Photo du Jour 516
Welcome Back! Um, Why Are You at Work Today?
Tiger Woods In "Serious" Condition After Car Crash
-thumb-110x110-461569.jpg)
Photos from Black Friday
SFist Interviews: John Ortved, Author of The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History
Well, hello there! Some of you may remember a different post, written by a different SFist writer, at this location. So to refresh your memory, SFist MattyMatt and commenter Jameson were wondering why the door hangers and election mailer cards with the Guardian's logo on them say that Chris Daly, Alix Rosenthal, and Emily Drennan (the BART board) paid for them. Were the Guardian's endorsements for sale?
Well, the post went up, and we were promptly contacted by the Guardian themselves, who (rather forcefully) clarified that the candidates paid for the mailers, not for the endorsements. The Guardian endorses in an independent process, and then allows candidates to promote that endorsement by printing up mailers and door hangers. The Guardian does not accept money for its endorsements.
SFist, through its editorial staff, apologizes profusely for the mixup, wants to reassure everyone that this was a bona fide misunderstanding of the situation on our part, and is running this corrected post as a result.
However, because the coverup is always worse than the crime, and because now everyone's morbid curiosity has probably been piqued about the original post, we've included SFist MattyMatt's original post after the jump (in strikethrough, so there's no mixup about the intent), and left all the comments as they were before.
Okay, something cheerful after all that! Hey, did you vote yet?
Oh Jamison! Always vigilant, that kid. This time he's tipped us off to a creepy disclaimer on the Clean Slate Endorsements flier that SF Bay Guardian used to spam the city's doorknobs last night. Asterisks on endorsements are never a good sign, and the Guardian's asterisks are doozies: "Appearance on this mailer authorized and paid for by each candidate ... designated by an asterisk." WHAAAAA?!?!
Apparantly, appearing on a Guardian mailer isn't free -- according the the asterisks on the flier, candidates like Alix Rosenthal and Chris Daly shelled out some cash in exchange for ... um, what, exactly? An endorsement? Or just post-endorsement printing of the flier? It's unclear, though kind of funny, because the Guardian would surely have fellated those candidates free of charge. Maybe they've taken to role-playing a hooker/client relationship in order to add an erotic thrizzle to the whole tawdry affair?
We were even more shocked to see that the payola even extends to Bart Board of Directors (District 8) candidate Emily Drennen -- IS NOTHING IN THIS RACE SACRED?
But wait there's more: Making this all even more awkward: "Our Clean Slate is prepared by nobody but us and paid for by nobody but us," reads a disclaimer on the Guardian website. Oops. To be fair, they never say who "us" is. Maybe the SF Bay Guardian Clean Slate (in the paper and on the site) is different from the SF Bay Guardian Clean Slate (the flier). That sure would be a perfectly simple explanation.
[UPDATE/CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION: The Guardian got in touch with us after this post went up, and clarified that the candidates produce and pay for the mailer, but the endorsements themselves are solely those of the Guardian staff. See comment below as well. --SFist.]
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
This post in not accurate. The Bay Guardian does not produce or distribute slate cards; that's done by the individual candidates long after we endorse them. This paper has no involvement in these cards, which candidates that we endorse independently get together to produce and distribute. Our endorsements are not for sale and never have been. Please correct this inaccurate information immediately.
Steven T. Jones
City Editor
Bay Guardian
What's creepy about candidates pooling resources to cover printing costs?
You guys are confusing the "slate" with the "slate card". The Guardian independently endorsed a slate where as a committee was formed to publicize that slate.....Thats how it works with all slate cards.
Candidates or special interest groups fund and deliver a slate card. Check out any of the slate cards on your doorstep and you will find a similar story.
its weird that you guys dont have an issue with all that downtown funded shit (some of it ILLEGAL) from Rob Black that landed on my doorstep and mail box.... but somehow the SF Bay Guardian endorsements creep you out?
you guys are confusing the Guardian's "slate of candidate endorsements" with the slate card that was put out to publicize the slate. It is normal for candidates who are on a recognized slate to pool resources (volunteer delivery forces, money, etc) to publicize the slate
whats weird is that you have an issue with a slate card but dont seem to have an issue with the downtown funded negativity and lies that are flooding my doorstep in these glossy mailers. much of these are actually ILLEGAL.
why are you picking on this slate card anyway, why not Harvey Milk Club or the SF Democratic Party.
Not to mention even in the photo posted, the active local Green, Marc Solomon's name is clearly listed as Treasurer. Maybe contacting the Treasurer would have cleared up the confusion. Oh, but then the headline wouldn't have appeared so sensational.
Slate cards are one of those things where the slatees pool their money and pay for printing and possibly some distribution.
Wasn't there something a few years back about someone taking "Republican Money" to print slate cards? It was a similar shared-cost situation with no affiliation; I can't remember the details.
We're happy to see the item rewritten, but I wanted to clarify one point in the new version, where you say the Guardian "allows candidates to promote that endorsement by printing up mailers." We have no involvement in that at all, they just do it on their own. I just didn't want people thinking we're offering some kind of extra promotion for cash. Thanks for being responsive to our concerns. The Guardian is one of the last truly independent papers left in this country and our reputation is important to us.
This is the Mattymatt who wrote the original post -- I do honestly apologize for mistaking a flier which bore the large words "Guardian Endorsements" at the top for something that the Guardian actually produced. In the future, I'll try to remain mindful of the flexibility with which the name of that paper can be employed.
Better yet, MattyMatt, why don't you pick up the phone or drop us an e-mail to verify your facts before printing them. It's easy, we're not tough to get ahold of, and it's an obligation that comes with being a journalist or a responsible blogger.
As for our "flexibility," we don't object to the fair use of our name and logo by candidates that we actually did endorse. We do object to being misrepresented, either by those who we don't endorse or by bloggers who don't seem to know how slate cards work. Everyone makes mistakes and we've got no hard feelings, MattyMatt, but don't compound your mistake by pretending this was somehow our fault.
The Guardian had a good beef. SFist handled this crticism well.
Of course SF Weekly has surpassed the older Guardian in just about every way that matters except for political endorsements, but that's another matter.
The Guardian Slate Card was produced by people who wanted to publicize the Guardian Slate.
I was asked to handle the money at the last minute and agreed.
All contributions were made by controlled committees, either candidate or ballot measure.
The slate was produced as a door hanger and as a palm card.
Given these truths, the disclosure for how the card was paid for would be contained in the FPPC forms filed by each candidate listed with an asterisk on the literature.
Due to some bad information before I researched the law, we put the disclaimer on. There was no requirement under the law to do so, but apparently there was a requirement to misspell my name.
Since the Slates were not mailed and since they accurately reflected the sentiments of the SFBG, weren't misleading, the FPPC informed me that there was no need to form a committee.
To save you all the leg work, the price to
produce the piece was just shy of $6,000.
I hope this sheds light on this non-controversy.
-marc
AnonLawyer opined:
Of course SF Weekly has surpassed the older Guardian in just about every way that matters except for political endorsements, but that's another matter.
- well, I think the music section matters, and the Guardian's is better, though the Weekly's new music editor, Jennifer Maerz is good.
Truly objectionable was the Guardian's endorsement of Alix Rosenthal, partner of Steven Jones, City Editor. Couldn't exactly not endorse her, right?
I love it. The Guardian lecturing people about journalism. Isn't this the paper that reprints Matier & Ross items without checking with the original authors or the subjects of the items?