AJC and Hartford Courant not covering Super Bowl

Most papers in NFL cities typically have three to five at the Super Bowl.

 

It is a stunning decision.
I keep looking around, seeing people who ARE here and feeling relieved. Must be what it's like to be 90 and shuffle into the senior citizens' center, hoping everybody you saw there yesterday made it through the night.

We have me and the NFL writer, with a columnist coming late in the week who will stay and do some spring training stuff.

 

And when is the next rouond of buyouts/layoffs coming?

 

According to the story, the Chicago Tribune has three at the game. The Dallas Morning News has four or five, the NY Times has 11. I'm not saying you have to send that many, but if you're in Atlanta, you send someone, even if it's only one.

 

Reminds me of an old Furman Bisher quote about the first Super Bowl, which the AJC (or its non-hyphended predecessors) did not attend. My editor said there was nothing to the game worth covering. He was a man of great genius.

 

The Boston Herald, a struggling entity for years now, has two people at the game. If I lived in Atlanta, it would give me great pleasure to cancel my subscription today.

 

Yeah. 'Cause its not like this is something fans care about, or anything.

I think some folks have the buyout/layoff thing wrong -- you end up buying out and laying off people because you DON'T cover the stuff readers care about, not because you do.

 

They now cover the South like the dew covers a Dixie Cup.

 

If you guys would just stay at the Motel 6 and not hoard your damn Marriott points, newspapers would be hiring and we'd all be going to the Super Bowl. [/Alma]

With that said, however, no event has a higher reporter-to-good-story ratio over the years than the freaking Super Bowl.

 

10 of them are mojos and bloggers, though.