The Guardian, the Examiner, and the Weekly

01.09.13 - 3:07 pm | Tim Redmond |

(115)

As you can all imagine, I'm getting calls and emails, so let me clear it up: Yes, San Francisco Newspaper Co. has bought SF Weekly.

Yes, Todd Vogt is the co-owner of the Examiner, Guardian and now Weekly, but for the record, I am the editor and publisher of the Guardian.

No, there are no plans to merge the two weeklies or consolidate them or combine the editorial staffs. We will continue to do our best to be the progressive voice of San Francisco; the Weekly, I assume, will continue to do its own different thing.

And no, this doesn't mean that I'm going to suddenly be BFFs with Joe Eskenazi. We have our view of things; he has his. I fervently believe that we will continue to disagree, and the city will be served by the ongoing debate. (Unless Joe comes to his senses and realizes that I'm always right.)

Comments

Begs the question of why SF needs two weekly papers for the

purpose of finding out what is on at the movies. (Let's pretend the internet doesn't exist, just for a while).

Tim, nobody expects you to say that your situation sucks. But, as the ad revenue dries up, and SFBG's antiluvian "look and feel" engenders wry winks and winces, should we start baking a cake for your leaving party?

Posted by Anonymous on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 3:33 pm

SFBG's antiluvian "look and

SFBG's antiluvian "look and feel"

You really shouldn't use words you know nothing about. You tried to write as some pretentious, snooty "intellectual" when you don't possess such skills.

The word is: antediluvian NOT antiluvian.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 4:03 pm

Being a typo nazi is no substitute for genuine wit and

perception. Reflect on that at your leisure.

Posted by Anonymous on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 4:17 pm

Translation: Ignorance = a

Translation:

Ignorance = a typo.

It was no typo. There was too much wrong with it.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 4:36 pm

Pedantic focusing on minor errors is typically the

behavior of those who know they are losing a debate and are looking to deflect and distract.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 4:56 pm

Guest #1 is right, and you aren't "Anonymous" if there's a name

for what you are.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 9:03 pm

I think "anonymous" changed his signon to "Guest"

Confusing, isn't it?

Posted by guest on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 12:23 pm

Is it possible the reader

Is it possible the reader perceives Tim as someone who is against an extinct branch of the Indo-European family of languages (Luvian)?

Posted by Francis on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 5:04 pm

Not quite extinct, sadly. Is Tim the

last of the antediluvians, perhaps?

We should be told.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 5:08 pm

No, no, you don't understand.

No, no, you don't understand. Luvians are those extraterrestrial beings who secretly run things on Earth. The Bay Guardian's former owner was fervently opposed to these creatures, and thus his paper has an anti-luvian look and feel. The writer is clearly privy to this insider knowledge. Before you speak, know what you're speaking about.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 7:12 pm

"No, there are no plans to

"No, there are no plans to merge the two weeklies or consolidate them or combine the editorial staffs."

If anyone can believe that! When I read that part, my first thought was: Well then that's what will happen.

Because when these things are written about (as in this case), it's common to read, "there are no plans to...."

And then later on, what there had been "no plans to" do is often what happens.

The "there are no plans to ____" language is often used in politics to deny something that's already been planned.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 3:50 pm

Will there be more layoffs at the Guardian?

I hope not - despite my bitching I have grown to love Marke, Tim, Steven, Caitlin and all the rest.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 4:05 pm

and emily

the music column's too good

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 4:17 pm

We wouldn't be here if we didn't like it in some sense but it's

more like the empathy one feels for a wounded bird than the fear that is projected by a vital organ of change.

Tim will be collecting food stamps by the end of 2013.

Posted by Anonymous on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 4:18 pm

I hope not

I don't want anyone to have to collect food stamps - it sucks. I hope everyone does alright in the end. Hopefully this will be a better year than 2012 for everyone.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 4:34 pm

Thanks

Thanks for wishing us well, LS. I hope your year brings many blessings as well.

Posted by steven on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 5:18 pm

Well I wouldn't take LS's

Well I wouldn't take LS's comment too seriously if I were you. With her multiple, nasty, rude, crude personalities as demonstrated on this site, LS will wish you well one moment and then tell you to shove it up your ass sideways in the next breath. LS is Loca.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 10:01 pm

I always tell you to shove it up your ass sideways

Because your comments so thoroughly reek of early 90's-PCism and Inner Mission-based radical lesbian dialectical materialism that I know you'd enjoy it.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 10:46 pm

"despite my bitching..." Oh

"despite my bitching..."

Oh call it what it is: You mean despite your 24/7 trolling as either Lucretia or Troll II.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 4:38 pm

Not 24/7

I do take breaks.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 4:43 pm

Will the hooker ad's now be shared between all these journals?

Or will SFBG continue to try and corner the market in pimping filth and squalor, all in the name of a progressive agenda, of course?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 4:23 pm

Brugmann Sold Out

Bruce B Brugmann was so rabidly anti-chain and so pro-local ownership, but when he decided to retire, he sold out to a conglomerate with over 100 newspapers worldwide, making Rupert Murdoch look like a minor player.

So, now the conglomerate has bought the SF Weekly as well.

Don't let Tim Redmond kid you; there will be ONE general weekly, either the Guardian or the Weekly. There won't be two. Look at how skimpy the size of both papers is. No owner is going to support two anemic newspapers.

Posted by David Kaye on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 5:32 pm

Don't forget the building

Don't forget the building that the BG sold...

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 12:00 am

Brugmann Sold Out

So, now the conglomerate has bought the SF Weekly as well.

Posted by David Kaye on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 5:34 pm

Brugmann Sold Out

So, now the conglomerate has bought the SF Weekly as well.

Posted by David Kaye on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 5:36 pm

Stop paper publication

Both the Examiner's SFBG blog and The Weekly need to stop printing paper editions. This is a waste of precious natural resources.

SFist, BeyondChron, and the other blogs will welcome you into their Internet-only world w/open arms.

Another option:
Get Herr Bruce to pump some of the $million he made from the property sale back into the paper. He got a nice payoff from the property before he laid off his workforce (Sarah, where art thou?).

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 5:45 pm

If you are still eating hamburgers, *you* are contributing

far, far, *FAR* more to the problem of deforestation around the world. Trees for paper are farmed.

Newspapers that still publish are able to do so in part because of the savings realized through advanced automation and other technology improvements in the printing industry.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 6:15 pm

Gotta agree wi/Little Lil on this one

The Examiner's SFBG blog should keep printing on paper made from harvested trees...because advanced automation is whiz stuff!

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 6:34 pm

I too agree with lil' lilz

Which blows my mind.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 9:30 pm

You are publishing by hand then?

First, Joe Eskanazi has written some fine indepth articles about the pension quagmire looming ahead for the "city family". Indepth. No ideologicial rantings. Think about it.

"but for the record, I am the editor and publisher of the Guardian."

So Vogt is your owner? But you publish? Do you crank off stenograph copies, pumping hard on a bicycle to keep the generator working?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 5:52 pm

Tim, you are delusional. You

Tim, you are delusional. You are nothing but hired help on the Corporate Plantation. You are not a "publisher" no matter how many times you repeat it. You own nothing, you did not put any money into the corporation, you are just there to serve at the pleasure of Vogt and Company. Given the poor finances of the paper before you got bought, and given how little to no news and minimal staff you have now at your "paper," you may be the "publisher" of a nice little type-written leaflet called the Guardian, especially as your readership continues to age, and your petty attacks on anyone who doesn't believe in your aging white male-centric view of a city you're not even from becomes more and more irrelevant to the people who work for a living and provide the wealth your parasitical progressives try to take to give to their legion of failed non profits.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 6:42 pm

Seems like you could have stopped yourself after one or two

jabs and come off looking like you scored some rhetorical point against Tim, but instead you allowed yourself to appear to jabber incoherently.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 8:12 pm

Yes, that angry person

Yes, that angry person definitely has "issues" which go well beyond anything Tim Redmond has done or has said. Tim is just being used as the convenient target of the person's bile.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 10:14 pm

you commented on the tone,

you commented on the tone, but not on the facts. Fact is Tim isn't publisher of anything. Facts are a funny thing, and that's something liberals and the Guardian can't take.

When we rename this city to Willie Brown Town, the screams of the left will be nothing but quiet chirping in the night, and the Bay Guardian will be nothing but a name used to sell sex ads and ads for pro-government movies.

Oh wait. It already is.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 12:06 pm

SFBG needs the revenue from that movie too much to

quibble about whether it is sufficiently politically correct for some of more over-sensitive souls here.

Posted by guest on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 12:24 pm

When I hear the idea of renaming S.F. "Willie Brown Town"...

for some reason I can't help but think of such a change being touted, narrated, and extolled by Willie himself, in his voice, fedora and all.

Funny.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 10:18 pm

Well done. was great to read

Well done. was great to read that comment.

Posted by Erick Brooks on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 9:01 pm

Gee, thanks

Glad to hear how much love I have out there.

Posted by tim on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 9:20 pm

And in the end, the love you take is

equal to the love you make.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 7:04 am

Coffee order

Tim, could you send Caitlin out to get me a latte? Thanks!

Yours in publishing,

Todd Vogt

Posted by Chromefields on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 9:40 am

Love you, Tim!

Just thought you could use a hug ;)

Posted by Jennifer Lopez on Jan. 14, 2013 @ 12:19 pm

I doubt that Tim will be in this job in 12 months time.

And that's not because he will move on as, fairly obviously, this is the only job he conceivably could do, and the only city in which he could do it.

But rather the consolidation of these papers will make his position untenable. In fact, given the lack of soul he puts into his articles these days, and the rather resigned way that he concedes criticism, I suspect that working at SFBG has already become a futile, soulless exercize.

He's just going thru the motions at this point. Sad, but inevitable.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 14, 2013 @ 12:27 pm

That's okay, I'll be his Sugar Mama

But I think you're prolly just jealous because Tim's got a job and you're reduced to posting nasty jibes in the comments. Chin up...I hear there's an opening at McDonald's for a little troll like you.

Posted by Jennifer Lopez on Jan. 14, 2013 @ 12:50 pm

Rember when many SF's progressives

were up in arms about the SFweekly being bought by a chain?

This seems to be the history in a nutshell.

Progressives were all worked up that people might read the Weekly and not get their truth from the supposed indy Guardian, which is a mouth piece for SEIU and whatnot. There was this lawsuit with the Weekly as well, the Guardian claimed that the Internet and a changing economy wasn't effecting the weekly paper business.

Then Brugman saw the writing on the wall, after not seeing the writing on the wall with his lawsuit. He sold to developers at a profit the building he bought and put cell phone towers on, and he sold the SFBG to a chain.

Now the chain that owns the Guardian has bought up the weekly.

It is all very interesting.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 10:01 pm

Shame on the Guardian for

Shame on the Guardian for accepting ads for that torture movie, Zero Dark or whatever it's called. Is that a decision by the "editor and publisher"? or is it the decision of the owner?

Posted by GuestAunt Tom on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 10:20 pm

Have you seen it?

It looks like the usual gung ho war movie.

Not like say, unwatchable torture porn.

Are you just offended they kill Osama?

Posted by matlock on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 11:06 pm

I saw it.

Overrated pro-torture, pro-war propaganda. A huge step back from "The Hurt Locker." The action sequences are adequate, but soulless and the portrayed humanity of the special forces beyond belief. And of course, fictional, but the truth died with many of the special forces raiders in a later mysterious helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

The highlight--James Gandolfini as Leon Panetta.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 8:32 am

Eddie, sometimes a movie is just a movie

Can't you leave your politics at the door occasionally, and just enjoy a movie spectacle for what it is, without all the heavy politicizing?

Posted by anonymous on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 9:07 am

Hey, I went in with an open mind.

Sorry my quick review of a somewhat controversial movie steeped in politics on a heavily political website is too political for you.

You guys sure like to tell other people how to live their lives; "just enjoy a movie spectacle for what it is"--get over yourself already.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 9:24 am

Eddie, when one of the major criticisms of the left is that

leftists are too serious, morose, self-absorbed and have no sense of humor, why would you soe asily fall into the trap of appearing that way?

Can you not watch any movie without inferring politics?