The problem is that this model does not compete directly with broadcast networks and traditional media, it merely breaks off niches and dominates them. It’s the Long Tail at work.

I call this a problem because it is not a strategy that a big market daily paper can pursue. The AJC cannot overtly lean like the NYT or WSJ and survive – the Atlanta market is just not big enough. The AJC needs to be the credible source of reporting in this market, and not risk credibility on the branding that comes with endorsements and opinion. And there have been changes at the AJC towards the goal of putting more focus on local communities, and being the ATL metro news outlet of repute.

You guys want endorsements for local races – read Creative Loafing. They do a good job, and are plugged in. If you want a newspaper that covers the Atlanta metro area like a blanket, on a daily basis, then you need a more reporting-based newspaper like the AJC.

This is not meant to promote the AJC as a credible or “good” newspaper – only to say that they are pursuing a certain business strategy that is likely their best shot.

Why the AJC executives believe that being bland and bereft of political opinion is a marketing plus is beyond me. How many times do they want to reinvent themselves as USA Today?

One of the most disturbing aspects of American culture is the homoginization that seems to advance daily, yet the AJC insists upon giving away it soul and its voice. Ralph McGill was a courageous editor. Many reporters must have been inspired by him and wanted to work for such a vital newspaper. Many more Americans were inspired by Atlanta’s leadership in the Civil Rights movement, and wanted to be associated with this dynamic place. I suppose if Julia Wallace was the publisher, she would have muzzled McGill. Does management not like being in the newspaper business? Isn’t publishing a paper all about finding and telling the truth?

The local coverage, the business section and the arts coverage are cut to the bare bones. The national coverage is from the NY Times and AP. For years the AJC management has worked towards a goal of becoming a “quick read”. Well, congratulations – As the AJC marches towards irrelevancy, I spend less time reading the local paper than ever in my life.

“We have heard from readers — and we agree — that you don’t need us to tell you how to vote.” These must be the same readers who told them it was important to have more color graphics, better comics and those useless indecies. The paper is a few pages long. Who needs an index! And this is the same AJC management who believed that making those changes was going to reposition the paper! No doubt Cox management believes they’ve chosen a path that will broaden their readership. Unfortunately they’ve chosen to become the most common denominator paper, and that decision is not bearing fruit. The paper would be better served by having some distinguishing characteristic. Anything. Throwing away their political voice is hardly a way to distinguish the paper or build a solid reputation for revealing the truth.

So the question is, if you are supposed to be offering an unbiased, balanced reporting of news, and you know that the majority of voters will look at your endorsement as the “key” to how to vote, should you continue to give an endorsement and maintain journalistic credibility?

Even that has lots of faulty assumptions!

I agree with what you say. However, I think it is important to note that the vast majority of voters are neither “engaged”, nor “thinking,” therefore they likewise do not “use their brain.” Don’t get lulled into a false sense of reality by thinking that the people who read these blogs and engage in political conversations are indicative of the average voter. The average voter makes no room for analysis and intellect in his/her voting decision.