AJC and Hartford Courant not covering Super Bowl

Exactly.

 

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, playthrough. No way any professional journalist takes a Greyhound to cover an event.

 

Perhaps, but they might drive it. That is not unheard of. I remember a good friend of mine from a major Texas paper driving to Miami to cover the SB. From Atlanta to Tampa? Not too much to ask.

 

Famous last words.



Sportswriters await the media shuttle at the Tampa bus station.

 

I used to drive 14 hours to go to the Daytona 500, because it saved us on two weeks of rental car.

But those of you arguing that this is a disgrace, let me ask you this, on a tangent: My old paper, Richmond, has canceled travel for the first quarter. No Skins writer at the Super Bowl. But, more shockingly to me, no writer at the Daytona 500. Now, most other papers, not a huge deal. But in my three years of covering NASCAR there, I was told without any doubt that Denny Hamlin (grew up 10 miles from the office) was a larger focus than the sport itself. I needed to have something from Hamlin if not every day, at least twice a weekend. So now, to suddenly not go to the biggest race of the year when he's going to be a contender...where do you fall on that? If the point is that the readers want all the Hamlin they can get, how is it different than the AJC not going to the Super Bowl?


(all this is a pointless argument, because the lack of travel is the LEAST of Richmond's problems, but I'm interested in opinions).

 

I think Richmond not going is just as bad as the AJC, because of how you laid it out. The AP won't provide anywhere the coverage a Richmond staffer would on Hamlin, specifically.

I think the bigger issue for me about the AJC not going is the proximity. It's understandable if Seattle doesn't go, because it would cost a fortune in flights. But since Atlanta is so close driving wise, it doesn't make sense.

 

I also don't see how a big NASCAR town doesn't go to the sport's biggest race. Same thing. I know about budget cuts, but I agree with many on here that you're only diminishing your product further, which won't be good for the bottom line in the long run. Some things, you just HAVE to find a way to cover.

 

What you miss is the writer's voice, the voice of the writer that the readers have developed a relationship with. If you can't have that voice at the Super Bowl and you're a major metro, you're telling your reader that your paper is not big league and you're saying not to give develop a relationship with your writers.

 

IJAG,

Still stunned RTD isn't going to Daytona - that is a bigger shockwave to me than AJC not staffing the Super Bowl.

While it's shortchanging the readership, keep in mind that lezboulez - on the JTO board - was just talking about his getting cut loose. He worked for the same chain as AJC so, from a certain point of view, at least Cox isn't being more overtly hypocritical. Same with MG ... I'm still not too far removed from my MG experience and still keep in touch with a former colleague at said paper. Usually one of the first questions out of my mouth is "Is everyone hanging in there?"

So far his answers have been "yes." If MG is still not drastically cutting - and yes, I have not forgotten Mike Mulhern and Joe Menzer who were let go in Winston-Salem - then it's somewhat acceptable, at least from my POV.

Problem is, do any readers really care?

 

As far as I know, all the media is in the stadium. I've covered five SBs and have never been in the main press box, but they have a section of the stands set up with tables and power and phones.

Late in the fourth quarter, though, they lead everyone down to the press room, which is generally where you see the end of the game. Don't know if that applies to the people in the main press box.