SFist: SF Bay Guardian Wins Case Against SF Weekly

fez

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:05:38 -0800

SF Weekly was not selling ads for less than the market would bear. Rather, the Guardian argued its competitor "sold below cost" because expenses outweighed income. Key to SF Weekly's cost structure is the fact it employs more than twice as many full-time reporters as the Guardian, and pays more than twice what Guardian reporters earn. As a result of this investment, SFW stories have provoked California Assembly hearings on defrauding the elderly, exposed abuses by local labor bosses, exposed the Navy's Hunters Point nuclear activities, exposed the SF Giants' illegal toxic dumping, uncovered and halted an illegal SFO plot to siphon public funds to Honduras, and so on. Lacking space, I name a mere fraction of SFW stories that have elevated San Francisco public life. The Guardian seeks an injunction to slash this investment in journalists and journalism. This is Brugmann/Redmond's idea of social justice? For whom?

boyziggy

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:28:58 -0800

I'm glad for this win because it tells out-of-state corporations that you can't sell a product for less then it costs to produce it just to undercut competition. The SF Weekly was charging a fraction for their advertising even though they had larger expenses, subsidizing their loss from their other papers. This is illegal, and i hope it will deter other big corporate conglomerates from doing the same thing. The SFBG is a uniquely San Francisco paper. I don't read newspapers that often anymore, but i like the idea of keeping our local papers local.

Greg

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:33:39 -0800

neither paper really breaks any news anymore, and it's not like alt-weeklies are the only way to find out what's going on or read opinions not in the mainstream media.

RobInSF

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:35:20 -0800

When I first arrived in SF I grabbed a copy of the SFBG and the SF Weekly. One week later I decided that the SF Weekly was the superior rag. Although I do wish that snooty food critic Meredith Brody would be eaten alive by rabid tarantulas.

manys

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:42:14 -0800

Jeez, either it's huge companies manipulating the system or is one guy's obsession. Doesn't seem like much of a system!

Sweet Melissa

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:33:36 -0800

@brittney - I had the same question. Interestingly, SFWeekly says that it was "more than $15.6 million" in damages. Also according to the SFWeekly, plaintiff's damages expert put SFBG lost profits at $4.4 million to $11.8 million. The CA unfair competition law at issue also permits treble damages, so it will be interesting to get more info about the real number and the calculation. (Maybe $5.2 mil times 3?) http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2008/02/whats_your_damage.php

mdw0526

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:33:08 -0800

Whatever. The Bay Guardian is a piece of shit. No one cares anything about it except for club listings and stuff. The SF Weekly will appeal and they'll win. The Bay Guardian's lawyers steered a San Francisco jury to a pity party and handed them millions of dollars. It won't be upheld on appeal. If only Brugmann were correct and the SFBG were about to fold. If only.......

brittney

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:21:08 -0800

Wonder where that 6.3M in damages number originated.

Sweet Melissa

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:45:11 -0800

@brittney - I couldn't agree more. Very surprising.

brittney

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:41:23 -0800

Interesting verdict. Have to admit surprise at this decision.

manys

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:39:02 -0800

6.3MM? That doesn't seem like much of a payday for all this brouhaha.