SFist: SF Weekly vs. SF Bay Guardian: Act XIV

Brock Keeling

Mon, 12 May 2008 12:47:26 -0800

I should write a column called "Post-Hip Notes" Heh.

Greg

Mon, 12 May 2008 12:33:57 -0800

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.

KatyG

Mon, 12 May 2008 11:51:18 -0800

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?

mcgordonliddy

Mon, 12 May 2008 11:43:22 -0800

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.

Generic

Mon, 12 May 2008 11:13:33 -0800

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.

aj

Mon, 12 May 2008 11:10:56 -0800

I thought Craigslist already killed dead tree media.