Mr College Football (Tony Barnhart) leaving the AJC

[VolDad]

On a personal note: I want to acknowledge and say thanks to those of you who wrote words of encouragement concerning an upcoming change in my relationship with the AJC. Given the realities of the blogosphere the word has gotten out about some of the tough decisions a lot of us in this business are having to make. I’m not in a position to talk about it now but I hope to be able to do so soon. But I did want to thank you for the kind notes.

The question at Bama: When do you play the rookies? | Mr. College Football | ajc.com


I will miss his insight.

 

[hatvol96]

Good riddance, now if we can just get all of the TV outlets he ruins to follow suit.

 

[GAVol]

I've never thought he was all that good on TV, but I think he does a pretty good job in print.

 

[**ORANGEBLOOD**]

Not to mention he's great on the radio.

 

[hatvol96]

I'm surprised he's lived this long. Given that he spends most of his time with his head firmly planted up Mark Richt's and Phillip Fulmer's asses, I don't see how he's avoided brain damage from oxygen deprivation.

 

[GAVol]

Furman Bisher is also leaving the AJC. Just more evidence that newspapers are dying everywhere.

 

[volfan2024]

On a personal note: I want to acknowledge and say thanks to those of you who wrote words of encouragement concerning an upcoming change in my relationship with the AJC. Given the realities of the blogosphere the word has gotten out about some of the tough decisions a lot of us in this business are having to make. I’m not in a position to talk about it now but I hope to be able to do so soon. But I did want to thank you for the kind notes.

The question at Bama: When do you play the rookies? | Mr. College Football | ajc.com


I will miss his insight.

I concur VolDad.

 

[Vercingetorix]

I've never thought he was all that good on TV, but I think he does a pretty good job in print.

IMO, Barnhart is useful only as a barometer for whatever the conventional wisdom is at any given moment. If he's done any actual reporting or analysis of his own, it's never made it into any of his columns that I've read.

Furman Bisher is also leaving the AJC. Just more evidence that newspapers are dying everywhere.

The killer for me was the round of buyouts not at a crap paper like the AJC, but at the Washington Post. If a real paper is crashing and burning like that, the whole industry is clearly doomed.

It's going to be interesting to see how the internet media reacts to the actual demise of the so-called mainstream media that it's been trying so hard to supplant. Who's going to do the actual reporting? Or are we just going to skip all pretense of that from now on?

 

[Lexvol]

IMO, Barnhart is useful only as a barometer for whatever the conventional wisdom is at any given moment. If he's done any actual reporting or analysis of his own, it's never made it into any of his columns that I've read.



The killer for me was the round of buyouts not at a crap paper like the AJC, but at the Washington Post. If a real paper is crashing and burning like that, the whole industry is clearly doomed.

It's going to be interesting to see how the internet media reacts to the actual demise of the so-called mainstream media that it's been trying so hard to supplant. Who's going to do the actual reporting? Or are we just going to skip all pretense of that from now on?

I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but maybe if some of the "mainstream media" was doing real reporting the blogosphere would have a smaller role....I am no media watchdog mind you.

It just seems like this is almost somewhat of a market correction. Afterall, the NY Times or the AP is source material for nearly every story out there anyway.

 

[Vercingetorix]

I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but maybe if some of the "mainstream media" was doing real reporting the blogosphere would have a smaller role....I am no media watchdog mind you.

The blogosphere has served a great role of pointing out the media's inadequacies, biases, laziness, etc., to the point where I think that right now, the average citizen who's willing to put in a little time and critical thinking probably can get the best overall picture of "the news" than at any time in American history. The problem is that it's been based on this give and take; you have to take in both halves of it. Thus far the blogosphere has been useful alternative reporting; on its own, though, it's likely to be little more than disconnected ranting. Blogs need the media's stories to pivot off of.

It just seems like this is almost somewhat of a market correction. Afterall, the NY Times or the AP is source material for nearly every story out there anyway.

That's a good point. Fewer news organizations are always a bad thing, however. And I really worry about local news. How are citizens going to find out what's really going on in Tennessee politics when its local newspapers are dead and the AP and NYT are the only game left in town?

 

[Lexvol]

I understand the concern. Good reporting is essential for a healthy society. I've suspected for sometime that your profession is somehow tied to journalism (you are one of the most articulate posters on this site or any other for that matter). In any case I am positive that you certainly know more about the topic than I do.

Reducing the number of news outlets may be detrimental as you suggest. On the other hand, perhaps such a correction will allow the "cream" to rise to the top a little faster. I still believe that there will always be a market for good reporting. Maybe by trimming the fat the public will receive a better product from some of the outlets struggling to survive. Hopefully the chips will fall in that direction.

One of the ironic things about the situation is that news outlets (especially local news outlets) have been feeding the public puppies and murder for so long that very few people understand the difference between real reporting and "local news". In many ways the media has contributed to the blurred lines, and have actually made the blogosphere look more factual than it really is.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Afterall, the NY Times or the AP is source material for nearly every story out there anyway.

ding ding ding... we have a winner. The news is already homogenized to the point where one paper is indistinguishable from the next.

 

[Business]

The internet has took out the need and cost for distribution, ink, paper, etc (overhead) to get advertising dollars. The name of the game is still getting readers to your media be that print or online. Look at GoVolsExtra.com, basically an online version of the sports page from the Sentinel. In the future, you are going to see more organized pages like that for other topics in newspapers.

The majority of people don't buy the Sentinel to see what happened yesterday, because they read about it five minutes after seeing about it on TV. They also talked about it in the comments section cultivating ideas with other like-minded individuals. It's the Hardee's 6am breakfast in the present, baby. The only time I need print is when I'm on the can or eating lunch. The talent is going online.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Vercingetorix]

I understand the concern. Good reporting is essential for a healthy society. I've suspected for sometime that your profession is somehow tied to journalism (you are one of the most articulate posters on this site or any other for that matter). In any case I am positive that you certainly know more about the topic than I do.

Thanks; I'm not a journalist, though. I worked as an editor for a couple of years when I was right out of school, but other than that I'm just a former computer guy who stays home with his kid right now.

Reducing the number of news outlets may be detrimental as you suggest. On the other hand, perhaps such a correction will allow the "cream" to rise to the top a little faster. I still believe that there will always be a market for good reporting. Maybe by trimming the fat the public will receive a better product from some of the outlets struggling to survive. Hopefully the chips will fall in that direction.

One of the ironic things about the situation is that news outlets (especially local news outlets) have been feeding the public puppies and murder for so long that very few people understand the difference between real reporting and "local news". In many ways the media has contributed to the blurred lines, and have actually made the blogosphere look more factual than it really is.

I'm not sure that it's possible to write about this subject without it turning into a 1500-word essay, and it's entirely hypothetical, anyway -- the deed is done. Print newspapers are over with. I wring my hands over the demise of the papers, but I don't subscribe to my local one; my RSS reader is my newspaper.

But we're already turning into a country in which a third of us get our news from something like the Free Republic; another third from something like Daily Kos, and the rest don't bother to get our news at all. I just see the loss of all the news organizations that support those papers as pushing us inevitably further away from having much common ground from real discussion. When you listen to someone from the Left and the Right argue in a bar nowadays, they haven't even read enough of the same "news" to have a coherent argument about it. The local paper/evening news model certainly wasn't the best at accurately informing the citizenry, but at least it provided us all a common framework within which to have our disagreements.

I guess it's completely unrealistic to expect a citizenry who spends so many of its cycles on American Idol and Dancing With The Stars to care about state and local politics, though.

 

[tng8r]

Paul Kuharski left the Tennessean here to go and blog for ESPN......sign of the times.

 

[jakez4ut]

I understand the concern. Good reporting is essential for a healthy society. I've suspected for sometime that your profession is somehow tied to journalism (you are one of the most articulate posters on this site or any other for that matter). In any case I am positive that you certainly know more about the topic than I do.

Reducing the number of news outlets may be detrimental as you suggest. On the other hand, perhaps such a correction will allow the "cream" to rise to the top a little faster. I still believe that there will always be a market for good reporting. Maybe by trimming the fat the public will receive a better product from some of the outlets struggling to survive. Hopefully the chips will fall in that direction.

One of the ironic things about the situation is that news outlets (especially local news outlets) have been feeding the public puppies and murder for so long that very few people understand the difference between real reporting and "local news". In many ways the media has contributed to the blurred lines, and have actually made the blogosphere look more factual than it really is.

very insightful.:thumbsup:

 

[Lexvol]

I guess it's completely unrealistic to expect a citizenry who spends so many of its cycles on American Idol and Dancing With The Stars to care about state and local politics, though.

I'm afraid that is the bottom line.

 

[jakez4ut]

my wife is a huge "so you think you can dance" fan......watches it like Idol.

anyway.......i made the mention to her last week that i hoped as many people voted this November as did who their favorite dancer is.......and i was shocked the next episode, even the host and one of the judges, who are both British mind you, basically said the same thing......

anyway.....there's a lot of truth to what you are saying. people are more concerned with what Lindsey Lohan wore for dinner last night than what to do about N. Korea or Iran.......hell, i doubt they coulc pick either country out on a globe.