Comments on: Management: No Plans To Consolidate SF Weekly, Bay Guardian, Examiner

By: Eve Batey

Eve Batey — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:02:44 +0000

Hi, misterhyde! If there's any shame or dishonor to be brought, I'm bringing it -- I wrote this story, not Max. But I don't think there is, as even the SF Weekly also refers to itself as the San Francisco Weekly. As for the use of the definite article, folks as illustrious as their new owners use it, so I think we're OK there, too. Hope that helps manage your expectations for my career aspirations.

By: Eve Batey

Eve Batey — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:02:44 +0000

By: misterhyde

misterhyde — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 05:41:37 +0000

Max, please stop bringing shame and dishonor to your profession by referring to the recently acquired publication as “The San Francisco Weekly.” There is no definite article in front of the name of the publication, and “SF Weekly” is not shorthand for “San Francisco Weekly;” the name of the publication is SF Weekly.

I expect better work from someone who aspires to be a professional journalist.

By: misterhyde

misterhyde — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 05:41:37 +0000

I expect better work from someone who aspires to be a professional journalist.

By: Corinne de Ciofalo-Guell

Corinne de Ciofalo-Guell — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:14:46 +0000

Nothing like being Homogenized “just another brick in their wall.”

By: Corinne de Ciofalo-Guell

Corinne de Ciofalo-Guell — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:14:46 +0000

Nothing like being Homogenized “just another brick in their wall.”

By: Greg Dewar

Greg Dewar — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:21:24 +0000

this is frightening. The idea that the limping, limp Guardian might survive in its bastardized corporate form is bad enough. But to lose the weekly or have Steve and Tim’s cooties ruining their reputation for Actual Reporting? scary.

By: Greg Dewar

Greg Dewar — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:21:24 +0000