I just read Roeper's latest column (see link to the right) and realized that he beat me to the hazing story. Which reminds me about a blog entry that I've had percolating for a while. Richard Roeper has one of the greatest jobs you could possibly imagine. All he has to do is write a relatively short column four days a week. That column is a pop culture/general musings column, kinda like a blog. His homework for this job involves paying attention to the news and listening to Howard Stern each morning. The actual columns will never win Roeper a Pulitzer, but they are often very entertaining and perceptive. Undoubtedly Roeper makes a tidy sum writing the column, despite the fact that it obviously takes little effort. He is worth it though, as there are not many writers capable of writing that column as effectively as Roeper.
Which brings me to something I alluded to in the previous paragraph. Roeper cribs about 25% of the ideas for his columns from Howard Stern. Time after time I have read a Roeper column that dealt with the same subject that was featured on Stern the day before. Coincidence? Well, Roeper is a regular on the show, has defended Stern in his column, has frequently directly referenced the show, and he was recently a judge for Stern's film festival. In today's column he refers to hatemonger Shirley Phelps-Roeper, who has been on Stern's show multiple times, though I didn't recall that her last name was Roeper. Ok, maybe the word "cribs" is too strong, but there is no doubt that he owes a debt of gratitude to Stern's show for originating some, make that many, interesting topics.
Despite a shaky start, Roeper has developed into quite the film reviewer. This seems to be where his real talent lies, as he always has a comeback for Ebert's sometimes inexplicable views. A film reviewer is a great job, but there are not many great reviewers. Roeper is one, though it remains to be seen how good his print reviews would be.
