Certainly, starting such a discussion opens the door for criticism from those who question our motives. You should have seen the reaction — on social media and my email inbox — decrying our coverage of the controversy before Game 5 of that National League Division Series last year. You know, when the Braves did not distribute foam tomahawks and then promptly surrendered 10 first-inning runs in an elimination loss -- and we were part of the reason. A couple of my favorites this week in preparing our stories. One, when I solicited reader opinions on Twitter: “And HEEEEEEERE we go. Knew this was coming. #journalism.” I’m pretty sure the poster was being sarcastic. Another, a Facebook comment on the fan survey: “Ultimate click bait... without even opening the link I know that (a) it is overwhelmingly No, and (b) there will be a half dozen ads that will generate revenue for the AJC!” I don’t know if that reader answered our survey, but I’m positive my pay will be the same this week.
Seriously, there is nothing wrong with some good, healthy debate. To be as transparent as possible, that was our motive in presenting this series of stories. Maybe years down the road, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution will examine the same subject. Maybe there will be stories on the Atlanta Braves winning another World Series title — in front of raucous, chopping, chanting crowd. Maybe there will be stories on the Atlanta (Insert Name Here) winning another World Series title — in front of a raucous crowd.
Either way, let’s keep having healthy discussion — about such a nuanced debate or whether they really tried a sacrifice bunt in the seventh inning.
Keep reading. Keep talking.
— Chris Vivlamore, Sports Editor
» Braves make position clear on name change
» Mark Bradley: How about 'Atlanta Brave' instead?
» Poll: Fans support keeping Braves name
» Fan's view: Keep the community, change name
» Fan's view: Storied history that matters to many
» Fan's view: What to tell son, honoring a culture