The Economics of the Big-Time Columnist

Yeah. A lot of them are these people called columnists. More homers than you realize, and more mail-it-in folks, too.

I want to clarify my post, since we seem to think all that matters around here are the same nine goddamn people this board always discusses. The disparity isn't about Plaschke or Posnanski. They're the ones who earn it. Even SAS, love him or hate him, earns it - he'll take any old stance, work that stance for 1,200 words, go half-nuts in a column. I may not like it, but he earns it. Same, sigh, with Whitlock. And Albom. And Lupica. And LeBatard. And Canzano. And all the others frequently spoken of on this board.


I'm talking about the 300 other columnists the board doesn't mention. About half those guys and gals - they're average and indifferent. They don't take stands, they don't make much of a difference, they don't much care.

There are a lot of columnists who are average or below who, in proportion to the rest of the sports staff, way too much. I don't say this because the columnists I've worked with were like this; I say this because I read, I know what a lot of them make in proportion to co-workers, and it ain't much of a return.

 

You know what else they're going to do? Video -- be a live face/personality as well.

 

How much of that is a product of their work environment, though? Some columnists might be told to stray away from hot-button local topics because the corporate overlords have a dog in the fight (not that I know that this happens, but I'd be willing to wager it does in places). Some SEs may actually WANT the dead tree sports talk host, someone who delves into first-person rhetoric and doesn't push the issue past amplified bleats (this is a particular problem with the small papers where the guy who covers high school sports four days out of five writes about how he thinks the Braves are stupid for not making a deadline trade or whatever nationally is on his mind, becuase that's how he's conditioned to think).

And part of it may also be how newsrooms view the columnist position. If you think it's the top of the mountain, nowhere to go from here, and that view is reinforced by the way the bosses treat it, then what's the motivation in pushing harder? You're already the ranking writer on staff; what gain is there in pushing?

 

That's not true, though. There was no significant impact on Daily News circ when Lupica left for The National, returned to the DN, left for Newsday, returned to the DN. This is not a knock on Lupica, whose work I like. The same could be said of the LAT when Ostler left and Jim Murray died and when Simers ascended to columnist. Red Smith's passing caused not a ripple on New York Times circ.

The example of Royko leaving is hard to measure because Royko wasn't the only big talent who left the Sun-Times when Rupert Murdoch bought it. There was a vast, significant talent drain at the time, much of it going to the Trib. Around that time the S-T also lost John Schulian, who was the most provocative sports columnist of my lifetime, in my opinion. It wasn't just Royko, it was a lot of people -- and the Sun-Times also stopped being the kind of newspaper with foreign bureaus and a significant presence in Washington. It went from first-rate to second-rate within about three months, and I think the overall decline had more to do with the circulation swoon than the loss of any one writer.

 

[quote author=Mystery Meat
How much of that is a product of their work environment, though? Some columnists might be told to stray away from hot-button local topics because the corporate overlords have a dog in the fight (not that I know that this happens, but I'd be willing to wager it does in places). Some SEs may actually WANT the dead tree sports talk host, someone who delves into first-person rhetoric and doesn't push the issue past amplified bleats (this is a particular problem with the small papers where the guy who covers high school sports four days out of five writes about how he thinks the Braves are stupid for not making a deadline trade or whatever nationally is on his mind, becuase that's how he's conditioned to think).

And part of it may also be how newsrooms view the columnist position. If you think it's the top of the mountain, nowhere to go from here, and that view is reinforced by the way the bosses treat it, then what's the motivation in pushing harder? You're already the ranking writer on staff; what gain is there in pushing?
[/quote]

I agree with a lot of this. Lots of reasons why so many columnists are dead asses. They're still overpaid.

If publishers want dead ass cultures, it's their dime, but they might as well have the duties shared by reporters. That way you'd have, uh, five destinations!

If a publisher were real smart she'd hire about 20 great-looking people, take their picture, and then have ghost-writers work in a cave off press releases. It'd be the deadest, most pedantic shit. But, oooh, this one looks a little like Mandy Moore!

 

Mandy Moore! :-*

 

that's true in an efficient market. but as we know from the continuing collapse of the industry, it is not efficient. if billy beane was an SE, you would see the 'moneyball' version of a sports department. guaranteed, no 150k columnists. not necessary. the space creates name recognition, not vice versa.

give me three 50k reporters who are hungry, street smart, tough and versatile. you can have the gasbag 150k star columnist.

 

For 50k I can give you hungry and versatile. Tough and street smart costs extra.

 

right. throw in a $500 bonus.

 

Henry: I'm not talking economic theory, I'm talking reality. If we follow your logic, we don't have a columnist. And we need space for your reporters. I don't know about where you live, but $50,000 is what a teacher with three or four years experience is paid in southern California.

So you have cut a columnist which should be interesting to read, and now we have to find space for your three hungry writers. Cutting out what should be the most interesting thing in the sports section isn't going to stem the supposed collapse of the industry.

 

Gold,

henry's talking reality, too. He's saying that few columnists are worth the price tag. Once they travel north of a certain price tag, the moneyball school would say: Let em walk. If you've selected your newbies with skill and care, you ought to be able to plug somebody who, while different, could still bring it.

It's not the worst idea. A lot of newspapers do hold onto gasbags - most of whom never intend to leave. That's because journalism is still tied to the star system. It. Just. Is. We get this weird idea that certain people have an eloquence and opinion far more crucial to a paper's value than all the other writers behind it, which creates the kind of disparity in value and a dearth of quality in the newspaper that we see today.

Some columnists really are needed and relatively deserve the pay. A lot of columnists are not and do not.

 

you put the three reporters to work on enterprise stories that take a bit longer - and don't eat up daily space - but provide a BANG when they connect. you start producing stories that resonate across the country, and get air play and ripple through the blogosphere.

meanwhile, somebody still is writing a column - but opinion columns are a dime a dozen - and anybody with half a wit can write them - you just don't need to pay much for them.


its supply and demand.
lots and lots of opinion columns - decreased value.
rare enterprise stories - increased value.