SFist: Ask SFist -- Bay Guardian vs. SF Weekly?

mdw0526

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 07:24:07 -0800

Who really cares what the issue is? Bruce Brugmann, Tim Redmond and Steven T. Jones are the worst possible examples of journalists anywhere. The Bay Guardian is a piece of crap, always espousing asinine views in the name of "progressivism," when all they want is to hang on to some romanticised notion of what this city used to be like. The Bay Guardian is pathetic.

aj

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:54:47 -0800

It's true. I only read the Weekly for Savage Love. I can't remember the last time I read the Guardian.

RinconHillSF

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:07:26 -0800

I agree .. these things just add trash to the streets.

masterdave

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:14:38 -0800

Both papers are boring. The internet has basically demolished their ability to provide unique information. There's one article per issue for the most part, and the Guardian usually tries to make me feel bad for enjoying life in the Bay Area, the Weekly tends to make me feel entirely uncool. Neither is a great lunchtime read. they used to be good for exclusive concert listings, now the internet feeds them to my email inbox days before the weekly comes out with their full page spread. They don't show more than a week or two worth of concert dates anyway, and if the show's slightly popular it's sold out by the time it's in the papers. classifieds? I've got craigslist thanks. Salacious porn ads in the back? I've got the internet! I guess the editorials are nice, but they're always in this bizzare split page nonsense (you'd think print would eventually mature into a competing format for the internet where people expect a full story on a single page...) I personally wouldn't mind if they both went away. I think their real usefulness has been served elsewhere.

iris

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:21:21 -0800

Mommy and Daddy never liked each other. They were just staying together for the kids.

aj

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:34:48 -0800

This is really just a tempest in a teapot that keeps the front page editorials coming. But don't imagine for a minute that the SFBG actually stands for its principles. For some perspective on the SFBG's hypocrisy on another issue, check out these oldies but goodies: http://www.uncanny.net/~wsa/sfbg1.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Guardian#Anti-unionism_in_employment

Joel

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:23:56 -0800

smug condescension What? This and false populism are the Guardian's stock-in-trade. Who cares if a paper is owned and run locally if it's being done by pricks?

pancakebreakfast

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:41:51 -0800

As someone who reads both papers and isn't beholden to either of them, and based on everything I've read on the case, SF Weekly doesn't have a leg to stand on. Their air of smug condescension has always turned me off somewhat, but combined with the poor reasoning and ad hominem attacks that essentially comprise their attacks on the SFBG in this and other cases, I'm starting to wonder why I bother reading the Weekly anymore. I certainly wouldn't pay for it if I had to.

mattymatt

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:32:47 -0800

On its surface, it's about competitive pricing for advertisements (yawn). But that's just an excuse to fight; if the pricing conflict hadn't come along, I'm sure they'd find another reason to snipe at each other. The two papers simply have very different cultures and personalities; they're like two cats that simply will never get along. I think in general the SFBG does more to escalate hostility and avoid having a sense of humor, which isn't the sort of strategy that I find endearing. As for one being locally owned and the other not -- who cares? People whose paychecks are signed by foreigners are still capable of being interesting, and still worthy of making a living.

Plug1

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:16:45 -0800

SF Weekly interviewed me today, I cant complain about them. In the spirit of being a good neighbor -- Guardian is right by my small, shitty, apartment -- I cant complain about them. I guess Im neutral, or maybe I just dont care.

sf_bikebike

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:41:26 -0800

Go Guardian! Keep it local.

freelivin

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:26:59 -0800

SF Weekly is owned by a national corporation of similarly sheek newspapers (I believe it's called Village Voice Media). Anyway, Guardian accuses SF Weekly of monopolisticly charging below-market rates for ads (I believe) in a bid to force the Guardian into the toilet (because, of course, the free weeklies are paid for by advertising). The Guardian points out the company that owns the SF Weekly also owns a bunch of other papers in the Bay Area and that this gives them too much market power over advertising rates. Luckily, the East Bay Express recently went independent again (after leaving the same company that owns the SF Weekly, I believe) so now we have TWO indepedent newspapers in the Bay Area (at least)! Woo In any event: ALWAYS remember that the Guardian is local and independent... the SF Weekly is not.