AJC abandons its roots

... by moving from downtown to the suburbs. To an erstwhile distribution center, no less. But there is a mall across the street.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/us/16atlanta.html

recognizing, of course, that in some ways the abondonment took place years ago. This is the final physical manifestation of it.

 

From what I've heard, there's not much to affect.

 

But if ABC company moves its headquarters to another area of town, the AJC will went all the information.

 

And a spokesperson for ABC company will tell the AJC that no employees would be made available for interviews and no access to the new building would be granted.

 

I remember how AJC sponsored the season-ending NASCAR race in Atlanta. I'm thinking that went through the early 1990s or so. Then a couple of years ago they cut their veteran NASCAR beat writer Rick Minter.

 

It's sad that the AJC is leaving Atlanta. It's even sadder that the NY Times makes a huge editing blunder. If the building was built in 1972, how could Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. enter it? He died in 1968.

"The newspaper has said that the move will save money without affecting news coverage. The 1972 downtown building, a bunkerish affair that looks like it was built to repel rioters, has been largely empty since several rounds of cuts decreased the newsroom staff by more than 50 percent and the printing operations were consolidated in Gwinnett County last year.

The building was once a hub of activity, a de rigueur stop for candidates on election nights and, in its nearby earlier incarnations, a place where civil rights leaders like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. went to exhort editorial boards. "

 

The Times' writer/editors saved themselves by using "like" rather than "such as" or "including," but how many people know that rule? Clearly, something is wrong in that sentence.

As far as the Atlanta Journal Constitution, I feel like this is a major mistake in terms image. The AJC is Atlanta's paper, but how can it market itself as such after moving outside city limits and into the suburbs. It comes across as a sellout move.

My paper is in a downtown metro area. Parking sucks, and the facility is old. But people recognize the building. It's a downtown establishment, more than just a workplace. That means something, and that helps brand the paper. Even if it would make my life a little better to move the offices to the suburbs or even to a less trafficked area of the city, I hope (and expect) to remain in downtown.

 

I believe that the phrase "in its nearby earlier incarnations" clearly means the newspaper buildings that stood before this one was built in 1972.

 

Seems like most metros now push most of their copies to the suburbs. Not enough subscribers left in the city. To suburban readers, it won't be seen as a big deal.

 

I thought the same way too, initially. However, after reading it several times, I didn't walk away with that meaning.

 

Good rule of thumb: If the meaning is so cloudy that we can't agree on it, it should be rewritten. A good editor would have asked, "What exactly are you trying to say here?"