AJC and Hartford Courant not covering Super Bowl

Boy, is that off the mark. What Mizzou said. Our guys are uniformly having their busiest work week of the year over there right now.

 

It also appears that the Indy Star has passed on covering the big game as well. I've gotten conflicting information on that one. Someone PMd and told me the beat writer was there and someone else told me he took his furlough this week.

While it's pretty bad that the Indy Star isn't there, nobody ever would have put that paper on the same level as the AJC.

 

Since Indianapolis wants to and probably will host a Super Bowl, that's not sound thinking, either. If and when they get one, the Star will have a Super Bowl organizing beat guy, and rightly so.

 

So why do we even have columnists if their opinions don't matter to the readers? That is just a ridiculous comment.
Given many of the comments on here, why do we even need newspapers? Just let everyone get their news from espn.com and let this charade end.
And Michael, I work the desk, and I do not share the opinions of many on this thread (and I do not dislike writers). It's sad that this many people on a sports journalists board think this way. If we don't give a shit, why would anyone else?

 

I've covered five and I concur with Mizzou. Lots of copy to churn -- especially the Sunday stuff that has to be in the can by Friday afternoon -- and very little down time.

 

To desk people. I know writers and editors often fight like cartoon cats and dogs. But as a writer, I was damn grateful to have a desk behind my work. I'm my own copy editor these days, and frankly, it's stressful. My point was only that newspaper workers have no time now for their historic intramural rivalries.
The Super Bowl is a lot of work. If your team is in it, A LOT of work. A freakin' nightmare, in fact.
At the Washington Post in the 1980s, the story was that when the Redskins were in the Super Bowl, Ben Bradlee himself did page proof edits of all stories. No pressure there. Some junket.

 

The Super Bowl is no doubt a lot of work, especially for the writers. The only time it's truly stressful for the desk is if it's in your town or your team is involved. I think the opinions here are a reflection of our different viewpoints (small/weekly papers vs. big market, desk vs. writer). But it's still depressing as hell for people to essentially say that unique content is not necessary.

 

For more than 100 years, newspapers assumed that people paid attention to our writers and would buy the paper to get their viewpoints. For more that 100 years, newspapers made tons of money.

Now, we're all of a sudden assuming that readers don't care what's keeping the folios from falling on the ads? That they won't notice if they get plain-vanilla AP copy instead of their favorite columnist or writer?

The reason this kind of crap has gained traction is that there's not an immediate fallout. AJC uses AP copy from the Super Bowl? Will the publisher notice anything different on the Monday after? No, because it takes readers a while to get pissed off and cancel subscriptions; usually they just don't renew it. By that time, the Super Bowl's a month or two or six in the past, and the publisher doesn't see the connection.

It's utter crap that a paper like the AJC isn't sending people to Tampa. And anyone who thinks a trip like that is a "treat" for the writer doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. And that comes from a long-time desker.

 

OTD, you said it better than I ever could.

 

Fantastic post.