AJC give bad GT media

[WreckinGT]

I have no problems with Ken writing an article like that. He writes several articles after every game. Im usually fine with the AJC outside of Mark Bradley who is just plain awful.

 

[tmhunter52]

Wasn't Klock a tight end before coming to Tech? Maybe we are saving that for an opportune moment of our own...

 

[Skeptic]

I'm lost on what you are talking about.

Every paper has a style book or a copy style guide. It's generally acknowledged that positive copy circulates more widely and is more popular than negative copy.

You can write whatever you want .. How that improves your connection to your reader base ... that's another question.

The style book is concerned with English and grammar and local adaptations to generally accepted wire service guides having to do perhaps with street names, use of titles (including once upon a time whether "Ms" might be used, and if courtesy titles are required, what if the subject is a confirmed 5-alarm criminal for instance, then is he a "Mr."? . They have nothing to do with positive or negative writing or content. Now, Fox or MSNBC might hint at such things toward their own political ends. Not sure where you got "generally acknowledged" from -- sounds like that now familiar "Everybody is writing it" or "Lots of people are saying" we will hear up until the election. But news is news and it means simply the plural of "new". Lastly, the journalistic boneyards are full of journals that set out to report only "good news". But clearly a reporter is going to decide the direction of the story based on what he or she saw or knows. Tight ends wrecking Tech's pass defense is a legitimate approach.

 

[Vespidae]

Sorry sir, you are not correct. I am not referring to the AP style book that you describe. Nor am I referring to spin.

Newspapers, as many marketing communications organizations do, usually have a "house style" for how they write and present copy. Call it "tone" if you like.

How do I know this? I was in the biz.

Many papers prefer positive statements rather than negative because they generate more reads and impressions. It is not my opinion. That is the result of hundreds of studies conducted since the 20's.

Example:
"Tech's recruiting has shortcomings and is deeply flawed" is a negative statement.
"Tech needs to improve recruiting" is a positive comment.

Same info. Presented differently.

The last AJC copy style sheet I saw was 1995, so maybe it has changed or not even used anymore. But they are used and are effective for creating a specific tone of reporting.

But a lot of things aren't taught anymore. Most advertising today is rubbish.

 

[18in32]

I would hate to read Ken's coverage if I didn't think he presented the good and the bad, equally and fairly. He does, and he does a great job. We're fortunate – in this day and age of dying print journalism – to have a beat writer who is enthusiastic about his beat and covers it diligently. We get more details, more trivia, more references, more questions, more everything from Ken than we've had in some time.

Ken, if you're reading this (hope you're not), know that you are appreciated. (Sorry, though, I still won't buy a copy of the AJC. Maybe you should consider getting a job in 'financial planning' or 'project management' or 'systems analysis' or 'commercial real estate.' From what I can tell anecdotally, those fields are all hiring right now, no experience needed.)

 

[Skeptic]

Sorry sir, you are not correct. I am not referring to the AP style book that you describe. Nor am I referring to spin.

Newspapers, as many marketing communications organizations do, usually have a "house style" for how they write and present copy. Call it "tone" if you like.

How do I know this? I was in the biz.

Many papers prefer positive statements rather than negative because they generate more reads and impressions. It is not my opinion. That is the result of hundreds of studies conducted since the 20's.

Example:
"Tech's recruiting has shortcomings and is deeply flawed" is a negative statement.
"Tech needs to improve recruiting" is a positive comment.

Same info. Presented differently.

The last AJC copy style sheet I saw was 1995, so maybe it has changed or not even used anymore. But they are used and are effective for creating a specific tone of reporting.

But a lot of things aren't taught anymore. Most advertising today is rubbish.

Not to prolong a debate that only you and I care about, but I would like to see just one of those "hundreds" of studies you refer to. the Pew Research Center and Poynter Institute do the most comprehensive and thorough studies of reading habits, ranging from online to social to print, and I don't understand your "20s reference, since nobody did any polling or studying at all ion the 1920s. too busy flapping I suppose. None of them will aver that people prefer "positive statements" or that they generate more traffic. People are a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than that, a lot more sophisticated in their news habits. Lastly, and half seriously, I got to say that reporting ":Tech needs to improve recruiting", is, in the immortal words of John Klees, a triumph of the bleeding obvious. The reporter's job is not, as you seem to intimate, sell your product. If Tech wants more positive coverage, I have the answer: win more games. Nobody complained in 2014.

 

[Vespidae]

I'm not asking Ken to do anything. He can write however he wants. I'm just arguing the case that different pubs have different house styles and some house styles do better than others. Read up on Caples, Gallup, Flesch or Ogilvy.

Regardless, I would rather talk football.

 

[Techster]

Ok and I guess your being ultra sensitive to my opinion. It's really not a big deal I have an opinion that I don't see the point in it and you have an opinion that it's ok, it's really nothing to argue about. I do find it funny though that when an outsider does something like this people are always freaking out just like the ESPN article about our record when teams have a bye the week before playing us, people were complaing saying she's a joke, not one time did I even do that, and to be honest I didn't even pay attention to who wrote the article. I wonder if you would be saying anything to me if it was a uga fan who wrote the article? I really don't see how my opinion is me being sensitive lol, I'm not even mad about it, I just don't see the point in it, but if that's being sensitive then ok...... BTW the UGA article you posted came after a loss, we won the game, so there more to be positive about, like idk maybe a win. Compare apples to apples. And I'm not saying UGA guys don't complain after a sloppy win and you probably can find an article after a win like we had but you tried to make a point about a team with a win and a team with a loss.

If you were a UGA fan that wrote the article, then you would be reporting facts that actually occurred during the game and I would have no problem with it. You are being sensitive about it because Ken didn't do anything a normal writer would when talking about certain aspects that went right or wrong during the game for us. In regards to defending TEs, we did a lot wrong during the game and numbers bear that out. The article isn't even a molehill to make a mountain out of...yet somehow our fans still found a way. It's GT, we can do that?

The reason I chose the article because it actually stated personal opinion, and it was quite insulting of any coach and player regardless of what school it is. Stating that an offense is "soft", that a prized freshmen QB can't adapt, coaches getting "cute", and questioning play selection is FAR worse than Ken regurgitating facts. A loss versus a win has NOTHING to do with reporting facts about a game. Facts are facts regardless of outcome so I'm sorry if that point escaped you.

 

[tech_wreck47]

If you were a UGA fan that wrote the article, then you would be reporting facts that actually occurred during the game and I would have no problem with it. You are being sensitive about it because Ken didn't do anything a normal writer would when talking about certain aspects that went right or wrong during the game for us. In regards to defending TEs, we did a lot wrong during the game and numbers bear that out. The article isn't even a molehill to make a mountain out of...yet somehow our fans still found a way. It's GT, we can do that?

The reason I chose the article because it actually stated personal opinion, and it was quite insulting of any coach and player regardless of what school it is. Stating that an offense is "soft", that a prized freshmen QB can't adapt, coaches getting "cute", and questioning play selection is FAR worse than Ken regurgitating facts. A loss versus a win has NOTHING to do with reporting facts about a game. Facts are facts regardless of outcome so I'm sorry if that point escaped you.

I'll ask again how is my opinion sensitive? It's called an opinion, I don't see the point in doing what he did, and that's what's called an opinion. I'm not mad, nor am I losing sleep over it lol so how does what I said make me sensitive. Please answer the question? If I'm being sensitive, then you must be sensitive by your definition because you don't like what I'm saying lol. As far as the UGA article I was saying we won why not have an article that goes over the WHOLE game and in the mist shows what happened with the TE's not a full article about what happened with the TE's. We won UGA lost so there is a difference they had nothing good happen, we did, sorry if that escaped you. And you talk about not making a molehill Into a mountain, you might want to practice what you preach considering youre the one on here making a molehill into a mountain by arguing about someones opinion. Maybe next time you shouldn't argue about someone's OPINION, as if yours is right and theirs is wrong, because it's really not as big of a deal as you are making it. I don't get the the point in it, and your ok with it, there really nothing wrong with either.

 

[steebu]

I'm not sure what his refers to as I don't follow GT in the AJC very much, but off the cuff I would think that a journalist being "ouside the circle" is a good thing, not bad.

There was an incident last year where PJ specifically asked reporters to wait until a specified time (like 2 days) to report something out of respect to one of our SA's. Ken "broke the circle of trust" and reported it early. If you ever wonder why PJ treats Ken the way he does, well, that's why.

Ken: "Hey! The Tight Ends killed you all game! Why was that?"
PJ: "We decided not to cover them."
Ken: "Really?"
PJ: "Really."

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

There was an incident last year where PJ specifically asked reporters to wait until a specified time (like 2 days) to report something out of respect to one of our SA's. Ken "broke the circle of trust" and reported it early. If you ever wonder why PJ treats Ken the way he does, well, that's why.

Ken: "Hey! The Tight Ends killed you all game! Why was that?"
PJ: "We decided not to cover them."
Ken: "Really?"
PJ: "Really."

That is apparently true but frankly unlike Ken altogether. I think he must have gotten his wires crossed on that one somehow.

 

[Skeptic]

There was an incident last year where PJ specifically asked reporters to wait until a specified time (like 2 days) to report something out of respect to one of our SA's. Ken "broke the circle of trust" and reported it early. If you ever wonder why PJ treats Ken the way he does, well, that's why.

Ken: "Hey! The Tight Ends killed you all game! Why was that?"
PJ: "We decided not to cover them."
Ken: "Really?"
PJ: "Really."

Actually I think that is very funny. I am not familiar with the reporter, or with Johnson for that matter, so I don't know the track record. But reading his stuff online -- he seems hardly the "Front Page" type reporter -- I would tend to agree with Supersize. Maybe he just got messed up somehow. Or maybe he asked and Ken did not agree. Or ... who knows? (And if Ken had really been thinking he might have said, "Well, it did kind of look that way." But I doubt Johnson has that sense of humor.)

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Actually I think that is very funny. I am not familiar with the reporter, or with Johnson for that matter, so I don't know the track record. But reading his stuff online -- he seems hardly the "Front Page" type reporter -- I would tend to agree with Supersize. Maybe he just got messed up somehow. Or maybe he asked and Ken did not agree. Or ... who knows?

Don't think Ken would "not agree" with the HC of a team. It's certainly not his job to agree or disagree.

 

[Skeptic]

Don't think Ken would "not agree" with the HC of a team. It's certainly not his job to agree or disagree.

By "agree" I do not mean with any of Johnson's prerogatives. I mean if Ken did not agree to wait two days, then he is under no obligation to Johnson as long as he made it clear to him. A lot of people in public life are very good at co-opting the media by making them "part of the circle", those "in the know", and it allows them to maneuver because now the watchmen have joined the watched. . As I said, i don't know Johnson or the reporter, but if they are more than friendly adversaries they shouldn't be.

 

[Vespidae]

I have no idea of whether it is still true or not, but for many years the AJC was hostile to Tech. Why? John Hanson, founder of Bibb Mfg and owner of the in state rival Macon Telegraph was in open competition with the AJC on multiple levels. He was not only a Republican, but also led the charge as founder of Georgia Tech. The AJC was Democrat and against the establishment of Tech.

Today, the editorial board has said it is center left in its opinions. Does that mean they are anti Tech? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm sure they have a position, probably unstated but there nonetheless. I don't recall that they have ever been big fans of Tech, but maybe that's just me.

The AJC has lost half its circulation since '06. Some of that is due to distribution, and others ... we have more choices. It's not a paper I read anymore and I had a subscription for 30 years.

 

[Skeptic]

...

The AJC has lost half its circulation since '06. Some of that is due to distribution, and others ... we have more choices. It's not a paper I read anymore and I had a subscription for 30 years.

Sadly most of them have, from top to bottom, and the Republic is suffering for it. In fact I doubt it can survive without a vigorous and rigorous press component. Sounds dark, but I fear realistic. And though I know nothing of such things, I would have tended to think the "tech" portion to GT would have appealed to Republicans, at least up in my neck of the woods where liberal arts and that thinking stuff is greatly feared.

 

[iceeater1969]

Sorry sir, you are not correct. I am not referring to the AP style book that you describe. Nor am I referring to spin.

Newspapers, as many marketing communications organizations do, usually have a "house style" for how they write and present copy. Call it "tone" if you like.

How do I know this? I was in the biz.

Many papers prefer positive statements rather than negative because they generate more reads and impressions. It is not my opinion. That is the result of hundreds of studies conducted since the 20's.


.

I bet you remember Furman Bisher of the Atlanta Journal. I used to sneak a peak at his column when he was covering bud carson. The unforgetable and classic tag line went something like "Ramblin wreck is ga tech and a helluva shape it's in" . Short and sweet.

 

[Vespidae]

I bet you remember Furman Bisher of the Atlanta Journal. I used to sneak a peak at his column when he was covering bud carson. The unforgetable and classic tag line went something like "Ramblin wreck is ga tech and a helluva shape it's in" . Short and sweet.

Furman was a class act. We won't see his kind again I think.