Columnistosaurus

[lcjjdnh]

Readers that want to be well informed are far better off today than they have ever been before. You could fill a newspaper with your pick of columnists from the days of yore, and I'd still prefer Internet. The problem isn't that newspapers won't invest in columnists, the problem is with the form itself. It may take quite a bit of skill to craft a 800-word column on the local baseball team one day and another on the local basketball team the next. But it's not really a skill that benefits engaged readers.

The value of the general sports columnist, like the value of the newspaper, has plummeted with the creation of the Internet. I no longer need the newspaper, or columnist, to aggregate information for me. With the Internet, it takes no effort for me to add an additional information source--from anywhere on the world, on any topic--to my reading list. I become my own expert by relying on a series of expert--I don't need the columnist to be the expert in four sports for me.

I'm not a homer. I don't need to read uninformed 2,000 word "rants". I don't gain particular enjoyment out of the use of cusswords. But I do enjoy reading people with expertise, passion, and a desire to form a engaged and informed community of readers--which many writers on the Internet aspire to provide. I can read Alan Sepinwall or Todd VanDerWerff on TV, Mark Thoma or Arnold Kling on economics, and Andrew Sullivan or Kevin Drum on politics--rather than whatever dribble the hacks--save Krugman--on the Washington Post or NY Times Op-ed pages serve up in 800 words on any given day.

Rather than bemoan the Internet, the best writers--including former columnists--should embrace it. Joe Posnanski is the perfect example. Twenty years ago, he would have been limited to 800 words a few days a week--never would we get the beauty of thousands of words of analysis on HoF candidates. Twenty years ago, he would have been read by only people in the KC-area--never would I get to read him from hundreds of miles away everyday. And twenty years ago, much of the conversation would be one-way--never would we get to read the response from all his brilliant readers.

No one gains--not the writers, and not the readers--from trying to shoehorn stories into the storyforms created decades ago. Instead of lamenting the death of the general sports columnist, we should celebrate the choice the Internet provides us. The best writers and reporters are no longer hamstrung by having to cover a multiple sports in very limited way. They can specialize in a topic and convey information to readers in whatever form they choose. Too much specialization risks a limited worldview, but writers benefit from the same access to all sorts of information readers do. And we're all better off because of it.

I'm not really arguing the value of these people, per se, but I will say that, for me, a well-chosen 800 words is better than a 2,000-word dump in which I have wade through whole passages of expository crap or side discussions to get to the point.

But I'm not a person who likes reading a 900-page biography of Lincoln, either.

Perhaps partially my fault for mentioning Posnanski, but the Internet, obviously, doesn't require one write 2,000 words. If 800 words works, the writer can cut his work off there. If 200 words works, that's fine, too. The point isn't that longer stories are per se better, but rather the freedom to write outside of the convention 800 word column space is. Sure, there are some writers that need editors to constrain the length of their work, but, on the whole, we as readers benefit from writers having that choice. The good ones make the best of it.

I also think it's worth considering how nostalgia can distort our memory. When listing the greats, you have the advantage of aggregating across time and place. But for a fair comparison, you need to pick a year and geographic location to match up with the Internet today. The vast majority of local newspaper readers are likely better off today.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

Alma, on your suggestion/challenge that I come up with 20 people under 40 now working at newspapers who could be columnists, I now have a list of 38 men and women......when I get to 50, I'll do the necessary reporting to see how many of them actually would want to do the hard work of making 800 words dance....

"20 who are smoking something:
Youngsters who actually desire to further entrench themselves in a newspaper career"

 

[Azrael]

Alma, on your suggestion/challenge that I come up with 20 people under 40 now working at newspapers who could be columnists, I now have a list of 38 men and women......when I get to 50, I'll do the necessary reporting to see how many of them actually would want to do the hard work of making 800 words dance....

"20 who are smoking something:
Youngsters who actually desire to further entrench themselves in a newspaper career"

Do these newspapers not also have websites?

Is it limiting or liberating to think of news-gathering as both online and in print?

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

Alma, on your suggestion/challenge that I come up with 20 people under 40 now working at newspapers who could be columnists, I now have a list of 38 men and women......when I get to 50, I'll do the necessary reporting to see how many of them actually would want to do the hard work of making 800 words dance....

"20 who are smoking something:
Youngsters who actually desire to further entrench themselves in a newspaper career"

Do these newspapers not also have websites?

Is it limiting or liberating to think of news-gathering as both online and in print?

Yes.

Liberating.

Here's what I'm making fun of:

I'll do the necessary reporting to see how many of them actually would want to do the hard work of making 800 words dance....

A few newspapers are doing some great things online, but the printed newspaper is such a limited medium. And becoming moreso every day.

"Making 800 words dance"?

Sounds like something a J-School professor, two decades out of the business, would tell his newspaper writing students. Outdated, uninspired treacle.

 

[Dave Kindred]

Alma, on your suggestion/challenge that I come up with 20 people under 40 now working at newspapers who could be columnists, I now have a list of 38 men and women......when I get to 50, I'll do the necessary reporting to see how many of them actually would want to do the hard work of making 800 words dance....

"20 who are smoking something:
Youngsters who actually desire to further entrench themselves in a newspaper career"

Do these newspapers not also have websites?

Is it limiting or liberating to think of news-gathering as both online and in print?

Yes.

Liberating.

Here's what I'm making fun of:

I'll do the necessary reporting to see how many of them actually would want to do the hard work of making 800 words dance....

A few newspapers are doing some great things online, but the printed newspaper is such a limited medium. And becoming moreso every day.

"Making 800 words dance"?

Sounds like something a J-School professor, two decades out of the business, would tell his newspaper writing students. Outdated, uninspired treacle.

Still in the business, but, yes, totally guilty of telling students that in those exact words.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

"Make words dance regardless of how many you are allowed to use" would be nontreacly advice, wouldn't it? As I have said before, IMO the primary role of the sports columnist in any medium is to write so as to create a personality with whom the reader wants to spend time thinking about sports, no matter what said reader's thoughts may be.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

"Make words dance regardless of how many you are allowed to use" would be nontreacly advice, wouldn't it?

Yes, absolutely. I do dislike the cliche of "making words dance" but that's a personal pet peeve.

I think there should be a focus on honing great reporting and media production skills (some great journalism happens away from just the written word), without regard to space, medium, age, subject matter or location.

I understand the challenge of producing greatness when confined by the newspaper medium's space-determined word counts. But it's a medium that readers care about less and less as the years go by. When today's grandparents pass away, newspaper readership will drop even more than it already has.

Do today's journalism students still dream of being newspaper columnists? And if so, why aren't their professors being honest with them regarding the chancs of such jobs continuing to exist, and receive the respect they once did?

So I just think newspapers are really not a medium worth analyzing to this extent, at this point. I'd rather ask: who are the great young writers, some of whom have real jobs (that pay well!) and blog on the side, who are worth reading?

 

[Dave Kindred]

If there were a medium that made 10 times the money the best newspaper websites do, would that medium be worth study?
That's what the parent newspaper does. Even in inarguable decline, the print version brings in 10 times the money a newspaper's website produces.
So while newspapers must, yes they must, get on with the future of journalism in whatever form it takes, they also must maintain the cash flow that allows them to build that future. It's a balancing act that is daunting, and, in my opinion, if not in Rasputin's, deserves respect.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

If there were a medium that made 10 times the money the best newspaper websites do, would that medium be worth study?
That's what the parent newspaper does. Even in inarguable decline, the print version brings in 10 times the money a newspaper's website produces.
So while newspapers must, yes they must, get on with the future of journalism in whatever form it takes, they also must maintain the cash flow that allows them to build that future. It's a balancing act that is daunting, and, in my opinion, if not in Rasputin's, deserves respect.

"So while newspapers must, yes they must, get on with the future of journalism in whatever form it takes, they also must maintain the cash flow that allows them to build that future. "

This message brought to you by Dave Kindred, newspaper management representative.

I'm worried more about discussing jobs and opportunities for journalists and journalism students, than how much money a particular medium makes.

Despite a loss of readership and revenue, newspapers continue to make money because they're killing jobs in response to those losses.

Advertising is down, as are subscriptions. Newspapers will not be part of any kind of future of journalism, because at some point they'll run out of people to cut.

It is much more productive to seek out answers to whether or not money can be made on the Internet (even if we're sure it cannot, not in the same amounts) than it is to focus discussion on a medium whose ship has long since sailed.

 

[Alma]

"Make words dance regardless of how many you are allowed to use" would be nontreacly advice, wouldn't it?

I'd rather ask: who are the great young writers, some of whom have real jobs (that pay well!) and blog on the side, who are worth reading?

Sounds good. Look forward to the thread.

 

[93Devil]

I think I understand what DD is getting at here, but I think reaching that goal is very, very difficult. But I also think he could pull it off.

When people say Mike Royko or Jim Murray, I really do not need to mention which city they worked, because they pretty much became institutions in their market. No matter what medium or what length the story is, will the future of journalism have writers in each city that people associate with as being the voice of the city?

Wilbon could have become that in DC, but he now works for ESPN more than the Post. I think DD's goal is to become a Royko for the city he writes, but jumping ship to a magazine or a national website takes away the dream of being an iconic figure for the city.

Am I on the right track here, DD?

 

[playthrough]

I hope the future of journalism has authoritative city voices. In fact, it better have.

I would argue that there's now plenty of national guys but being the local icon is still special. Problem, of course, is that some markets aren't doing squat to attract or keep worthy candidates.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

"Make words dance regardless of how many you are allowed to use" would be nontreacly advice, wouldn't it?

I'd rather ask: who are the great young writers, some of whom have real jobs (that pay well!) and blog on the side, who are worth reading?

Sounds good. Look forward to the thread.

Golly Gee whillikers, you don't exactly sound sincere here.

Silly me. I keep forgetting how limited the board's media world is. Was NewspapersportsWRITERS.com taken?

Someone else, who cares more than I do about identifying such people, can start it. Seen enough "who are the Young f$#%ing STUDS!!!?!?!?!!?" threads here in the past.

But I'll be happy to show up in such a thread and laugh at the idea that any young person should strive to be a newspaper columnist.

 

[fishwrapper]

"Make words dance regardless of how many you are allowed to use" would be nontreacly advice, wouldn't it?

I'd rather ask: who are the great young writers, some of whom have real jobs (that pay well!) and blog on the side, who are worth reading?

Sounds good. Look forward to the thread.

Golly Gee whillikers, you don't exactly sound sincere here.

Silly me. I keep forgetting how limited the board's media world is. Was NewspapersportsWRITERS.com taken?

Someone else, who cares more than I do about identifying such people, can start it. Seen enough "who are the Young f$#%ing STUDS!!!?!?!?!!?" threads here in the past.

But I'll be happy to show up in such a thread and laugh at the idea that any young person should strive to be a newspaper columnist.

Piotr is right. That myopic view -- or any such debate -- is an exercise in futility.
Irrelevant stance and discussion.
Anybody, no matter their accomplishments, who says they're a columnist: "always have been, always will be" -- has lost their way and should understand the current climate when disseminating information to young people.
Sorry to state.

 

[Dave Kindred]

"Make words dance regardless of how many you are allowed to use" would be nontreacly advice, wouldn't it?

I'd rather ask: who are the great young writers, some of whom have real jobs (that pay well!) and blog on the side, who are worth reading?

Sounds good. Look forward to the thread.

Golly Gee whillikers, you don't exactly sound sincere here.

Silly me. I keep forgetting how limited the board's media world is. Was NewspapersportsWRITERS.com taken?

Someone else, who cares more than I do about identifying such people, can start it. Seen enough "who are the Young f$#%ing STUDS!!!?!?!?!!?" threads here in the past.

But I'll be happy to show up in such a thread and laugh at the idea that any young person should strive to be a newspaper columnist.

Piotr is right. That myopic view -- or any such debate -- is an exercise in futility.
Irrelevant stance and discussion.
Anybody, no matter their accomplishments, who says they're a columnist: "always have been, always will be" -- has lost their way and should understand the current climate when disseminating information to young people.
Sorry to state.

I'm guessing Fishwrapper refers to me when he speaks of a columnist who has "lost their way and should understand the current climate when disseminating information to young people."

I want to make one thing clear here because, apparently, I've failed to do that. I am not insisting on a future in newspapers; I am insisting on a future in journalism, in whatever medium carries the journalism. I simply do not believe that journalism, the reporting of news, will go away.

As for being a columnist -- the current new-media online phenom, Grantland.com, is America's largest gathering of columnists. So what if they write 4,000-words? They're still columns, still viewpoint and opinion, only at numbing length.

If in my "disseminating information to young people" I show one student that it's fun to be a reporter, I will be a happy camper. I don't care if that young person takes a job with a newspaper or a website or a TV station; maybe he or she becomes a documentarian using all the high-tech tools to tell stories. As long as it's a job in journalism, good.

 

[fishwrapper]

Dave, I know the Grantland project well.
Except for a few of them, they're all freelancers. (This statement doesn't include the inside editorial staff).
It's a project in its infancy, and will grow. But it is a singular project whose viability in the long is unknown and right now is being propped up by an enormous conglomerate and one of the most-read personalities on the Web. It's easy to pick the one celebrated growth spot while ignoring/discounting the overwhelming evidence of the past eight years.
Just the same as using a Paul Krugman piece and stating, "See!"

 

[dooley_womack1]

Alma, on your suggestion/challenge that I come up with 20 people under 40 now working at newspapers who could be columnists, I now have a list of 38 men and women......when I get to 50, I'll do the necessary reporting to see how many of them actually would want to do the hard work of making 800 words dance....

"20 who are smoking something:
Youngsters who actually desire to further entrench themselves in a newspaper career"

Do these newspapers not also have websites?

Is it limiting or liberating to think of news-gathering as both online and in print?

Yes.

Liberating.

Here's what I'm making fun of:

I'll do the necessary reporting to see how many of them actually would want to do the hard work of making 800 words dance....

A few newspapers are doing some great things online, but the printed newspaper is such a limited medium. And becoming moreso every day.

"Making 800 words dance"?

Sounds like something a J-School professor, two decades out of the business, would tell his newspaper writing students. Outdated, uninspired treacle.

Sounds better to me than, "write as much as you damn well please, whether the topic needs that many words or not, or whether you have the chops to make thousands of words sing or not, or whether you're knowledgeable and/or source-rich or not." And you damn well know that the vast, vast majority of stuff put out by bloggers doesn't pass those tests. But I understand it's fun to be the iconoclast and snicker as you take your shots at Kindred, which you surely feel is like shooting your pistols into the dinosaur's corpse. Your parting from newspapers must have been really abrupt and very bitter.

 

[Dave Kindred]

Dave, I know the Grantland project well.
Except for a few of them, they're all freelancers. (This statement doesn't include the inside editorial staff).
It's a project in its infancy, and will grow. But it is a singular project whose viability in the long is unknown and right now is being propped up by an enormous conglomerate and one of the most-read personalities on the Web. It's easy to pick the one celebrated growth spot while ignoring/discounting the overwhelming evidence of the past eight years.
Just the same as using a Paul Krugman piece and stating, "See!"

I'll take a flyer at understanding what you're saying.

You think there is no future in any medium for anyone interested in journalism.

Is that it?

I should also say that as a writer who did a book with a subtitle saying "A Great Newspaper Fights for Its Life," I surely do not discount the last eight years of decline. I just don't think it means the end of the craft.

 

[Alma]

"Make words dance regardless of how many you are allowed to use" would be nontreacly advice, wouldn't it?

I'd rather ask: who are the great young writers, some of whom have real jobs (that pay well!) and blog on the side, who are worth reading?

Sounds good. Look forward to the thread.

Golly Gee whillikers, you don't exactly sound sincere here.

Silly me. I keep forgetting how limited the board's media world is. Was NewspapersportsWRITERS.com taken?

Someone else, who cares more than I do about identifying such people, can start it. Seen enough "who are the Young f$#%ing STUDS!!!?!?!?!!?" threads here in the past.

But I'll be happy to show up in such a thread and laugh at the idea that any young person should strive to be a newspaper columnist.

Shrug. I meant it. Like I meant: "Well, good" when I wrote it to Kindred.

 

[fishwrapper]

Dave, I know the Grantland project well.
Except for a few of them, they're all freelancers. (This statement doesn't include the inside editorial staff).
It's a project in its infancy, and will grow. But it is a singular project whose viability in the long is unknown and right now is being propped up by an enormous conglomerate and one of the most-read personalities on the Web. It's easy to pick the one celebrated growth spot while ignoring/discounting the overwhelming evidence of the past eight years.
Just the same as using a Paul Krugman piece and stating, "See!"

I'll take a flyer at understanding what you're saying.

You think there is no future in any medium for anyone interested in journalism.

Is that it?

I should also say that as a writer who did a book with a subtitle saying "A Great Newspaper Fights for Its Life," I surely do not discount the last eight years of decline. I just don't think it means the end of the craft.

I agree it's not the end of the craft. It will evolve, like everything else.

With that said ...

... and without giving too much away, I came from a place that had over 1,200 journalists in a newsroom at one point. When I left, there were just over 500. Some of the best journalists in the world.

Wave after wave, friend after friend kicked out the door. Many still unemployed or under-employed and their 99 weeks of assistance long gone. I know. I get the emails, the inquiries.

The other side of this? I interviewed a "kid" from Northwestern just before Thanksgiving. He was better/more educated than I (couple of degrees, graduate degree). He was looking at a $14-an-hour contract job ... and he came to me/us with over $170,000 in student debt.

So, please excuse me if I'm not buying the "dream-big" or the "what-we-need" soliloquy.