Here's a contrarian thought on good writers ...

Is it possible that, in the midst of our panicked search for what, exactly, the reader wants - news! writing! opinion! art! blogs! - we've ignored the possibility that every group of readers wants something different?

And that maybe, instead of tayloring our work around the one silver bullet we think we've found, we should strive for enough range and balance to provide each of those groups something compelling every day, be it a piece of news from our beat writers, a profile from our takeout writers, a thought-provoking piece from our columnists, etc.?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, maybe some people want opinion, while others want anaylysis, and still others want Death of a Race Horse.

They don't want homogenuity, if that is even a word.

I think if there's one trait I admire more than any other in a writer, or a section, it is range.

Or maybe I'm just rambling. . .

 

You can get range by having a few writers who are incredibly talented with a great breadth and depth to their work. Or you can employ enough different types of writers -- which is what many newspapers did, before their "right-sizing" -- so that you account for hard news, profiles, commentaries, etc.

Now we've got papers with fewer people on staff, and spread so thin that their strengths get lost in their weaknesses, all of which are on display. Beat guys end up blogging commentary or doing podcasts, which take away from their reporting time. Takeout people are pressed into beats because the staff has shrunk, because newshole has dwindled and because focus groups claim no one wants longer stories. Columnists go on radio and TV for "synergy" instead of further honing their writing and reporting skills. And then we have numbskull bosses who want that homogeneity of which you write. Or, at least, they dedicate themselves to offending absolutely no one.

Now demoralize that group with miserable industry news, no raises and cloudy futures. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

 

the notion that columnizing and beat reporting are in decline is ridiculous.

we have more information at our fingertips than our sainted predecessors. we are more informed. we are smarter and better-read than the klods who used to inhabit pressboxes. for every w.c. heinz there were 20 drunken bigots who couldn't spell.

we also work five times as hard - spreading ourselves across multi platforms.

 

Clods. With a C.

Sports staffs were pretty small until the 1980s. It was not unusual for a baseball beat writer to cover every game every season. With crappy old presses there were more editions -- I had to file for four editions when I started covering MLB. I think you can safely say it was different, but I don't think you can say today's journalists work harder.

 

I don't know if there are too many people I make it a point to go read. Especially since I read way too much copy at my shop as it is. The days when I can go read a story or a column and enjoy it non-critically have gone the way of the healthy Redskins offensive lineman.

Besides, I'd rather spend more time on trying to make my own writing compelling enough for an audience to make it a point to read than become someone else's fanboy looser.

 

First, apologies for starting a thread that turned out really well and then leaving it alone for several days. I guess I didn't know it would have the legs it does, and I had a busy weekend. Nice job by all, some interesting discussion.

1) To me, "Death of a Racehorse" is definitely a column. I think the phrase "point of view" says it much better than "opinion." It covers several directions.

2) I agree that a column is NOT a feature with a sig on it. But here's a twist in my thinking: I think Dave Hyde's piece on Jake Scott could be looked at both ways. It certainly wasn't a standard column, as long as it was. But Hyde was certainly in there. So I think it's kind of a hybrid.

3) jgmacg, to answer your question of Monday. I spend very little time anymore seeking great writing of any kind. I used to get Esquire, then GQ, and now I get neither. Ditto SI. The only good writing I generally read is something that's sent to me. And even then, I might not get around to it.

Worse, I think (well, I'm not sure what the value judgment is) is my immediate suspicion over anything that covers several pages in a jump in a newspaper, or has eight or nine page links in it online. I have to be hooked pretty quickly to stay with it.

Might be curmudgeonly, might be 30 years of reading for a living. I've got a couple of books sitting on my coffee table that I haven't touched, either.

 

Thanks, SF.

 

interesting, and i agree on readers wanting to lash out, but most of the folks who gravitate from columnist to radio, tv, fall into the contrived have-a-take-and-don't-suck mentality. i guess my biggest worry is that great columnists will go the way of the jerkwater town i grew up in. tv's not the ruination of everything, but when it comes to great writing where sports are concerned, it just may well be.

 

You can't write local opinions/columns/commentary? I mean, I agree with your sentiment. I just don't believe the people in Podunk don't care about commentary.