This would be kinda fun watching the suits now hurl their own selves into the ravine too (and personally, I’m holding-out for a Cox-Kennedy to join in the reindeer games) IF you could produce better tale-tellers and less scared-y cats with a very limited paycheck.

Out of all the now-hundreds of people gone from the AJC now, yet CL can’t get one decent quote on Ms. Wallace’s shit YET? Lame, lame, lame.

(And no, Lyle Harris doesn’t count. He’s yet another hollow dumb ass suit who’s lost in the digital wilderness. Talk about your crowded real estate! But I diverge… what’s new.

As for the AJC, the problem is not “leftist bias” – conservatives always detested Ralph McGill, Eugene Patterson, and others, and the Talmadges ran against “those lyin’ Atlanta papers” for decades. The essential problem is one of dumbing down the content over the past 20 years.

A newspaper’s likely demographic is people who READ, people with a certain curiosity about the world, people who are willing to read a publication which sometimes tells them things they don’t want to hear. Instead of aiming to make itself indispensible to this group, the AJC decided to target a different demographic: intellectually incurious imbeciles who don’t read. I know plenty of people who let their subscription lapse over the past 15 years, and only one was for ideological reasons; the others give reasons such as: “there was less & less worth reading in it”, “it’s just too stupid”, and “I read a real paper, the Times”.

The fishwrapper is rotting from the head.