[LEMONS] 3.11.2002
The SF Weekly responds to the Guardian's article and suit. Despite Matt Smith's serious unfunniness and general lousy writing, and the Weekly/New Times chain mentality, I've got respect for Mecklin. He rips Redmond's piece a new one in this rebuttal. I don't know who is to be believed, because their claims flatly contradict each other.
But I do think that Mecklin, in the latter part of his piece, is being disingenuous or naive. Sure, the SFBG is an agenda-oriented paper. But to make the claim that the Weekly is not openly political, or that the Guardian is in trouble due to its agenda rather than the Weekly's enviable financial position due to its status as a chain, is laughable. When I see the SFBG's "vote-this-way" cover schtick, I get a little riled up too. But then I poen the paper, and see the completele list of endorsements inside, and I realize what a valuable service that issue is. Nobody else, NOBODY, does that. The SFBG lists endorsements from just about every political affiliation you can think of. That rocks. The Weekly, on the other hand, can't be bothered. Probably because they're part of a chain based out of Phoenix, Arizona, rather than a local paper.
Be honest, John. Those syndicated columnists that help keep your costs down, and all that chain money help you a lot more than Brugmann's decades old rantings and ravings.
- l i n k -
