For years I have read online papers such as The Telegraph and GQ and it’s never really hit me but (The Telegraph are particularly guilty of this) they employ ex-professionals to write their columns. To be fair, it’s totally understandable. It’s a dog-eat-dog world in the world that is journalism, and employing ex-professionals is a great tactic to entice readers to their newspaper opposed to others that employ the ‘normal’ journalists that have worked their fingers to the bone, taking **** from their editors for years and being given awful stories to report on.

Is it unethical for mainstream publications to use ex-professionals instead of seasoned journalists?

Is it right and ethical that just because they’re professionals or ex-professionals that they can leapfrog the journalists that have craved to work for a national newspaper such as The Telegraph? It may sound like I’ve got it in for The Telegraph but I haven’t, in fact I read their sports section on a daily basis, including the ex-professionals columns when they’re posted. Brian Moore (ex England Rugby international), is a particular favourite of mine, so much so I included him in my personal statement for University. I appreciate his honesty and find I am always googling new lexis due to his expansive vocabulary which I enjoy.

Gary Neville and Kevin Pietersen are also columnists for their respected sports and I can’t help think, ‘Just stick to your day job’. However, despite my criticisms, maybe they can offer a more insightful and critical article that maybe a standard journalist couldn’t which after all, is what journalism is about? Like my lecturer at Brighton Uni said, the main thing for journalists is to not be boring. If they can provide a better article because of their experiences then maybe journalism will evolve around burn out or ex professionals and the standards journalists, won’t necessarily die out, but won’t be claiming the big jobs and will stick to local papers or tabloids.