by all means write about issues pertaining to the NFL. Give me your opinion on Pacman Jones and how you have or haven't seen that in your experience. Hey, even give me your Bonds opinion since you obviously lived in the area and had a feel for what he meant to the community.
Do not, however, tell me that that Scottie Pippen is crazy for saying he's more valuable than Jordan. If you have not covered the NBA, how are you going to know what a coach or GM thinks or values? What privileged information do you have on this issue of what a Pippen-like player means to an organization compared to Jordan? You don't. It's not an insult, just an objective look at what you know or don't.
Local columns are always a plus, especially when they can work the delicate balance of being critical and mindful that you may have to buy groceries from someone you write about.
I'm saying that if you have experience with an issue, and know how to write, that qualifies you to give your opinion on said subject. Simple access to a forum does not make your opinion worthy of space in a newspaper.

 

So ... veteran NFL beat writer on a big daily gets promoted to lead columnist. Never covered an NBA game. Is he unqualified to write the Pippen column his first week as a general columnist? Or does this rule apply only to writers on small papers?