Annual byline count?

Uh, I made it pretty clear that I had 324 bylined stories. I was just explaining that byline counts aren't an entirely fair way to judge productivity, especially when you're also shooting assignments and doing layout.

The OP asked what his byline count should be and this thread has been about how that's a worthless way to analyze a person's contributions to the overall production of the paper.

But thanks for playing.

 

Editors who make their writers churn out X amount of stories a day/week/month/year are missing the point. Big time.

 

Sorry scieza, but you forget to realize that not everyone's paper is an inept as ours. Most people here have photogs, page designers and, gasp, editors.

 

What was the line from North Dallas Forty? "When you say it's a game, they say it's a business. And when you say it's a business, they say it's a game?"

That's how editors I've known have treated byline counts. If you were doing a lot of features and enterprise stuff, they'd push you to "pick up the pace" by citing your overall story count. If you were on a beat and could tout 300-400 bylines a year, they'd note that many were just shorties or notes and carp about the need for more depth and enterprise.

At review time one year when I was mostly doing features, I had 150-160 bylines, which was still more than three a week when many of the topics took a week by themselves. I checked some newsroom colleagues via the newsroom database and saw people with 57, 39 and 11 bylines in a year. Not all big-time investigative people either. Some Sunday magazine-types but also some creative loafers.

A year or two later, I was on a beat and up around 400. And there still were newsside types doing 20-40 bylined stories a year, gabbing on the phone, surfing the Web, drinking a lot of coffee and taking long lunches.

Sports people churn out a lot more work than newssiders, on average, in my experience.