AJC and Hartford Courant not covering Super Bowl

I agree with you. This does indeed make the AJC look small in the eyes of many but again, we're talking pro football and the Atl. This move came from very high up I believe.

 

I traded emails with some people who work there and they're really embarrassed and dumbfounded by this decision.

Apparently, their absence is the talk of Tampa.

 

What are they going to write about for a week?

I could see sending one person, but overall, I have no problem with this decision.

 

I repeat. This is worse business judgment than news judgment. If I lived in Atlanta (no thanks), I wouldn't bother to get the AJC. If the sports section is cutting out the Super Bowl, I have to assume the news departments are presenting little or nothing too.

 

What does the AP do a better job of covering? What can you get from your sister papers?

 

Your response to imjustagirl's comment made me think of something. I think what would boggle the mind of football fans would be if Monday's USA Today listed agate showing the total cost of each paper to cover the Super Bowl, including travel, meals and lodging, and showing how many reporters, photogs, etc. were there.

I think it would blow fans' minds. These same fans, I would bet, or most of them anyway, would hardly notice if the paper ran wire copy on everything. Great layouts, good packaging, strong photos, stories, sidebars, columns -- just all from the wire. If you later told them they got all that without the paper spending any more than on any other day, I'd bet most readers would think it's crazy to spend the kind of money my imaginary USA Today spreadsheet would show it costs to send staff writers there.

I think we've all been very spoiled. And although I think the paper should probably have one writer there, I think this thread shows we've always taken travel for granted. It's not like the Falcons are in the game, but this thread makes it seem like the end of the world the AJC isn't there. Again I think it should be there, but I don't have to do their budget and make sure they can cover all of their teams properly this fiscal year.

 

CB, you'd be surprised how much people notice such things. With much more immediate feedback than we used to have, I'm continually getting unexpected indications that readers notice a lot -- like the feedback we get when a regular weekly column or feature by one of the writers doesn't run because that writer's on vacation or whatever.

You made a very reasoned argument, but I still think you're wrong: A big city paper like the AJC should have a writer at the Super Bowl, and I don't think it's a matter of being spoiled. The days of 10 writers going from a non-participating city are over for most. But in their neck of the woods, it was an OBLIGATION to its readership to send either a columnist or an NFL beat person for their unique perspective for readers. No matter what the climate, I can't be convinced otherwise.

This privately held company still has the money to do this, and it should have been done.

 

Just to be clear, you and I agree they should have a writer there. I said that. Said it twice. Consider my post more of a tangent or sidebar than a main bar, I suppose. But I also know I'm not the person in charge of the AJC's sports budget in January and not knowing what the next 11 months will be like and hoping to be able to staff Georgia team's games the way I'd like.

 

No, I understand and noted that you said they should be there. Sorry if my tone was a little more argumentative than I intended.

I'm just saying that in any budget, a paper that size should have been able to find the money and means -- driving, or whatever -- to get one of its writers to Tampa for a few days for this game.

 

If you have a bunch of stories to edit or write in a finite time, the smart way to allocate your time is to spend most of it on the stuff that will have the highest readership. I think you have to allocate other resources, like money and news hole, likewise. We have seen "hyperlocal" for a couple years and have not seen any tangible evidence that it works in any way but theoretically, at some distant point in the future, maybe, we hope. To me, it's not a matter of whether people can read about the Super Bowl elsewhere (they always could) or whether AP can cover it (it always did). You need to blow out the big stuff and cut somewhere else. Best editor I worked for started his news meetings with, "What are people going to be talking about tomorrow?" That factor is never going to change. This is probably not the sports editors' fault, but it is editing by fad (by someone high up, most likely) and it is profoundly stupid.

 

Nah, your tone was fine. And I see your side, trust me.

 

Question for anybody who covers Super Bowls...

How much of the media seating is inside the arena?

I've covered World Series where 25 big outlet reporters were inside a room glued to a TV-- you know who you are.

I grew up in the ATL and always thought the sports section was thorough if nothing else-- a very good section, actually.

But if you're covering a game off TV, what the F is the point?

Postgame? Y'mean the same gang bang quotes everybody gets?

Your local guys? C'mon. If it's a good game, all that shit gets tossed out the window, and the entire horde writes the same story. And (B) it's really hard to guarantee access to a specific player or players these days.