The Guardian Does Not Want You Driving, or Parking
Scene from Today's Pro-Life Protest On Van Ness
Fisher Pulls Museum Out of the Presidio
Why Are You at Work Today?
Karl Malden, Dead at 97
Well, this is all too exciting. And just when things were starting to get dull in the local media arena. You see: last Friday Judge Marla Miller "said...she's inclined to boost a jury's damages award against the SF Weekly to $15.6 million" and order them to knock it off with the below-cost ad sales. Ouch.
VVM's Andy Van De Voorde, via the Snitch, responded, going on (and on) to say that this is nothing but a "cash grab" on the SFBG's part; that their First Amendment rights are at stake; and, well, lots of legal/journalistic wordage that flew right over our tiny head.
SFBG responded to the response, via Tim Redmond, by calling SF Weekly a bunch of whiners; saying they're going to win it all; name-checking blood relative James C. O'Brien, a New York State Supreme Court judge; and featuring a cameo appearance by former SF Weekly reporter Peter Byrne in the comments section.
The Weekly, of course, plans on appealing the verdict.
Aw. We've missed you guys. And, really, we won't be happy until blood is drawn. As our late grandfather, the Broadway playwright Lloyd Richards, used to say, "the atmosphere is very MacBeth-ish--what has, or is about to, happen?" Stay tuned.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
I thought Craigslist already killed dead tree media.
a) Lloyd Richards didn't (play)write a stitch.
b) Unless (a la Quincy Jones) had a taste for really, really white chix, I seriously doubt you have a drop of slave in that melanin-deficient hide of yours.
this town is way too small for two half-assed weeklies. They should both stfu and use the column inches that they've wasted on this petty turf war to provide some real arts & entertainment & local news coverage.
So it's OK for one paper to charge the identical rate, or no charge at all, but anything in between is anticompetitive? What am I not getting here?
I don't know that anyone's looking good after this legal battle...both sides have used their blogs to engage in a PR war, not conduct journalism.
Both papers need to step up and provide more relevant news, the kind that the reader can't get elsewhere, if they are to survive in a world where I can get all I used to get out of the weekly and the guardian elsewhere, and more easily.
Both have done that in the past, and certainly could do so again and make a profit too.
I should write a column called "Post-Hip Notes"
Heh.