Reilly's latest is appalling.

That's a great point. To me, the shots at Reilly's salary comes off as professional jealousy.
We, as journalists and writers, should be celebrating, or at least appreciating Reilly's success. I'm not saying I think his latest column was that great and that he hasn't written some poor ones. I can't argue against those who claim at times it seems like he isn't giving it his best effort, either.
But my personal view is this: his signing with ESPN for millions and writing for Sports Illustrated for however long he has, gives kids, and young writers like me, hope that if he can do it; if he can make millions a year in this industry, then maybe someday I can too.

Maybe that's too Pollyanna for some of you, but you can't deny that he's an inspiration to people, many of whom I'm sure who post on this board.

 

Seems to me we have kind of an apples/oranges thing at work here.

First, I didn't really make an argument toward anything, I merely suggested an alternative reading to the ones initially posted here. But I don't think this piece succeeds - whatever its intention - because it leaves too much room for misinterpretation. As was evident on this thread.

As to the second part of this, I'd refer you back to my post above. From whom would you accept the notion that our national priorities are deformed? Or that poor people deserve better? Or that major college football has become a hog wallow of conspicuous consumption? Must a writer be impoverished to write about poverty? That premise then excludes the staff of every big newspaper in the country.

I can't argue that Mr. Reilly should earn more than a firefighter does, or a cop, or a doctor. But so do movie stars and opera singers and baseball players. As much as he earns, A-Rod is unlikely to cure cancer. The decision on who earns how much for what they do is made by society at large, I think, and the idiot/genius of the market we all conspire to create. The inequities are a consequence of our collective decisions about what we value. That we mostly value the wrong things should come as a shock to no one.

But I would make a comparison between Mr. Reilly and a teacher, if only for this reason: Whoever has that back page of SI has an audience of over 3 million subscribers. About ten million weekly readers all tolled - what with passalongs and dentists' offices and so forth. It's quite a pulpit. It's also an opportunity to change a few million minds every week; to challenge the conventional wisdom; to argue; to inform; to exhort; to decry. In other words, to teach.

I'm not saying he - or any columnist anywhere - has ever done justice to that opportunity. But the breadth of his potential influence is enormous and undeniable.

He also sells magazines. Does that disqualify him from having an opinion about the fix we all find ourselves in?

 

I will bow out of the discussion because I admit prejudice. I don't like Rick Reilly, so I'm never going to buy anything he's selling in his column.

Hed Bust, if he were still around, would say the same thing.

 

Why does it matter how much Reilly is making? So any good writer who's making good coin can't write about money issues anymore? We'll leave that to kids just out of college making next to nothing, I guess. Please. It was a good story showing how out of whack some things are. He wasn't calling the OSU kid a bad kid or anything, he just used him to illustrate what the players have. It didn't seem personal and I didn't take it as though he was an ungrateful punk or anything. I thought it was a good column.

 

well said.

 

I don't think it's that hard a concept to wrap one's hands around.

Sportswriters making $2,000,000 a year seem like poor examples to talk about the distorted priorities in sports. That's all. Not just sportwriters. Ballplayers, announcers, GM's or anyone else making $2,000,000 a year are poor examples to talk about distorted priorities in sports.

Just my opinion.

 

I think there's a couple of homeless or near-homeless sportswriters who post here ... let's juxtapose them with Reilly.

 

Jakewriter said it best. There's a lot of professional jealousy at work here.

 

preferably, a writer with the combined talent of rick reilly, gary smith, s.l. price, jeff macgregor, j.r. moehringer, wright thompson, charles pierce, john ed bradley ... who just happens to work at a weekly in northwest montana and makes less than $15,000 a year.

 

After finally reading the piece, it didn't seem to be Reilly was vilifying the Ohio State player at all. He was just drawing a distinction between two classes of society, linked by their love for Buckeye football.

Yes, it was a little weepy. Isn't it sad this homeless fellow has to sleep on the street while following Ohio State football, blah blah.

But I don't find the column appalling. I don't find it necessarily very good, either. But appalling? Nah.

 

The Polson Lake County Leader is all about speaking truth to power.

 

There have been some very rich people that have done a helluva lot more for the poor than a lot of middle-class people have. The Reilly income thing is the reddest of red herrings