Over the years, I’ve been a huge fan of all forms of mash-ups and bootlegs. Back when I used to have free time, I did a bunch of my own audio mash-ups for kicks, some of which got picked up and played around the world. Anyway, I recently discovered Eclectic Method, a group that specializes brilliant video mash-ups. Check out their takes on Sesame Street, Tarantino, Michael Jackson, and random baby talk.

On their “biography” page, they tell their story, but entirely with the biographical narratives of others. It’s genius. Strictly speaking, this isn’t really about writing, but this is insanely creative storytelling that I can’t help but admire. Check it out:

Bud Shaw has a great story over at Mental Floss on the rise and fall of The National, a short-lived national daily sports newspaper.

I read it regularly and loved it, before it died a year after it sprang into existence. It was supposed to be the USA Today of sports, covering both national and local sports every day. It was loaded with some of the best sports writers of any era: Frank Deford, Scott Ostler, and Dave Kindred.

At the time the National was on newsstands, I was a Lakers fan living in Chicago. Back then, if you wanted to follow another team other than the local teams, you had no real options. This was before the Internet. But I fondly remember sitting at lunch, reading the National for daily, in-depth coverage of my hometown Lakers from 2000 miles away, an idea that was revolutionary at the time.

Not only did The National precede the Web, it nearly preceded the desktop publishing revolution, so, as Shaw details in his story, the technological challenges they were trying to overcome in 1990 were daunting. Ultimately, it was a bold, journalistic idea with a bad business plan. But it was great while it lasted…

Check out the full, entertaining article here.

Linda Formichelli at the Renegade Writer blog posted an interesting piece on “writing for peanuts“: freelancers working for sites like Associated Content and… um, Examiner.com.

Interesting discussion of some of the arguments and bad logic about freelancers who sell themselves shows and work for pennies. She does an effective demolition of many arguments many freelancers (myself included) use when publishing work for cheap, or nothing. One pretty biting line:

Take my word for it — no editor of a market with decent rates is going to take a clip from a content mill seriously. There are no barriers to entry — practically anyone can post their writing — and even if you write a stellar article (which I’m sure you will), it will be surrounded by lazy reporting, bad writing, and unprofessional presentation.

Her argument resonates with me, especially since I’ve recently cut back my efforts writing for examiner.com. It can be fun and make a little money, but ultimately, the hourly rate for the work is close to nothing, and the upside of exposure is very limited. I’ve done some work there that I’m proud of, but over time, it’s not the most productive venue to write.

Time and effort is better spend pitching bigger markets.

Point taken, Linda: aim higher.

A few weeks ago, New York Times did an interesting profile of one of my favorite writers, Bill Simmons, better known as ESPN’s “Sports Guy.”

It includes some interest background on the early days and his rise to becoming a model of a new breed of columnist that broke a lot of the conventional rules of the news business:

At the time, Mr. Simmons was 28, making $50 a week as a contributor to America Online’s Digital City Boston, he recalled in a recent interview. “My goal was to make the welcome screen,” he said.

Barely a decade later, he has proved that prediction true: He is the Sports Guy on ESPN.com, where his column has an estimated 1.4 million page views a month; his weekly podcasts have been downloaded 21 million times this year via iTunes; and his new book, at 700-plus pages, “The Book of Basketball,” reached No. 1 on The New York Times nonfiction best-seller list last week.

That Mr. Simmons is perhaps America’s most famous sports columnist, with a salary said to put him among a tiny elite of sports commentators, is a tribute to his undeniable work ethic and fascination with his subjects: sports, popular culture, lists, himself, basketball, his friends and family, and his readers.

Perhaps most interesting was how his early struggles to make a career as a writer pushed him to the web:

“I tried to break in conventionally — but it didn’t matter how good you were, you had to wait 10 to 12 years to get a column,” he said in an interview. He wrote for a while and even spent a year bartending before giving the Internet a shot. “The Web site was a way to get out all the frustration of not having a column.”

Over the years, the Internet has prevailed over print — in July he stopped writing his column in ESPN’s magazine. “I got bored with the space of it,” he said, “of having to write 1,200 words, and with a deadline six days in advance. It is impossible to write a great sports column six days in advance.”

Simmons’ approach and style reflect his roots on the web. His stories are punchy, timely, light, and filled with pop culture references and hyperlinks. When he wants to, he writes long: his columns can run anywhere from eight to 20 pages, depending on his whim. He devotes columns to “mailbag” question and answers from readers. His podcast (“The B.S Report”) rivals his column for popularity. He tweets a lot.

But it’s not just a matter of using the right tools and and media. It’s also clear that Simmons has a passion and love for his work. I think this makes a difference. When you read his column or listen to his show, it’s evident that he’s having fun.

Simmons uses the full range of modern media to build a community of readers and listeners. He’s a good example of a modern approach to journalism and writing that breaks many of the established “rules.” He shows that the newspaper business may be shrinking, but the market for good, smart writing remains strong.

Check out the rest of the NY Times profile here.