The Economics of the Big-Time Columnist

henry hecht:

maybe Marge Schott and some other owners would have fielded scabs, but some owners would not have. And if that were done, there might have been the Yankees and some other big market teams could have withdrawn and formed their own league and cherry picked the top players. The possibility of the owners turning on each other was a lot greater than star players crossing the lines.

Television would not have caved, because TV contracts are primarily local. In the NFL, the networks were obligated to carry scab games and those games were a joke in 1987. But enough players crossed. The NFL has a weak union - Bryant Gumbel's characterization may have been unpleasant, but it is an accurate assessment. Football players, especially quarterbacks, are treated like special people in college and many don't have to deal with things like baseball players have to deal with in the Rookie and Single A leagues.

Warning track power sums up the difference. How many minor league players hit 30 or 35 home runs in a season? You might not look at David Eckstein and be impressed, but when he played his managers knew the difference between him and a run of the mill Double A player.

 

What's the worth of a columnist?

If you're an old fart, seeing Leonard Pitts' byline in the morning paper makes that day a bit better.

For the elusive young reader, I don't know and don't pretend to know.

Writing a column is damn hard work. You have to have your A-game every time, which means a batting average way above that of Ty Cobb. You have to know or find out a lot in a short amount of time and make it relevant to every reader.

Good luck.

Those that can do it are few and far between. Their days are numbered in today's environment of 20-plus percent return on investment, shrinking news hole and a widening gulf between the reader and the writer.

The only way to survive is to be a distinctive voice in the wilderness the readers understand, be that Royko in his prime, Pitts or Red Smith.

 

I think Pitts is the best columnist today. I'll read him whenever my paper runs his column, but I do not hunt him down on the Internet. I couldn't tell you which days he runs in Miami.

 

Why, Frank, do you consider Pitts the best? What sets him apart?

 

This is subjective, of course.

He's consistent. He probably has bad days, but I've missed them.

His point of view strikes me as sincere. I think a lot of columnists write for show, but I think I am getting an honest opinion from Pitts.

He's a good writer but doesn't let style overwhelm the subject matter; he lets the topic be the star.

He's timely. He doesn't wait to see what everyone else is saying before he delivers the goods.

Often, he delivers the definitive column on an event. His 9/11 and Reagan Dies columns come to mind.

And, let's face it, I agree with him most of the time. No doubt people who disagree with him most of the time would not choose Pitts as the best columnist.

 

I'm always struck by his language. It's as if it's not there. No cute turns, no alliterations, no tricks. But always moving.

I perceive a decency, a thoughtfulness and even a willingness to listen. You'd think he was born in the upper Midwest or somewhere else in flyover country where discussion trumps screeching.

His column on the Kansas preacher whose flock protests at the burial of soldiers killed in Iraq was the single greatest eviseraction since Art Buchwald did a number on Detroit auto makers back in the '70s.

My only caveat is I wished Pitts had picked on someone bigger. But someone had to call that wingnut out.

 

The New York Times sees the value of its columnists, putting many behind the select wall. Kristof is a good reporter and tackles tough subjects. Like him or not, Simers is worth more to the L.A. Times than a couple of reporters.

 

Simers' column isn't my taste, but I appreciate why people like his stuff. I get it. Still, if the L.A. Daily News offered Simers $3 million per year and he took it, do you think it would affect circulation of either the Daily News or the Times? I doubt it would make more than 10,000 readers switch papers. Ditto for Kristof.

 

You know, Frank, we've had this discussion before, and based on that, I certainly see your point.

I kind of wonder, though, if having assets like Simers (or much more so, a Royko) keeps people reading the paper rather than just giving up on it and heading for the 'Net (although you can find Simers there, too).

I also wonder -- and have no idea -- if there's some advertising revenue from businesses that want to be on Page 2 with Simers, for example.

 

I think having a shitload of good writers has an effect. If you own an elephant, how many people are going to pay to see him? But if you also have lions, tigers, bears, you have a zoo and people line up to buy tickets.

 

Simers is not my taste (I'm not getting into that) but that would prove my point about replacing a columnist with two or three reporters (and you won't get three capable reporters for the money you are paying almost all columnists)

The point is, if somebody has an important column in the LA Times, you get big bucks because it is an important position.

 

LAT Page 2 has a strip ad at the bottom. Almost every day. It's built into the page, it seems.