AJC and Hartford Courant not covering Super Bowl

That was damn funny.

 

"Need" to cover?

Why?

Why does an Atlanta newspaper (or any "big" newspaper) "need" to cover an event in which it does not have a local team participating and is not in its coverage area?

Give me specific "needs". Do not give me, "Well, uh, to show that it's a big paper."

Tell me specifically what an AJC writer will give AJC readers that is far and above the 23,549 other stories available on the wire (some from other "big" papers) this week.

 

Ain't no specifics to give, BTE. The AJC owes it to its readers to have a familiar voice covering a huge event like this not that far away.

It's far and away above the 23,549 other stories available because it's the AJC's voice. Nobody else is going to have that.

If you follow that logic, then there was no reason for the New York Times to send Red Smith or Dave Anderson to a Super Bowl if it was Dallas-Pittsburgh, or for the L.A. Times to send Jim Murray.

You send somebody because that's indeed what "a big paper" does -- for its readers.

 

Actually, I think my logic holds up in this example.

Red Smith and Jim Murray do qualify as "far above" the other stories available on the wire.

I don't think "local voice of AJC" necessarily does.

And remember, if saving money on a week of overpriced hotels and meals means you can do SOMETHING ELSE with that money (be it covering something down the road or not firing stringers or whatever), then you are doing your readers right by bypassing the Super Bowl.

We're no longer in "cover whatever we want and put it on the expense report" mode. It's all about priorities. There are no shortage of Super Bowl stories available to any paper with a decent wire subscription. There may be a shortage of stories for something else the paper may want to cover down the road.

 

BT:

No one "needs" fine china, a tablecloth and candlelight at a restaurant, either. You could slop the same food on a mess-hall tray, make them sit at a picnic table to slurp it down and ask, "anything else, asshole, or will you pay your bill now?" And they'd leave just as full. But the ambiance and the demonstrations of care are part of the experience. And not serving them Green Giant frozen string beans is part of it, too.

 

If you are not going to cut back on luxuries at this point in the nation's (and industry's) economic history . . . then when?

 

Well, hell, you do what I've been doing for quite some time now -- you keep on stimulating the economy with your credit cards. I just thought of this; they should have paid for the trip on a credit card, and then paid the minimum balance each month.

 

I don't think that people who are willing to pay to read news are interested in having a generic experience. I keep thinking of the movie Repo Man where every consumable has a generic label and Emilio Estevez is eating straight out of a can labeled "FOOD." I don't think newspaper readers, those who remain, are willing to consume that.

 

And those type of consumers are offended when the print product (that they're paying for) sends readers to the Internet for more/better/complete coverage.

 

Dick's Last Resort!!!

 

If I live in Atlanta, can't I just read Red Smith's or Jim Murray's take on the Super Bowl on the Interwebs? Why should I bother with the AJC's writer(s) at all, even if they were there spending money that could just as easily go into a publisher's pocket? Even with a Dixie angle, it's not likely the local writer is going to produce the best story of the bunch.

(OK, so I know I can't read Red Smith or Jim Murray on Super Bowl XLIII, but you know what I mean.)

 

BT is right. The AJC doesn't "need" to be in Tampa. There's this service called The Associated Press where they can get reams of copy. Too many people like to staff the Super Bowl and other big events because they are perks, not necessities.