Does your paper REALLY need a columnist

[boots]

Since many papers are trying to trim more fat from their budget, are columnists really needed in today's world of sports journalism?

 

[WazzuGrad00]

They might be necessary now more than ever.

 

[Moderator1]

More than ever. Way more than ever. Much of the information traditional reporters present is available so many places. Newspapers need to offer more commentary, more color, more insight. A good columnist is a key part of that.

One newpaper I know very well is strongly considering using columnists as the "lead" story at many events.

 

[In Cold Blood]

I'm not your average newspaper reader, but a good columnist is something I'll seek out.
I'll go to a website or pick up a paper to read a columnist. I'm less likely to seek out a paper's website or their print product to read about an orioles game or the Ohio state football game. I've seen that score twelve different places already.

 

[HejiraHenry]

Make that two newspapers, at least.

I think that's where we're headed this fall with our SEC football, and we may just keep going on into basketball season if the response is good.

 

[boots]

More than ever. Way more than ever. Much of the information traditional reporters present is available so many places. Newspapers need to offer more commentary, more color, more insight. A good columnist is a key part of that.

One newpaper I know very well is strongly considering using columnists as the "lead" story at many events.

At one time, I thought that you couldn't get by without having a "voice" in sports. Now, I'm not so sure. People are bright enough to formulate their own opinions. They don't need someone with locker room access but never uses it, to tell them that a guy is playing like crap or their team is crap.

 

[Jake_Taylor]

Agree with everyone that said more than ever. It's one way newspapers can be sure to offer something different than the competition. I know of one metro that even had beat writers doing "analysis" instead of gamers during basketball season.

Boots, I think your second post points out the need for more good columnists. And even if people don't need someone else's opinion, they want it. People don't flood message boards or watch PTI because they need to. They do it because it's fun to discuss.

 

[TyWebb]

I'm still of the type that goes to a newspaper to read what the columnists think on a certain topic. I read the game coverage out of professional curiousity. But if I were just a reader, I would glaze over the gamers and spend my time on the columnists.

They spark debate, which is why shows like PTI and Around the Horn are still around. Even if the reader is just yelling at the columnists mug on the paper, they feel like they are part of the debate.

 

[Fran Curci]

Using a columnist as the "lead" story is a good idea but not all that new.

Certainly it was common in PM papers ......... some of the good Knight-Ridder papers did it back in the day, too. (By back in the day, I mean, like, 2001.)

 

[boots]

Using a columnist as the "lead" story is a good idea but not all that new.

Certainly it was common in PM papers ......... some of the good Knight-Ridder papers did it back in the day, too. (By back in the day, I mean, like, 2001.)

It's a concept that's older than that. In order for it to work, a paper has to have a columnist that people actually buy the paper to read.
I hate to admit it but you don't hear people buying a paper just to read what a certain columnist thinks nowadays.

 

[Write-brained]

Columnists are not only the voice of the paper but they're the face of the paper. A lot like anchors are to TV. It humanizes the medium.

 

[In Cold Blood]

I don't know boots.... I grew up in Cincinnati. My parents have never subscribed to the paper, but whenever either of them mentions an article in the paper, its always Paul Daugherty (Enquirer columnist). It's never to tell me about what Tom Groeschen wrote about my high school's football game.

My dad has even said that Doc's columns are one of the reasons he picks up the paper on the way home from work.

 

[MileHigh]

Definitely now more than ever. This move toward instant analysis/blogging means you need that voice with an opinion.

 

[boots]

I don't know boots.... I grew up in Cincinnati. My parents have never subscribed to the paper, but whenever either of them mentions an article in the paper, its always Paul Daugherty (Enquirer columnist). It's never to tell me about what Tom Groeschen wrote about my high school's football game.

My dad has even said that Doc's columns are one of the reasons he picks up the paper on the way home from work.

Cincy was once a great sportswriting town. The subjects are still there. Daughtery is good but I go back to when Sullivan was there and Tim Smith was there and other talent.
Back then, it was worth plunking down a quarter to read what they wrote (Smith wasn't a columnist but a damn good reporter).
I can't say I hold that same feeling. One of the best rosters of columnist talent ever assembled may have been the Philadelphia Daily News. They had Stan Hockhman, Thom Greer, Tom Cushman, Hoffman was learning the craft. Every day, there was a reason to want to purchase a paper.
The Washington Post of the 70's and early 80's was the same way. Hell, even the stodgy N.Y. Times gave you a reason to buy the paper and read the sports sections.
Those guys had voices and took you to the game, to the locker room and to the newsroom all in 20 inches. I miss those days but I know the past is the past.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I think it's nice to have one or two sports columnists, but I think some newspapers went overboard in the 1990s with 4-6 sports columnists. Tower of Babel effect, watering down the importance of the column. Also, watering down the quality since not all of them were good.

Do we need columnists? I respectfully disagree that they are more necessary now that reporting is available elsewhere. Opinion is available elsewhere, too, in fact a lot more available than competent reporting is. Theoretically a clever blogger could offer pretty good analysis, but it takes a lot of money to provide home-and-away coverage of one team and a pretty large staff to offer in-depth beat coverage of every team your readers care about.

I've spent almost my entire career on newspapers with more than 100K circ, almost all of them in competitive markets, and I have never seen the addition or subtraction of a sports columnist affect circulation in any measurable way. I've seen papers leave a columnist spot open for a good length of time and it had no measurable effect on circulation. And on two of the newspapers on my resume, the majority of people in readership surveys could not identify the No. 2 sports columnist on one of the papers (275K daily, 425K Sunday) and on another (168K daily, 225K Sunday) most could not identify the lead sports columnist, even though I thought the guy on the first paper was decent and the guy on the second paper was pretty good. We overestimate the star appeal.

That doesn't mean I think columnists are worthless. Some papers have decided that bureaus in Washington and movie reviewers were luxuries, too, and maybe they are -- but having them sends a message to readers about what their newspaper strives to be and by extension what we think of our customers. Some people (like me) buy purely functional cars, but if you want to attract high-end customers you'd better offer leather seats, etc. If you want readers to perceive your newspaper as the best news source in your region, you need to offer some extravagances.

 

[boots]

I think it's nice to have one or two sports columnists, but I think some newspapers went overboard in the 1990s with 4-6 sports columnists. Tower of Babel effect, watering down the importance of the column. Also, watering down the quality since not all of them were good.

Do we need columnists? I respectfully disagree that they are more necessary now that reporting is available elsewhere. Opinion is available elsewhere, too, in fact a lot more available than competent reporting is. Theoretically a clever blogger could offer pretty good analysis, but it takes a lot of money to provide home-and-away coverage of one team and a pretty large staff to offer in-depth beat coverage of every team your readers care about.

I've spent almost my entire career on newspapers with more than 100K circ, almost all of them in competitive markets, and I have never seen the addition or subtraction of a sports columnist affect circulation in any measurable way. I've seen papers leave a columnist spot open for a good length of time and it had no measurable effect on circulation. And on two of the newspapers on my resume, the majority of people in readership surveys could not identify the No. 2 sports columnist on one of the papers (275K daily, 425K Sunday) and on another (168K daily, 225K Sunday) most could not identify the lead sports columnist, even though I thought the guy on the first paper was decent and the guy on the second paper was pretty good. We overestimate the star appeal.

That doesn't mean I think columnists are worthless. Some papers have decided that bureaus in Washington and movie reviewers were luxuries, too, and maybe they are -- but having them sends a message to readers about what their newspaper strives to be and by extension what we think of our customers. Some people (like me) buy purely functional cars, but if you want to attract high-end customers you'd better offer leather seats, etc. If you want readers to perceive your newspaper as the best news source in your region, you need to offer some extravagances.

I think in the 50's, people might have picked up a paper to read what a columnist wrote and you could see that impact in circulation on any given day. I agree Frank, those days are long gone.

 

[playthrough]

Two columnists should be the rule at any large paper. I agree with Frank that four or more is really watering down the concept, but two is perfect. I know one sports columnist well at a major-metro I read regularly, and he told me once that he wished he wasn't the lone columnist at the paper. He likes a second voice and knows that he's not an ace at every sport. Few columnists are. But if you get the right pair with different strengths, maybe even the good cop/bad cop thing, I think it adds so much to a section. Especially if the bosses are chopping at everything else.

 

[TyWebb]

I think keeping it to two columnists is a good idea, and definitely keep it to one column an issue. I've seen several big papers squeeze in two or three columns in one day. THAT is when it gets watered down to me.

 

[EE94]

More than ever. Way more than ever. Much of the information traditional reporters present is available so many places. Newspapers need to offer more commentary, more color, more insight. A good columnist is a key part of that.

One newpaper I know very well is strongly considering using columnists as the "lead" story at many events.

At one time, I thought that you couldn't get by without having a "voice" in sports. Now, I'm not so sure. People are bright enough to formulate their own opinions. They don't need someone with locker room access but never uses it, to tell them that a guy is playing like crap or their team is crap.

disagree. People love columnists to either validate their own thinking, or to get pissed off at when they disagree.
People often read the columnists they disagree with more than the ones they agree with, but when you look at things that identify newspapers, columnists are at the top of the list
And there is something about columnists in the paper - as opposed to on-line, where any idiot can spout off - that gives them a legitimacy not yet found on the web

 

[printdust]

Heck no. We don't even need writers. Appeal to the communities, hire pops or moms to attempt to write high school gamers, fill the potholes with the peewees, and oh yes, limit your desk to one pagination person.

Bunch. Of. Excrement.