Does your paper REALLY need a columnist

[awriter]

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.

Many papers have been doing that for years.

 

[shotglass]

The same way in that I often look here when something pops in sports to read what everyone's feeling ... that's the same reason I gravitate toward the columnist in any daily.

 

[TyWebb]

Obviously, people don't need newspapers to find out who won and how anymore, so I figure the opinion part of the section is the only completely unique part of it, especially if it has a couple of good columnists that don't just regurgitate the simplest point of view. It is their inside view that people are reading for.

 

[Meat Loaf]

For juco and high school coverage? No. At least not a full-time one that has no other job duties. Even at smaller places, there should be some kind of general columnist. We have one, but his columns are made up most of the time and about himself. He's just phoning it in until his retirement in a few years.

 

[Angola!]

Mine needs more than one during football season. The rest of the year? Probably not.

 

[Fran Curci]

I think two or three columnists for a big paper is ideal. On the other hand, at the Miami Herald these days, EVERYONE writes a column. Whether qualified or not.

 

[Ike Broflovski]

Good discussion. I'm with the majority here -- a good columnist can enhance the product with a strong point of view -- but I find myself lately skipping past sports columns written off events.

I find, too often, that the columnist really doesn't have much to say about the game he/she just watched -- most are just nicely written features (see: Albom, Mitch). I'd much rather read a harder-edged column written about a topic or an issue, even if it's connected to a game or event.

 

[Oggiedoggie]

Until a paper reaches a certain size threshold, it might not need a columnist. I've read too many columns in the sports sections of small papers that either weren't about sports or were some writer's opinion about an event the writer didn't attend. If your writers don't have anything to say that people want to read, don't waste the space. And small papers are usually understaffed anyway, so don't waste the time.

The rare exception is the witty, resourceful writer who just happens to work in a small market. (And I'd love it if some of you can post examples.)

But, If a big paper doesn't have at least a few good columnists and reporters who can occasionally write columns, those papers are just small-minded papers with larger circulations.

 

[ogre]

smaller circs can get away without having a columnist, but all papers need columns.

the mega shops should have as many columnists as they can properly use.

 

[User 4755]

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.

Cincinnati once had Tim Sullivan, Mark Purdy and Peter King all in the same building, as well as Lonnie Wheeler. Just a great staff and great guys. Mariotti and Daugherty were young kids cutting their teeth down the street at the Post during that era as well.

So my answer is, as long as you have a good columnist, yes, it does make a difference. But if you are a smaller place with one columnist who's a bad one, no, you're better off without one. I once worked at a place that had a veteran columnist -- one of the world's nicest people -- but nonetheless, he'd take a week of vacation, and come back and write six-eight columns in a row about his vacation, with a tag line at the end of each one along the lines of "Tomorrow -- the seagulls of Alaska." I kid you not. He was the executive sports editor, did not answer to sports editor or anyone on staff, and thus did as he pleased and his columns could never be edited, changed or held, until he was "retired."

 

[Write-brained]

One of the tiny weeklies around here has a sports writer who wrote an entire column about his fantasy football team. : Not about fantasy football in general but about how Clinton Portis and Chad Johnson really screwed up his chances in the playoffs ... blah, blah blah ...

 

[sportschick]

Until a paper reaches a certain size threshold, it might not need a columnist. I've read too many columns in the sports sections of small papers that either weren't about sports or were some writer's opinion about an event the writer didn't attend. If your writers don't have anything to say that people want to read, don't waste the space. And small papers are usually understaffed anyway, so don't waste the time.

The rare exception is the witty, resourceful writer who just happens to work in a small market. (And I'd love it if some of you can post examples.)

But, If a big paper doesn't have at least a few good columnists and reporters who can occasionally write columns, those papers are just small-minded papers with larger circulations.

Rial Cummings. Course he left Missoula a few weeks ago to go freelance in Seattle.

 

[Some Guy]

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.

I think you're just reading bad columnists, if that's all you are getting from them.

 

[Your Huckleberry]

Columnists are what stirs the pot. They get people talking. They inspire conversation and debates. They attract readers far more than boring gamers and sidebars.

We need 'em now more than ever.

 

[MartinEnigmatica]

It's kind of an interesting topic, too, for papers that thrive on prep sports coverage. Readers could really identify with a columnist there because of the community feel, and the fact that they might actually see them somewhere around town. But there are the questions: would a small paper hire a full-time columnist? would staff members be equipped to write good columns? Would they even have the time to write them, given that readers might not be getting the basic news anywhere else?
It would probably work the same way at my place - write them when you have the time, and the strong enough subject.

 

[hanging_curveball]

As a columnist, I applaud the vast wisdom of those who say we need columnists more than ever.

 

[Editude]

One of my previous good-sized shops had a preps-only columnist, and he was not essential. You tend to be a little softer around the high schools, so the columns read more like coronations and features than debatable opinions. A real luxury.

 

[boots]

One of my previous good-sized shops had a preps-only columnist, and he was not essential. You tend to be a little softer around the high schools, so the columns read more like coronations and features than debatable opinions. A real luxury.

He's soft because he wants to bee soft. You can be hard and cover the preps effectively. I know it's high school and kids aren't compensated for their play, but there are a ton of stories out there aching to be told.

 

[Frylock]

I think it's a great idea for any paper, especially if there is at least a major university in the area.
The question of who on a staff should be doing it is the tough one. I think in a perfect world, the ME, publisher and SE should look at the personnel and go with someone who has good writing/reporting skills and is not afraid to take a stand on issues relating to the local teams.
I've read way too many rah-rah guys or columnists who write stuff on pro teams three or four hours away.
But the reaction to a good, thought-provoking column can be stunning.