Fans of the San Francisco Bay Guardian remain frustrated and sore over the abrupt 2014 shutdown of the once venerable progressive paper. But, as staffers at the time promised it would, the SFBG is returning in some form, and that form is digital via the officially revived sfbg.com. While it won't be a daily news site, former Guardian editor Tim Redmond has already posted the SFBG's official endorsements for the June election of the Democratic County Central Committee, and you can bet the site will kick into action again before November.

As promised during their fundraising drive last fall, the SFBG will, henceforth, provide election endorsements as it always did, and will be printing up some special issues like the Best of the Bay, and the GOLDIES arts awards. Says publisher Marke Bieschke, who's now working with Redmond on the daily updated site 48 Hills, "Let's keep media independent, print the news, and raise some hell!"

Also, the effort is ongoing to digitize the paper's 48 years worth of archives — a project that is no doubt very inky and complicated, and for which the crew is still hoping to raise more funds.

Next up, look for the 41st Best of the Bay, which is in the works.

Related: Former SF Bay Guardian Publisher Marke Bieschke Talks Fundraising, Progressive Media, And Bringing Back The 'Best Of The Bay'

When the San Francisco Bay Guardian announced its closure after 48 years this October, much was unclear besides the suddenness of it all, and the tragedy of this loss to local media.

The news came just as the Guardian's popular Best of the Bay issue, its 40th, hit newsstands. That arrived without mention of the end of the publication or a proper farewell. It wasn't even known whether the weekly paper would be able to maintain its digital archives.

Now, thanks to crowd-sourced donations we'll have some closure from the beloved paper. The modest $25,000 (by San Franciscan standards) goal has been successfully raised.

According to the campaign, the money will allow former staffers to "Create a final commemorative edition that celebrates our history, explores what's happening to San Francisco and how that led to the Guardian's closure, and says goodbye to our loyal supporters and readers." It will also "Preserve and enhance public access to our print and online archives," and "Explore the possibilities of reopening the Guardian under new ownership and support other independent, progressive media outlets in the Bay Area."

Though the successful fundraiser is called "Save the Bay Guardian," it won't "save" the publication we knew... just give it a bit of the dignity and legacy it deserves. Nonetheless, Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez, a former SFBG staffer now of the SF Examiner, is heartened. "Let's keep in mind that progressives, more often than not, don't have a lot of money," he told SFist. The Guardian reaching its goal shows just how much the city of San Francisco cares for its progressive voices. The SF Bay Guardian was and is a special newspaper, unafraid to take on the rich and powerful. More than ever, that's what San Francisco needs."

After 30 years with stalwart progressive paper San Francisco Bay Guardian, editor Tim Redmond has been let go by the paper's new owner Todd Vogt of the San Francisco News Paper Company. Redmond, who quickly moved from his old home at the SFBG to a new Blogger account, claims he was axed because of a personnel and editorial dispute.

Here's Redmond, in his inaugural dot blogspot post:

Hi, my friends, all the people I love and care about in this city. I'm sad to announce that after 30 years, I have left the Bay Guardian. I am proud of all the work that we did over those years, but sadly, it has come to an end.

I was informed late last night by the owner, Todd Vogt, that my "resignation" had been accepted, although at no point did I resign.

Todd and I had a major disagreement over personnel and editorial direction, and this is how it ended. I was hoping that if my employment at the paper I have helped build over all these years had to end, it would be on more friendly terms. But alas, that was not to be.

The good news is that Blogger is free, and I will fancy up this blog in the next couple days, and I will continue to present perspectives and news about progressive San Francisco.

Redmond elaborated a little bit to the folks over at Fog City Journal: "At midnight last night I got a letter from Todd saying ‘your resignation is accepted,’ " Redmond told FCJ. "But I never submitted a resignation.” According to another unnamed source in the Guardian, Redmond was let go because he refused to fire three of the paper's six remaining newsroom staffers. On Facebook, Redmond says he was canned with "no severance or even a thanks."

Around the time Vogt's S.F. Newspaper Company bought the SFWeekly in January, Vogt praised Redmond as "the best and most knowledgeable progressive journalist. Period."

Meanwhile, across the office, SF Weekly reports that Redmond departed amid staff cuts. Also leaving the Guardian is culture editor Caitlin Donohue. SFBG staffers have been told that the resignations/layoffs have quelled any more firings within the newsroom for now.

In a letter posted on the Weekly's website, S.F. Newspaper Company vice president Stephen Buel wrote:

The Guardian has been losing money, and we were forced to contemplate some editorial layoffs. Tim decided to resign rather than follow through with what we were discussing. I am dedicated to reversing the Guardian's fortunes and helping it grow again.

While we will all miss Tim's skills as a journalist, I would like to assure the Guardian faithful that it will remain the progressive newspaper of record in San Francisco. I suspect there will be some skepticism about that, but over time, I am confident that readers will not be disappointed.

And for the record, the very first story that I ever wrote as a freelance journalist appeared in the Bay Guardian back in 1981.

[Tim's SF]
[FCJ]
[SFWeekly]

Exciting developments on your corner store newsstands this week: It's the San Francisco Bay Guardian's annual Northern California Nude Beaches issue! Besides being a handy resource for naturists and free softcore for everyone else, the 38th edition of the nude beach guide answers SF Weekly's concerns that the Guardian was being less than progressive with their lopsided displays of nudity in last year's edition. And it answers them with some prominently displayed flaccid penises. Naturally.

Last year, remember, SF Weekly took the Guardian to task for the male/female ratio of their Baker Beach photo shoot. Although the cover showed a couple pairs of breasts and some full-frontal ladybush, there was nary a wang in sight as the men hid behind back issues of the 45-year-old paper. This year, however, it's all dick-dick-boobs with not just one, but two prominently displayed male members.

Since you're probably dying to see this cover shoot, which we have reproduced after some shrinkage below: we will steer you away from the tepid online version — which is just a bunch of butts skipping gleefully into the Pacific. If no one was waving the stark naked cover in your face on Muni this morning and you'd like a closer look, you can flip through a digital edition in all it's full-frontal glory right here. [NSFW, obviously]

In other nudity-in-the-media news: nice to see that the management at the Examiner and the Guardian's new Canadian owners haven't asked the alt-weekly to tone it down, that would have been a real tragedy.

Previously: We Read The Weeklies, July 20th, 2011 (Slightly NSFW Edition)
SF Examiner Just Bought SF Bay Guardian
[SFBG] (safe)

In an official announcement today, San Francisco Bay Guardian Executive Editor Tim Redmond cleared up some of the the rumors swirling around the will-they/won't-they hookup situation between the Guardian and the San Francisco Examiner. The biggest take aways: longtime publishers Bruce Brugmann and Jean Dibble will be stepping down from their day-to-day operations as they cash in on the sale of the paper's Potrero Hill headquarters.

Helping out Boss Brugmann and his wife as they sunset their way to retirement, San Francisco real estate investment firm Union Property Capital has agreed to pay $6.5 million for the paper's HQ on Mississippi Street. That price tag is just under $2 million more than Brugmann paid for the 27,000 square-foot building back in 2002 using Small Business loans to make the down payment. The deal was reportedly made off the market.

Although Examiner Publisher Todd Vogt was originally being coy about the sale, he explained to Redmond, "Bruce and Jean have created a legendary publication, and we are happy to be able to give it a new home and the chance to continue its mission." The Ex and the SFBG will remain separate and distinct papers, but Vogt did point out that, "the potential synergies will be beneficial to readers and advertisers.”

Redmond also explained the paper's plan for the future and his own expanded role:

This transition is connected to ongoing exclusive negotiations with a subsidiary of The SF Newspaper Company LLC to purchase all assets related to the the Guardian publishing operations. SFN also owns and publishes the San Francisco Examiner. Both parties are optimistic that a final contract will be signed shortly, most likely in May.

There are no plans to change the editorial content or positions of the Guardian, which will remain the voice of progressive politics and alternative culture in San Francisco. Executive Editor Tim Redmond will stay on in the expanded role of executive editor and publisher.

Brugmann, meanwhile, will continue keeping up the Bruce Blog for the foreseeable future.

Previously: SF Examiner Just Bought SF Bay Guardian?

Whoa. According to Rachel Swan at East Bay Express, the SF Examiner just bought alternative weekly SF Bay Guardian. "The owners of the San Francisco Examiner just bought the San Francisco Bay Guardian, according to two sources," reports Swan." "Known as the oldest alt-weekly in the Bay Area, the Bay Guardian was founded in 1966 and has been a vociferous defender of progressive politics for several decades." And the Examiner was founded by the Hearst family before being recently purchased by Canadian investors.

We can only assume that, perhaps, one of said sources was former longtime EBX editor Stephen Buel? Maybe. Who knows. He recently left the East Bay publication to head SF Examiner. It's all so... strange. And practically unbelievable. But there you have it.

We'll update as soon as we know more. Until then, we can classify it under the labels "rumor mill" and "OH MY GOD!"

Update: East Bay Express posted an update to their original story, noting: "San Francisco Bay Guardian Executive Editor Tim Redmond told the Express this afternoon that he's 'optimistic' the deal will be signed soon. 'I think we'll probably sign a deal, but it's not yet done.' "

Update II: Examiner president and CEO Todd Vogt seems doubtful. He tells SF Weekly: "Huh. That's very optimistic on their behalf...I've met [Guardian founding editor] Bruce Brugmann twice in my life. When I heard he might be interested in selling, that was one of the two times." He adds, "If Bruce and [his wife] Jean are gonna sell, we'd be interested."

Vogt also chatted with Joe Garofoli, pretty much saying the same thing.

Update III: Oh good heavens! SF Examiner editor and frequent internet commenter Stephen Buel sent us a lunatic email this morning, emphatically proclaiming our assumption as "bullshit." He writes, "I do not appreciate you 'assuming' that I was a source of Rachel’s story, which is utterly untrue and lazy as shit." SFist mildly regrets assuming that Buel, the former editor of the East Bay Express, would have done his alma mater the courtesy of the scoop in this story.

[EBX]

The cover of this week's San Francisco Bay Guardian bears the headline "Is Oakland Cooler Than San Francisco?" Not that we haven't heard this before, like, from our Oakland friends, but lots of hip cats live over there! Artists and folks who enjoy cheap rent and true, gritty, urban experiences! The Guardian's main objective is to criticize San Francisco's "failed housing policy," because if we had more affordable housing, they say, we'd have more cool people staying here. But isn't there a difference between abundant and cheap housing and formalized "affordable housing," which is in the city's control to zone for and protect?

There just seems to be a flaw in the logic in this cover piece. First off, it stands to reason that rents are always going to be higher in San Francisco because it's the bigger city with more desirable amenities and (slightly) better public transportation? And last we checked, rents for market-rate and newer spaces in Oakland aren't so low these days — it's just that there is available housing stock in rougher neighborhoods and less desirable buildings, and more un-gentrified neighborhoods to look in.

The Guardian says San Francisco is losing its "diversity, cultural edge, and working class to the East Bay" due to the City's policies favoring development of expensive, market-rate housing. But we're not so sure that one follows the other. Yes, most of the artists fled Manhattan after the 80s because they couldn't afford to live there any more, but the market is the market — many more people wanted to live in Manhattan in the 90s and beyond... could New York City ever have stopped that momentum? A city government can't control the market, all they can do is make an effort to provide more affordable housing units for the people who qualify.

The question remains: Would building more affordable housing keep the artists here? We'd argue that most newly developed affordable housing, with its income limits and application processes, favors the poor and elderly on fixed incomes with stable lives, and not 25-year-olds who move around and travel a lot and can't afford better housing because they have transient and inconsistent jobs. The cool kids are always going to need cheap housing, but they're not looking for it in city-sponsored affordable housing complexes.

Anyway, we like Oakland. We know it's not all crime and murders, and we regret, as a news source, having to repeat the crime stats as they tick up. And there are plenty of truly nice places to live in Oakland (which aren't cheap)! As soon as we get married and want a yard we might even move there.

[SFBG]

It seems clear at this point that some irreparable damage has been done to Ross Mirkarimi and Eliana Lopez's marriage during this recent domestic violence scandal. But their marriage was likely headed for some difficulty, if not actual divorce, even before that fateful New Year's Day when Lopez went next door to show neighbor Ivory Madison her bruise. But now, via an editorial penned by a friend in the Guardian, Lopez is indirectly speaking out about how incredibly disempowered she's been through this whole process, and how she maintains firmly that the problems with her marriage, and Mirkarimi's temper, were hers to deal with, and should never have been made public.

Myrna Melgar, described as a friend of Lopez and "a Latina survivor of childhood domestic violence" herself, published an editorial in the Guardian this week which is causing a new stir in the Mirkarimi story — and in an odd twist, the Chronicle picked up the story and quotes liberally from the Guardian piece, and spoke to Melgar herself.

Melgar is sensitive to both sides of the issue — the feminist call of zero tolerance for domestic abuse, as well as the nuanced look within this relationship where, arguably, Lopez knew enough to say whether she was in any real danger. But she comes down strongly on the side of Lopez as victim not just of a little bruising by her husband, but of an invasion of privacy by neighbor Madison, whom she says had no right to go to the police and the press without Lopez's permission.

She writes:

Unquestionably, there are women in deeply abusive relationships who need assistance getting out, who may not be able to initiate an escape on their own. Eliana's relationship with Ross did not even come close to that standard. Yet in the eyes of Ivory Madison, Phil Bronstein, District Attorney George Gascon, and even the Director of La Casa de las Madres [a domestic violence shelter that has called for Mirkarimi's resignation and attempted to reach out to Lopez], once her husband had grabbed her arm, Eliana was simply no longer competent and her wishes were irrelevant.

Melgar paints a picture of a complicated and not entirely happy marriage in which two strong people came together and had a child, but that Mirkarimi did not "have time for marriage counseling" and had "trouble with the quiet demands of playing a puzzle on the floor with his toddler or having an agenda-less breakfast with his wife."

Now, Lopez is gone for a month to her native Venezuela with their son Theo, and there will be difficult work in her relationship to Mirkarimi once she returns, though Melgar told the Chronicle she wasn't entirely sure if Lopez would be returning (at least to stay?). Lopez herself posted Melgar's editorial on her Facebook page and called it truthful.

The only trouble here is that this once again returns us to the debate about domestic abuse being a "private matter," and whether a victim should be able to decide what degree of it is acceptable and should be kept secret. Had Lopez's video been kept private and used only in the event of a custody battle, the truth of Mirkarimi's treatment of her still might have emerged in some other manner, if not when news of a divorce went public. While it's arguable that Madison betrayed her friend's confidence in some way when she went to the police and Bronstein, we're still treading in dangerous rhetorical territory here when we try to define the abuse as anything other than what it was. Melgar argues that Mirkarimi's trial, and the publicity surrounding this case, only served to destroy a family and "won't help people suffering from violence in their intimate relationships." She's basically saying the same thing that others in the Guardian have implied — that this situation wasn't so severe, and she, as a woman and friend, feels comfortable saying that Lopez's bruise didn't require legal intervention.

But come on. Are the old girlfriends just lying and exaggerating for revenge? Doesn't there seem to be a pattern of a temper which Mirkarimi actually does need to work on, and therefore this case coming to light may force at least one person to examine himself and change his ways? Does it not seem clear that the violence, and Mirkarimi's anger, were all due to the threat of Lopez leaving him and possibly trying to take their son away, and isn't that a classic abuse cliché, the "you're not going to leave me" thing?

The fact that this situation is complicated, and that Lopez is sad that it was all made public, doesn't change the facts of the case, and probably won't change the minds of people who think Mirkarimi should be removed from office. Yes, this family seems irreparably damaged, but it wasn't the publicity and the legal circus that did it. The marriage sounds like it was pretty close to breaking before any of this happened, and Lopez is just mad that other people intervened when she believes she could have handled it on her own.

[SFBG]
[Chron]

PREVIOUSLY: What's Up With Ross Mirkarimi? Probation Orientation And A Wife Out Of Town

We're doing away with our weekly roundups in which we read the weeklies for you because, well, reading is hard! No, but seriously, it's usually the cover pieces that are of worthy note in either the Weekly or the Guardian, and these cover pieces are going to be judged by the average Dick and Janet on Market Street by the quality of the cover art each of their respective art departments chose. Without further ado, our new feature in which we pit the rival papers against one another and judge them by their covers.

SFWeekly: Andrew Nilsen's stark red cover design illuminates Peter Jamison's cover story this week. The piece examines just how hard it is to actually convict someone of a hate crime, even in a town full of minority groups. The cover, meanwhile, appears to depict a menacing skinhead's silhouette. The thin question mark on the mysterious assailant's forehead evokes a Manson-esque swastika, but the punny title (Dickens even, yeeesh) and the red background are about as subtle as that baseball bat. We give it a C- for sensationalism and uninspired clipart selection.

SF Bay Guardian: Yikes! This disaster of a Photoshop job you see on the right goes along with a pair of food policy articles: one about California's food aid shortage and another San Francisco's "food divide". (Not a general food shortage, mind you, but a shortage in food aid). It's not the most easily compelling story to begin with (so many numbers!), and this ill-conceived cover isn't helping. Is someone locking up our produce? Is this another thing about surcharges on paper bags? Why don't the chains fall down? Extra credit awarded for managing to sneak in the quaint line: "Here's something to chew on with your bagel and coffee—" right at the beginning of a print article, but overall we give it a D for the misguided concept.

Honorable Mention: The East Bay Express, a companion to many a transbay commuter, has "SEX" emblazoned in big, red letters on the cover to go along with Rachel Swan's piece on polyamory (which includes a nice section with Sex at Dawn author Christopher Ryan). The cover probably won't be winning any design awards, but you know: Sex sells free newspapers, as it were.

We're doing away with our weekly roundups in which we read the weeklies for you because, well, reading is hard! No, but seriously, it's usually the cover pieces that are of worthy note in either the Weekly or the Guardian, and these cover pieces are going to be judged by the average Dick and Janet on Market Street by the quality of the cover art each of their respective art departments chose. So this week we launch a new feature in which we pit the rival papers against one another and judge them by their covers.

SF Weekly: This week the cover is a big story that the Guardian would definitely not have written the same way -- they're still kind of butt-hurt that Avalos lost and trying to pretend that him coming in second was good enough -- about how the city's Progressives have lost their way. Going back to January and that whole Chris Daly meltdown when Ed Lee got appointed Interim, they write, "Daly was right. But the progressive fall from power was more than just a fumble. The whole playbook was flawed." But the cover art? Man. That is some J.V. shit right there. Who's this dude with a briefcase going off the cliff and how is he supposed to remind us of Chris Daly? We give them a B+ for the fractured typography, but a C for the conception and illustration.

SF Bay Guardian: Now, the kids at the Guardian have a much more timely and hip black-and-white thing going on for this relatively predictable piece defending the Occupy campers (They're not all filthy, violent and drunk! Really!). We like the Instagram/old-timey Polaroid treatment on the photos, and the art does a good job of driving home the point: this is a diverse bunch. And it does so without being too pandering, and without a single Palestinian keffiyeh. Excellent work. A for design, A- for execution.

It's Wednesday, and we thought we'd save you both the ink-dusky fingers and the trouble of scanning the print weeklies yourselves, and provide you with this tidy paperless summary (with appropriate and inappropriate commentary). Now you can go ahead and use the print editions for découpage.

SF Weekly treads into territory long claimed by the Guardian, namely that of celebrating and lauding former supervisor Chris Daly — and they're doing it weeks after the man went from "firebrand" city councilman to humble liberal bar owner. (Wouldn't you know, then, that Daly gamely posed for the cover shot, in captain's hat.) Their big cover story this week is all about how his "bombast saved the city millions on the America's Cup," and that this was his "true goodbye gift to this city." They cast Daly as the only one with enough skepticism, brashness, and anti-developer attitude to force the Board of Supervisors to really look at the plans being proposed by billionaire Larry Ellison and how much it was going to cost the city and the Port, and not be all starry-eyed and impressed by it all. He threw fits, yelled at Newsom, and tasked the Board's budget analyst with coming up with the real numbers, ultimately shrinking the footprint of the eventual America's Cup headquarters from 35 acres to roughly 20. "In short," writes Joe Eskanazi, "San Francisco needed an asshole — and one with clout."

In SF Weekly's cover story this week, Peter Jamison takes a look at the bonuses that city workers can get just for doing their jobs. It starts off with a sentence about poop though. More specifically, it starts off with Andrew Clark, an engineer with the city's largest sewage treatment facility. Clark takes pride in his job even though it smells pretty bad, so he's fairly well compensated for it with a salary that's just a tick under 6-figures. But Clark also gets an additional 7.5 percent bonus for being certified for hazardous-materials management.

That seems like a good thing for someone who handles hazardous materials for a living, and it is - in fact, he's required to have that certification to hold his job in the first place. But that's what bothers Jamison - that this premium pay is being dished out by a city with huge deficit even though the work itself is not necessarily "premium". Not all premium pay bonuses are superfluous - Nurses who take undesirable shifts get increased wages, for example - but especially bothersome are "standby hours" where city employees can make up to half their normal rate when they're not even on the job (although they'd be on-call, at least). So, eliminating premium pay entirely seems a bit unfair, but where's the public debate on this?

Weekly newspapers aren't just free gift wrap, they also contain articles and sexy back page ads. Here's what you'll find on streetcorners around town this week:

SFWeekly

The Weekly's big story takes a look at Sofia Coppola's journey to "Somewhere". Somewhere being the title of her upcoming film which is shot somewhere other than San Francisco. Actually large parts of it are being shot inside LA's infamous Chateau Marmont where, among other things, Sofia celebrated her 21st birthday (although she apparently didn't remember that fact).

Sofia's youthful indiscretions aside, Karina Longworth's piece describes the upcoming film as "defiantly austere, the most challenging Coppola has made to date." It's largely inspired by (and makes prominent use of) the Phoenix track "Love Like a Sunset" - which is handy because Thomas Mars, Phoenix's frontman, is responsible for both that particular track and Sofia's two young daughters.

Starring Stephen Dorff as a "depressed, withdrawn movie star", Somewhere sounds like it lands near Lost in Translation's style of semi-true fiction. (Dorff lived at the Chateau for two months when he was 19, and other parts of the film are largely based on Eleanor Coppola's memoirs.) The rest of the piece is probably a better fit for an LA audience or rabid Coppola fan, but there is this wonderful quote from Dorff about his process:

You know, dressing to play a woman, [like] in I Shot Andy Warhol, it's a piece of cake for me. I look in the mirror, I look like a girl, I just find a voice, walk around in some heels and do it.