tl;dr

See now the print newspapers have to go all "We're ridiculous and asinine too! Look at us!!" to try and get back some of that market share.

What's everyone's problem with the church of Satan? Much better than the Scientologists.

unimpressed

San Francisco takes credit for anything good that happens within 100 miles.

Kommunaut: What's everyone's problem with the church of Satan? Much better than the Scientologists.

the name. people love names.

Allow me to explain the SF newspaper situation for our non-SF farkers...

The SF Guardian is the "That shiat ain't right weekly"

The SF Weekly is "Slightly different stuff ain't right weekly, possibly, if we actually got our facts correct this time"

The SF Examiner is a free daily paper that is more right wing than a certain senator from OK, often has full front page adds, and is a POS.

The SF Chronicle [aka SFGate] is the big daily paper that decided on a business plan of cutting back on reporting and spending a ton of money on new printers so they can have more pictures and less text. Oh, and $3 Sunday editions.

For the purposes of this story the Examiner doesn't matter. The Chronicfall doesn't really matter either, but I will point out that there really isn't any reason to pay attention to them other than for the crazy comments at SFgate [making 99% of farkers seem sane].

The Weekly tried predatory pricing to kill the Guardian. The Guardian took it to court, where the uber-dickishness of the Weekly's owner did not play well. Having lost that battle, the Weekly is doing every thing possible to avoiding paying the settlement including to all sorts of iffy financial moves. Basically, every couple of weeks the Guardian wins another court case and gets to seize some more of the Weekly's crap. Really, it makes for a nice ongoing saga to follow.

Not sure, but I assume Mayor Hairgel is rooting for the Weekly since he does not get along with the Guardian.

MichianaJerk: But what does queen Pelosi say about this?

She's been busy with another project, maybe you heard about it?

Allow me to explain the SF newspaper situation for our non-SF farkers...there are no legitimate newspapers in San Francisco.
The San Jose Mercury is the only thing non-SF farkers would recognize as a real newspaper that is published in the SF Bay Area, with the possible exception of the Oakland Tribune.

What's wrong with paying underage prostitutes with cocaine? At least it's not heroin.

Alured Popple: The SF Examiner is a free daily paper that is more right wing than a certain senator from OK, often has full front page adds, and is a POS.

I have a hard time believing that. Maybe to you it is right wing, but you are in San Francisco and might be tempted to label anything that is not hardcore leftist as right wing as you don't have any frame of reference.

fark that's long.

Alured Popple: The SF Examiner is a free daily paper that is more right wing than a certain senator from OK, often has full front page adds, and is a POS.

Just out of curiosity, the new version of the SF Examiner isn't a Moonie paper like the Washington Times is it?

red5ish

Did I in any way imply any of the SF papers are legitimate? I had hoped my joking descriptions of them managed to express my like of reverence for any of them.

In my opinion, the Guardian has some value for due to the constant efforts to piss off the mayor which are humorous but other than that and occasionally the restaurant review column there really isn't all that much in it that I overly care about. Well I guess it would give me an idea [or at least one side of the matter] what all the dozen SF ballot initiatives are every election if I was too lazy to read the flyer the city/county sends out. The other three are totally worthless [other than the humor of SFgate commenters].

Heck, I guess some of the other Bay Area ones might be legitimate papers, but then again doesn't one company now own like 95% of them and basically run them as one regional paper with local sections for each city?

newspapers still exist?

Alured Popple: Allow me to explain the SF newspaper situation for our non-SF farkers...

The SF Guardian is the "That shiat ain't right weekly"

The SF Weekly is "Slightly different stuff ain't right weekly, possibly, if we actually got our facts correct this time"

The SF Examiner is a free daily paper that is more right wing than a certain senator from OK, often has full front page adds, and is a POS.

The SF Chronicle [aka SFGate] is the big daily paper that decided on a business plan of cutting back on reporting and spending a ton of money on new printers so they can have more pictures and less text. Oh, and $3 Sunday editions.

For the purposes of this story the Examiner doesn't matter. The Chronicfall doesn't really matter either, but I will point out that there really isn't any reason to pay attention to them other than for the crazy comments at SFgate [making 99% of farkers seem sane].

The Weekly tried predatory pricing to kill the Guardian. The Guardian took it to court, where the uber-dickishness of the Weekly's owner did not play well. Having lost that battle, the Weekly is doing every thing possible to avoiding paying the settlement including to all sorts of iffy financial moves. Basically, every couple of weeks the Guardian wins another court case and gets to seize some more of the Weekly's crap. Really, it makes for a nice ongoing saga to follow.

Mostly correct, but just to amplify some points:

SF Bay Guardian: pretty far left, uses the word "progressive" to indicate positions it agrees with, obsessed (for good reason) with the idea of seizing PG&E's San Francisco operations. Locally-onwe and operated for 40-something years; the owner is an egomaniac who is despised by most of the downtown power structure.

SF Weekly: sort-of libertarian, its main columnist is a borderline fundie horrified by the idea of grownups having sex. Owned by the same company that bought out the Village Voice and ran it into the ground; also owns a bunch of alterna-rags in Miami, Phoenix, Texas, Denver, and elsewhere.

SF Examiner: formerly Hearst, now owned by Denver gazillionaire Philip Anschutz; the source for all of those crappy "Examiner" sites that have bloomed like mildew. 20-some years ago it was fun to read because of Hunter Thompson's column, but now it's only good for Sunday coupons.

SF Chronicle/SFGate: formerly the anti-Hearst, now owned by Hearst; consistent mouthpiece for downtown and suburban interests; the only section worth reading is sports, and even that's pretty lame.

The bosses at SF Weekly and its sister papers are shiatting bricks about this; the bosses farked up by choosing to not post an appeal bond, so what started as a $16M judgment is now at $21M and counting. (Cue the Ha! Ha! Guy...)

Alured Popple: Did I in any way imply

No, you didn't. Your summary was accurate.

Alured Popple: doesn't one company now own like 95% of them

You got that right too.

Panty Sniffer

That is a point, but I am not originally from the Bay Area, having grown up in a red county in what is a red state. One where the local paper took aim at both sides of the political spectrum. The state level paper I grew up with did the same... running commentators on both ends of the political spectrum. So although my views might be towards the left, I am fully aware of the range of debate across the spectrum.

Perhaps I should clarify where my comment on the Examiners bent comes from, my comment is more in regards to the editorial page of the paper. Basically, every day there are multiple columns about the evil Democrats [be they in the city, state, or national] and the latest plot to destroy SF/CA/America. And, it being a free country and all, they are more than welcome to do it. I just find the lack of any sort of contrary voice a bit obvious.

I guess the local reporting can be decent on occasion, although even the focus of it at times can seem to be a bit slanted [for example, if the editorial page is ranting about topic X it seems that most of the crime reports for the following weeks will in some way involve X].

NDP2

I think someone else owns it [can't remember who] and a couple of similar papers elsewhere.

to much text for me even to give a sh*t, I wait for the Clooney film version

And LibertyHiller managed to answer the ownership question.

red5ish: Allow me to explain the SF newspaper situation for our non-SF farkers...there are no legitimate newspapers in San Francisco the Bay Area.

FTFY...

The San Jose Mercury is the only thing non-SF farkers would recognize as a real newspaper that is published in the SF Bay Area, with the possible exception of the Oakland Tribune.

Maybe you could say that 10 years ago, but today? Unh-unh. The Merc went into the toilet after MediaNews bought it from the wreckage of Knight-Ridder, and the Tribune is a glorified shopper that should have folded in 2002.

Building on what LibertyHiller said...

SF Bay Guardian: pretty far left, uses the word "progressive" to indicate positions it agrees with, obsessed (for good reason) with the idea of seizing PG&E's San Francisco operations. Locally-onwe and operated for 40-something years; the owner is an egomaniac who is despised by most of the downtown power structure.

Basically, the Guardian dislikes the Major and his supporters on the Board of Supervisors. It likes the "Progressive" block on the BoS.

SF Chronicle/SFGate: formerly the anti-Hearst, now owned by Hearst; consistent mouthpiece for downtown and suburban interests; the only section worth reading is sports, and even that's pretty lame

Dislikes the members of the BoS who oppose the major. More likely to support Gavin/the Gavin block of the BoS against them unless he does something really dumb.

LibertyHiller: Maybe you could say that 10 years ago

Well, that would almost exactly correspond to when I stopped reading printed news, so I bow to your more current knowledge.

borg: I prefer SFweekly I think it's a better paper than the Guardian.

I'm curious: your preference is based on what, exactly? Respective editorial positions, feature stories, hooker ads, music/restaurant reviews, or the number of articles retracted?

Came here for pictures of underage prostitutes.

/Leaving disappointed.

Ahhhh.... and here we see all that liberal progressive love and compassion at work. Liberals eat their own.

san francisco has a newspaper to be an alternative to?

Hippie fight!

Gyrfalcon: Kommunaut: What's everyone's problem with the church of Satan? Much better than the Scientologists.

at least they admit they're a church.

Generally the signs say "Church of Scientology." At least the one here in Austin did.

so any company in cali that that's in the black for a year can potentially be sued by rivals for predatory pricing because they obviously were selling below cost. the evidence of intent was speech the guy gave the day he acquired the company. stupid law.

black = red

Enjoy experience!

Link (NSFW)

Good thing that law wasn't around when the Southern Pacific bankrupted all those short lines and then bought them out using the same pricing techniques for freight.

Alured Popple: Allow me to explain the SF newspaper situation for our non-SF farkers...

The SF Guardian is the "That shiat ain't right weekly"

The SF Weekly is "Slightly different stuff ain't right weekly, possibly, if we actually got our facts correct this time"

The SF Examiner is a free daily paper that is more right wing than a certain senator from OK, often has full front page adds, and is a POS.

The SF Chronicle [aka SFGate] is the big daily paper that decided on a business plan of cutting back on reporting and spending a ton of money on new printers so they can have more pictures and less text. Oh, and $3 Sunday editions.

For the purposes of this story the Examiner doesn't matter. The Chronicfall doesn't really matter either, but I will point out that there really isn't any reason to pay attention to them other than for the crazy comments at SFgate [making 99% of farkers seem sane].

The Weekly tried predatory pricing to kill the Guardian. The Guardian took it to court, where the uber-dickishness of the Weekly's owner did not play well. Having lost that battle, the Weekly is doing every thing possible to avoiding paying the settlement including to all sorts of iffy financial moves. Basically, every couple of weeks the Guardian wins another court case and gets to seize some more of the Weekly's crap. Really, it makes for a nice ongoing saga to follow.

you've summed it up rather succinctly.

tell us more about your politicians

I like that pic of Nancy Pelosi.
Tell me, does she have some sort of implement to pull her gums back over her teeth? Nancy Reagan had that same look, i think she was dead though.

Read the headline and thought it was the Reagan White House.

Harlock "Good thing that law wasn't around when the Southern Pacific bankrupted all those short lines and then bought them out using the same pricing techniques for freight."

There's an excellent chance that's WHY that law is around.

Relcec, you didn't actually read the article, let alone the actual statute in question, did you?

That's not how anti-monopoly laws work.

Relcec, in fact, you'll note the whole point of the lawsuit was that the defendant WASN'T "in the black."

Wonder why the other two papers in town didn't sue, too?

Alured Popple: The Weekly tried predatory pricing to kill the Guardian.

Sounds like capitalism to me. They can sell their paper for a penny if they want to and can afford it.
For this to run afoul of antitrust laws, the company needs to meet some pretty high standards, and/or it would need to be proven that the practice would affect all rivals in the market, or that there is a high chance that they would indeed become a monopoly in the market.
I don't think most people choose which paper they'll read based on price. A shiatty paper is still shiatty, even if it's free.