Your first read on the Super Bowl

I could live with that. But nothing was analyzed in this piece. It was presented, meticulously, as a scientific observation.

 

Column writing isn't science. It's alchemy. I agree that columnists who never take a stance on anything and soft-peddle features are just as bad as the screaming ranters who don't give you anything you couldn't get by watching on television, other than perhaps a well-crafted argument.

One of the reasons I think Reilly was really good the first, say, five years he was writing the back page for SI is that he struck a really good balance between the two. He gave the reader strong opinions when he had something to say, and he gave you insight into people or events when he thought painting a scene said more than a rant or a quip ever could.

There is no perfect formula for what a columnist should or shouldn't be, to be frank. There are a few columnists I think are terrible, but I acknowledge they have value because readers (or at least a portion of readers) value their strong opinions and feel they hold coaches or players "accountable" because they give voice to the frustrated fan. And there are also columnists who are more in love with their local celebrity status than journalism, and don't want to offend anyone so they don't take a real stand on anything, and their either writing feature columns that go an inch deep or they're writing really tired jokes that they've recycled hundreds of times.

A good columnist, like Wetzel, is like a baseball player who can hit for power, average, has speed and plays good defense. He might do some stuff slightly better than others, but put hin in any situation and he's going to give you something good in return more often than not. If I'm an editor, I'm defining my columnist by the broad term of saying "This person is who I want at bat in a big moment. Because he's my best, most versatile player. If he gives me a strong opinion, that's great. If he gives me great scene, a peek behind the curtain and says something you can't get by watching this game in the stands or on television, that's great. Ideally, I'll take both, because that's the equivalent of a 3-run home run. But all that matters is I give my most talented, intelligent person a chance at the plate."

 

I agree with your last graf, but the second one makes me think back. Maybe I didn't read Reilly that much then, maybe I've just forgotten. But didn't he usually throw in at least a line or a couple grafs about WHY he was painting this image? "Here's Superstar Athlete handing out toys to homeless children BECAUSE HE IS A GOOD MAN WHO GOT WRONGED WHEN HE WAS YOUNG?" To me, that's the difference between a feature and a column: pointing out WHY it matters. And WHY you should care that he/she does these things.

 

Well, features frequently do that too. Sometimes the writer is subtle about it, other times not so much.

 

If Dan Wetzel presents sharp opinion or analysis in six columns out of ten, I grant him the other four in which to report or write funny or do what he wishes. Part of the assumption of 'column' is the assumption of 'columnist.'

If I have an ongoing relationship with a particular columnist, I grant them the room to stretch themselves - and to stretch me.

 

Well, if the mugshot is there, it's going to be a column. The concern comes in when your columnist is doing stuff your staff writers should be doing, but not doing what they can't do: Write opinions.

 

I disagree, as someone pointed out above. Plenty of columnists get the mug shot whether it's a column or not. It's basically when a company (newspaper or website) decides these are the top guys, they get mugs because they are columnists, and it gets used even when it's not a column. I think that blurs the line as well.

 

I like that description. But there are times when you need an opinion, and only a few people are designated to write it, and it's got to be the columnist who does.

 

It does blue the line. But, if I were a boss, I wouldn't be handing out mugshots to people who didn't write opinion or analysis.

 

I'm not presenting it right. Those who get mugshots are columnists. But they don't always write columns.

I'm not saying Wetzel isn't a columnist. Or that this wasn't a good, strong piece. What I'm asking is if it was a "column" as the first two pages of commenters enjoyed calling it.

 

I think it was, yes. It traveled beyond mere observation and made points that, frankly, I don't agree with (nor do I need to).

Like:

<i>He’s supposedly too cool, or that’s what rival fans say. He’s supposedly too much of a pretty boy, or that’s what they mock. Not here. The guy with everything looked empty.

This was a football player, a true football player, in among the worst moments the game can provide/ </i>

Now, personally, I don't think he's cool - seems like a big nerdy dork to me, a guy who just happens to be pretty good looking - but Wetzel is making a clear opinion.

 

Fair enough. Like I said, it was a thin line for me because he obviously leads you somewhere.