The Economics of the Big-Time Columnist

gold, the only thing that will separate traditional sports departments from blogs and fan sites is the ability and willingness to do real journalism - to make contact with real people - and to dig like real reporters. i just read harvey araton's interview on Sports Media Guide - he pretty much says the same thing. seems to me three reporters can do more digging than one columnist.

 

Henry: your saying something that sounds good, but has no basis in reality. It's like saying you only watch PBS and always eat healthy, but PBS doesn't lead the ratings and I see more fast food hamburger places being built than salad bars. It kind of reminds me of when Buzzie Bavasi didn't sign Nolan Ryan, explaining that if he had two pitchers who could win eight games, that would replace Nolan Ryan. It's ridiculous.

Your math doesn't add up. If you still have a columnist, you will have to pay the columnist - so now we only have two hard-hitting enterprise reporters. And if the enterprise/investigation is great, why isn't it already being done. And what makes you think you can get it done with people who are paid like third or fourth-year teachers. Ask Harvey Araton if he could be replaced with three guys making $60K a year and see what he says. Harvey Araton is a good example - he's a columnist but he has over 30 years of experience, a big pulpit, and can get his phone calls returned a lot easier than you or I.

If opinion columns have little value, why not let anybody who blogs come in and write the column. Heck, you might get away with paying them zero.

 

The idea that you can replace a skilled professional making a good salary with two people who don't have the skills and the contacts is what is killing newspapers.

 

status quo isn't working.
you don't need to pay a lot to get good people - labor is cheap in this industry - supply and demand - the reason being that so many kids watched 'everybody loves raymond' they think it's a cool job - and it is - better than being a CPA - billy beane would tell you, don't overpay if you don't have to

i'd have the three reporters rotate and write an opinion column just for fun and to keep them happy - but only if they produce the blockbuster enterprise pieces

the answer is yes, there are a multitude of bloggers out there who could write as well as harvey - and few of the times readers would know the difference - and said bloggers would be willing to work for one fifth of what harvey is paid

 

I wouldn't have columnists at all. I'd also kill the editorial and op-ed pages, except for the letters from readers. In the rare instances when we have something that can't be stated in a news story, we would run analysis. We'd run investigative and enterprise because I think it's essential for staff morale and the good of the community, but I don't think either sells papers. I would spend the money on covering more towns. It's probably the only way to increase circulation -- move in where we aren't already selling papers.

 

The status quo of hiring people cheap and having few experienced people over 35 isn't working, so your solution is to hire more people as cheaply as you can and this will produce better journalism. And you think people could come in and do as well as Harvey Araton.

Two points.

1. Do you have any respect for writers who work at their craft?

2. Don't drive or operate heavy machinery.

 

I agree with this sentiment to a great degree. You get what you pay for in journalism, too. I don't read my local rag because the writing (and thinking that goes into the writing) is insipid. The industry doesn't compete for the best and the brightest; rather good people keep moving out of the business because they can't afford to stay. They are replaced with young, cheap, inexperienced labor, thrilled to see their names in a goddam byline.

Keep in mind that mid-level managers in corporate America now pull $150,000 a year. We do ourselves a disservice by pretending that's a huge salary. It isn't, at least not in a major metropolitan environment.

 

No no no.

Awfully botched analogy.

I agree about uniforms being the king in sports.

But the top-line columnists get my full attention, and I would pay to read them, wherever they are.

Just like I would pay to gain access to this site.

 

The best columnists do the reporting of the best go-getters and write their asses off. One way to tell how good your primary columnist is is to see how many centerpiece/lead packages are written by him/her. If your columnist just writes 18'' rail columns three times a week (and one is notes from the couch), then you are wasting your paper's money.

 

Editude
For my continuing education, give me the names of 3 columnists who also do major reporting pieces for their papers.

 

The distinction is not between column writing and doing major reporting pieces; it's doing major reporting as part of column writing. It's talking to people about the subject, not just pontificating. It's having sources to back up a point of view. Art Thiel in Seattle, Buck Harvey in San Antonio, Joe Posnanski in K.C. and Bill Plaschke in L.A., to name four, all do a lot of reporting in their columns.

 

I guess the Fort Worth Star-Telegram should just tell Randy Galloway to trot on back to the Dallas News so it can hire three reporters