Do Syndicated Columnists Have a Future?

DrMrLordX writes "With declining circulation numbers looming over the heads of major newspaper publishers, what fate awaits syndicated columnists? I am not syndicated, but I do write for a local independent paper with the ultimate goal of becoming successful (financially and otherwise) as a columnist. Every time I contemplate the possibility of seeking syndication, bleak future newspaper circulation forecasts make me question my own motives. Is it even possible to break into the editorial world with a shrinking reader base? Would it be better to get into socio-political blogging and rely on ad/referral revenues?"

Credibility

[NineNine]

The problem with blogging, is that among those of us with brains, most bloggers have no credibility, whatsoever. Blogging is amateur. Sure, you can make money from it (PerezHilton), but you'll never have any credibility as a real journalist.

Re:In a word, no

[aethera]

You could always limit that supply by setting yourself up in a niche market, so to speak. The national syndicated columnists may end up going the way of the dodo, but local columnists will probably be around for as long as local papers are. I'm thinking of the people who evolved out of the old local gossip columnist, the ones who can write about boring local stuff like high school graduations, ribbon cuttings, road construction projects and petty bickering in a city council and somehow make it all seem important, maybe even interesting. With a dash of local muckraking too, I suppose. As long as people like to hear about themselves, this sort of thing is likely to be around, and possibly even a way to make a living.

Re:Yes, I hope you have a syndicated future

[deltacephei]

Many syndicated columnists are also snarky, self-righteous and pretentious. What we have learned over the last five years is that having editors, deadlines and a real job generally doesn't make the slightest difference.

Well, good and depressing point. I disagree in part though. The structure of the organization and an editor tend to add value. Otherwise there is precious little in the way of thoughts and the send button. The culture of posting comments in response to blogs is also different than that of letters to the editor in traditional print. People often immediately resort to brutal and nasty responses that are automatically rejected by the writer. The forced response lag time in print achieves two things that online can't: first the issue and thoughts simply settle, this brings more reflection and less reaction; second there is still a higher level of overall civility because again the editor can either not print a vicious response or selectively edit particularly egregious words. Additionally, if only because standards should count, print at the bare minimum goes through a spell checker. A local TV news site I read cannot post stories for more than two days without obvious grammar and spelling errors.

What matters is whether you are any good. You also have to be prepared to work for years before you have any real success - whether you are on paper or online.

Agreed. This is a true statement in all professions.

Newspapers as they are now are in a death spiral; the online model just works better for news, but newspapers have no particular advantage there over anyone else. They pull most of their stories from the wire feeds, and anyone can do that. Anyone can do analysis and commentary too. Again, what matters is whether you are any good.

Is this ultimately good for news consumers? I think not.