FWIW #2: My Dilemma: Write or Wrong?

      A few years ago, when our
remaining daily newspaper was
going through the down-sizing
that has become commonplace
throughout the industry, I was
shocked when I read that two
of that paper's best columnists
(at least in my mind) were be-
ing offered - and had accepted -
"buyouts." That alone was fairly
shocking and puzzling to me,
for I found both of these people
to present well-written pieces
on a consistent basis. Although
I wasn't always in 100% agree-
ment with either of them - in
fact there were times I held an
opinion that was 180 degrees
opposite of theirs - I still held
them in the highest esteem.
      The thing that contributed
mightily to my reaction to the
dismissal of the two columnists
mentioned above was the relative
quality of work (in my opinion) of
the two clowns who were retained
who tried to pass themselves off
as columnists. What I found most
disturbing about these two folks
is that both of them appeared to
be more focused on writing what
appeared to me to be clearly in-
cendiary material with no other
motive than to just tick people
off. Not only did these bozos
routinely trigger a flood of letters
of protest to the newspaper, these
two were routinely on local talk
radio; invited to explain or defend
something inflammatory found in
their latest column(s).
    While I was seriously consid-
ering firing off a letter of protest to
the paper challenging the retention
of Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb,
suddenly it struck me as to just
what was going on there. Like most
media-related ventures, it's all about
advertising. Or, in this instance,
more about advertising revenue,
and the methods of generating it.
The two columnists that I mentioned
initially, who I thought were clearly
the best of the bunch, but were given
the boot anyway, paid a price for
doing their jobs too well. They
wrote columns that provided so much
detail and support which clearly vali-
dated their position(s) that they rarely
generated any significant protest!
      On the other hand, the two writers
that were retained at the paper relied
more on "shock value" more than any-
thing else and were rewarded for their
seemingly "less-than-noble" methods.
This brings to mind the story of the
host of a struggling talk show, a for-
mer politician whose show was rapidly
sinking in ratings and faced imminent
cancellation. In a desperation attempt
to save his show, he aired a few clearly
"sensationalized" programs to provide
what he hoped would be a ratings spike
that would buy him some time to try
and modify his show. He realized al-
most immediate ratings success and
quickly discovered that this type of
programming had "staying power" and
continued to attract new viewers while
retaining the current ones. Today,
Jerry Springer is a very wealthy man
for having the "courage" to compromise
his principles in the name of advertising
revenue. (If you think you may have
noted a touch of sarcasm in that last
statement, you would be correct.)
    Of the two types of journalistic
styles I've compared and contrasted in
this column, which one would you
choose? Your answer is probably sim-
ilar to mine, in that you would most
likely try to get a blend of the two and
hence retain the respect of your read-
ership but writing with a degree of
apparent "controlled aggressiveness."
The thing is, you really don't see
that being done anywhere, at least
I'm not aware of it being done with
any measure of success.
      If you by chance read my inaug-
ural column of a few days ago, and
were to compare it to this one, you'd
most likely call the first one "goofy"
(or probably much worse) when com-
pared to this, which, comparatively
speaking, might appear a bit more
"professional" in style.
    I'd like to try to create a successful
hybrid of the two styles, which could
result in a sort of "Jekyll & Hyde"
column unless I can successfully
integrate the two. We'll see what
happens in column #3...
      As always, I welcome and en-
courage all feedback pertaining to this
and any other columns I write. In add-
ition, topic recommendations are al-
ways encouraged.