Talk:San Francisco Bay Guardian

POV Template - a rebuttal
7 December 2005 17:00 (PST) Here we go again. The editor Griot has a tendency to make unsupported claims on Wiki articles, see Matt Gonzalez for example. The editor has taken the liberty to re-write Wiki articles about Gonzalez and the Green Party in a negative light and now seeks to do the same to the SF Bay Guardian likely because they supported his candidacy for mayor. According to this editor, positive recognition must be watered down in order to be neutral; a common reductive fallacy known as the Middle Ground fallacy. The record will show an ongoing effort by this editor to revise Wiki articles and omit any statements the editor doesn't like about her or his political opponents, while failing to argue on merit. In my view, the ability to edit carries a responsibility to satsify a reasonable burden of proof that goes beyond the vanity of personal belief and editors should yield when a view isn't supported or without making an attempt to make a case. The POV template should be removed as Griot's personal opinion doesn't warrant the action.Rasax 01:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A read of this article or the one about Gonzalez will show that this fellow likes to use the wikipedia to propound his political beliefs and that he's a poor writer. The ability to edit carries with it a responsibility to be neutral. I tried in this article and the other to make this fellow understand that terms such as "on the frontlines" and "still fighting" belong in advertisments, not encyclopedias. The frontlines viewed from which side? Fighting for whom or against whom? It's hard to argue against this kind of convoluted thinking even when your opponent has good intentions and is willing to meet you halfway, but this fellow has not shown an ability to budge even an inch in any debate or show my opinions any respect. Arguing with idealogues is a futile endeavor. Hence the POV, which will warn readers to be wary of this article. Griot 01:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Griot


 * Griot would benefit to examine the editor's own endless run-on sentences, repeats, and grammar before issuing unsupported criticism. It might save the editor some future embarassment. Hint: your viewpoint isn't encyclopedic. Rasax 01:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * re: "The frontlines viewed from which side? Fighting for whom or against whom?"
 * See article's content which qualifies it in progressivism, muckracking, and fighting for the underdog (a description I didn't add). That suggests the SFBG is on the front lines fighting political power imbalances that favor cronyism, quid pro quo, and an indentured status quo - like the type we saw during emperor Willie Brown's tyrannical rule. Rasax 02:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Freebie" status
The part at the end about the paper turning into a shopper isn't correct, as a shopper is quite a different kind of publication. I'm removing that bit. 11/15/2005

Editing changes made to clean up some repetition, subjectivity, and to clarify public power as advocated by the SFBG. -- rasax ~16:00, 18 November 2005.

Hypocritical applied to belief
re: "Hypocritically, some believe, because of its anti-union stance (see below), the Guardian often stakes out progressive positions on its editorial pages, advocating populist positions to make government more transparent and accountable to the public."
 * Great, tell me why. You must be able to provide sufficient reasons to make it true in all cases because sweeping statements about what other people believe are impossible to support without any. Why is it hypocrical to believe a paper's editorials can stake out progressive positions on a host of issues and not act in the same good faith at their own company?  Rasax 07:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Unionism v. Anti-Union policy
re: "In spite of its editorial advocacy for the public interest and social justice, the Bay Guardian has a record of being anti-union and paying its staffers less-than-living wages[5]."
 * As much as I deplore companies that underpay and underappreciate their employees, the editor who made the insertion must qualify it for readers. I'm willing to bet the cited link is helpful and will leave it for anyone wanting to do the extra legwork to build from.  Wiki readers should be given enough information about a topic without having to link out to see how true the statement is.  That burden should be on the editor, not the reader.  For now, I will revise and make a general statement to convey the point without a need to qualify it.  I'll leave it to the editor to come back and tell us more about the Guardian's poor business choices and imagine it'll have me ranting for weeks.  Fair enough?  Rasax 04:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Projecting bias
6 December 2005 15:00 (PST) Hyperbolic spin put back into proportionality. "The paper professes" requires supporting proof, whereas "the paper remains..." is a conclusion that follows the previous Wiki article. New claims and evidence are best inserted into the central text of an article, not its conclusion. Rasax 23:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Point of View
This is not an objective article about the Bay Guardian. It's a promotion piece and even contradicts itself. Is the Guardian for social justice, as the article claims, although it mistreats its own workers? Let's remember that people come to encyclopedias for objective opinions. The reputation of the wikipedia is demeaned when someone uses an article to gush about their favorite cause, person, or newspaper.


 * Rasax responds: It's an enormous difference between advocating social justice on an editorial page and doing it in employment practices.  Editorials can certainly advocate social justice even when a paper isn't fair to its employees because they aren't mutually exclusive.  Other than in a critical section about the paper, where does the article say anything else about 'social justice'?  Get a life, Griot. Rasax 01:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from statements like "Get a life." As to your reply, I disagree. Treating your workers right and pushing for social justice and change are not exclusive. Your position amounts to "don't practice what you preach" or "do as I say, not as I do." Newspapers, like people, should be judged by their actions, not their words, but this article says -- gushes is more like it -- that the Guardian is a "community icon" that "stakes out progressive positions" and "advocates populist reforms." You say the Guardian is a "progressive alternative voice." How can it be all that and still bust its own union? The introductory sentence to "Anti-Unionism in Employment" is just plain smarmy, "In spite of all the advocacy and editorializing for social justice, the Bay Guardian contradicted those values..." There's the word "social justice" you asked for. Griot 02:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Griot


 * Rasax responds: You're absolutely right. It should've read "clue," not "life."  My bad.  Rasax 01:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)  And, Griot, I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself without you having to edit my comments. Rasax 02:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * re: "Newspapers, like people, should be judged by their actions, not their words, but this article says -- gushes is more like it -- that the Guardian is a "community icon" that "stakes out progressive positions" and "advocates populist reforms.'"
 * It is, whether or not you agree with the statement. The SFBG has advocated many positions supported by San Franciscans and has done so for several decades.  Their views are iconic of the community they write for even if their employment practices aren't as representative.  Why?  Because they're not mutually exclusive.  As an individual, I can agree with their editorials and disagree with their employment practices.  No one can reasonably deny the SFBG's editorials are populist, progressive or pro-community just by taking a myopic look at what they do or don't do to their employees.  That's not gushing, but an accurate characterization of what they're using their editorial pages for.  Therefore, the POV template has no grounds to warrant it and should be removed immediately.  Rasax 02:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How can views be "iconic of the community"? An icon is an object of devotion. Some people aren't devoted to the Guardian; most San Franciscans are indifferent to the paper. "Iconic of the community" is a classic example of why this article isn't neutral. You write, "No one can reasonably deny the SFBG's editorials are populist, progressive or pro-community." This is a definite POV. Lots of people can deny it if they want, and whether they're right or you're right is strictly a matter of opinion. Some would say that the Guardian is backward-looking and divisive, a throwback to an earlier political era (certainly the editors of the SF Weekly would say that, and whether they're correct depends on your POV). Finally, this attention to the paper's relationship with its workers is not "myopic." It definitely belongs in this article, because it sheds light on what's at the heart of the Guardian. It takes guts, commitment, and a true belief in worker's rights to back a union. I know. I used to be a union organizer. Griot 02:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Griot


 * re: "How can views be 'iconic of the community'?"
 * They've kept local issues on the forefront that have resulted in action. The SFBG has stepped in to inform the local community where our corporate dailies and weaklies have failed.  They were on the forefront to expose the state's derergulation scheme when other "news" outlets were giving excuses.  San Franciscans are notoriously different in our views in contrast to the other parts of the state.  IN the last election cycle, for example, the SFBG endorsed Prop 80, which wasn't endorsed by our dailies or the weakly corporate rag that doesn't give endorsements.  The result?  SF was the only county to endorse it.  That says the SFBG was in sync.  They've exposed the revolving door in the mayor's office that led to voters enacting reforms.  Giving these issues a forum informed enough San Franciscans to take them to the ballot box when failure at City Hall looked imminent.  The result of these changes clearly suggests that the SFBG does connect to the local community where other outlets do not. Rasax 20:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * re: "most San Franciscans are indifferent to the paper."
 * POV unless you can cite a source. Rasax 20:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * re: "...This is a definite POV. Lots of people can deny it if they want..."
 * They can but it's a statement of fact when the definition of populism and progressivism is compared. Rasax 20:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * re: "The introductory sentence to "Anti-Unionism in Employment" is just plain smarmy,"
 * How so? It certainly isn't favorable though it'll be interesting to see how you'll argue being labelled a hypocrite is gushing.Rasax 03:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this sentence smarmy? "Although President Bush is strongly in favor of peace and friendship with other nations, he ordered the bombing of the Iraqi orphanage." The qualifiying first half of the statement sheds harsh light on the second half and renders it, the second half, kinda smarmy. Don't you think?


 * I think it's a red herring.Rasax 20:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * re: "How can views be "iconic of the community"? An icon is an object of devotion."
 * That's a disingenuous claim when an icon is a representative symbol of a community given the context it was stated in and by definition, see: . In this case, the SFBG is iconic in its views. Rasax 03:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Elvis Presley is an American cultural icon. Michelangelo's Pieta is "iconic" in that it represents an object of devotion. How can the Bay Guardian be "iconic" when 95 percent of San Francisco is indifferent to it? It is not symbolic. It's a free newspaper. Again, this is a case where you may have to set aside your own personal feelings and try to see objectively and realistically what others feel. Most people don't care about the Bay Guardian.


 * Please see the definition of icon I've included from Merriam Webster. If you don't agree, then feel free to take it up with them. Rasax 20:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * re: "You write, "No one can reasonably deny the SFBG's editorials are populist, progressive or pro-community." This is a definite POV."
 * It's also a verifiable fact. If you don't agree, then by all means feel free to refute it with supporting evidence. However, keep in mind you're refuting their editorial content, not their employment practices.  A POV can also be an argument of fact, as in this case.  Any doubts should be resolved by looking at what defines progressivism and populism.  Rasax 03:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * C'mon man. You're acting here like a Christian fundamentalist. People have different definitions of populist, progressive and pro-community. I personally think the BG is anti-community. I don't see that paper bringing people together. What is progressive? Is it progressive to bust your own union? The newspaper's history would indicate it's not progressive.


 * And you'd be wrong. I don't condone the SFBG's behavior towards their employees but I can make the distinction between what is said on their editorial pages and how they act as an employer.  Rasax 20:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * re:"Some would say that the Guardian is backward-looking and divisive,"
 * Some would say that's an argument straight out of Faux Infotainment or "News" when blanket comments are supported with "some would say..."
 * Now you're saying I like Fox news. I detest it. YOu can't cast me as some kind of rightwing lunatic because I disagree with you.


 * I wouldn't have any way of knowing if you like Faux "news" or not. I haven't even implied as much.  What I said was your argument was similar in style.  You may be interested to see Robert Greenwald's documentary "Outfoxed" sometime then.  Faux Infotainment uses the "some might say" blanket statement all the time to support their lies with innuendo.  You may find yourself never saying it again.  And lunacy, in my opinion, isn't an exclusive rightwing trait.  Rasax 20:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * re:"...(certainly the editors of the SF Weekly would say that..."
 * Well, since you speak for the SF Weakly, then by all means feel free to ad it. But, it's also pointed out that they're competitors and it's clear why competitors might offer unfounded criticism. Rasax 03:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, competitors don't necessarily offer unfounded criticism. They don't criticize simply for the sake of competing. Sometimes their criticism is correct.


 * Perhaps, but it doesn't make a competitor an expert. And, coming from the SF Weakly, where they've gone corporate and fired their progressive writers, it looks just plain ridiculous. Rasax 20:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * re: "Finally, this attention to the paper's relationship with its workers is not "myopic." It definitely belongs in this article,"
 * It is myopic when you use it as grounds to refute the description of their editorials. Their employment practices have an entire section in the article mentioning it and you're making a post hoc argument that does not support a POV template being tacked on the article.  It should be removed. Rasax 03:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it's wise to question their editorials, given their history of treating their workers? I get back to fundamental idea that you judge people by their actions, not their words.
 * Rastax, we've been around and around about this, and I don't think we can see eye to eye. I feel I have reallly tried to understand your point of view, but you have never given my opinions any respect or consideration. I believe you're an idealogue, and I could debate you forever. I'm not going to come back to this argument. I'm convinced it would be futile. Let's leave the POV on the page so readers will know to read the article with caution. Sorry, man. Griot 04:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Griot


 * Clearly, you don't regret repeating the same pattern on various Wiki articles, so why apologize? As colorful as your revisions are, they're neither authoritative nor well-supported.  You have a tendency to cite them as if it's enough information to justify editing revisions and omissions, and the audacity to accuse others who don't agree with your biases of being ideologues.  Given the arguments you've made, your apology is hollow as your claims to warrant a POV template. There are no reasonable grounds for a POV template and I ask mods and other observers to indicate their agreement. Rasax 06:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Some Guardian positions about the local community & public interest

 * On the effects of gentrification and homelessness : "If you want to understand why there are so many homeless people in San Francisco, and so many working people in poverty, you need to look at a key statistic that rarely gets discussed in policy debates. It's what longtime housing activist Calvin Welch calls a "sociopathological imbalance": the gap between the income people get from minimum-wage jobs and government programs and the cost of housing in this city." Brahinsky, R., and Tim Redmond. "Poverty amid plenty: why are there so many poor people in such a rich city? Start with the cost of housing," San Francisco Bay Guardian on the web, 22 October 2003. 8 December 2005
 * On public power : "SOMEWHERE IN THE massive California Public Utilities Commission offices on Van Ness Avenue there's a roomful of documents several feet high that most people will never see. Wading through the stack is a mind-numbing task, and few ever do it. That's why a request buried deep in the pile to create a new Pacific Gas and Electric Co. program to fight public power – funded by your electric bills – hasn't gotten much attention so far." Brahinsky, R. "PG & E's sneak attack: The private utility wants to make you pay for its sleazy campaigns against public power," San Francisco Bay Guardian on the web, 19 February 2003. 8 December 2005
 * Against privatization and sweetheart deals : "The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a plan Nov. 5 that could end Bechtel Infrastructure Corp.'s contract with the Public Utilities Commission – a contract that critics said was a step toward privatizing the city's water system...The contract, approved last summer by a Board of Supervisors dominated by allies of Mayor Willie Brown, was supposed to last four years and cost $45 million. It called for Bechtel and several other private companies, working under the name San Francisco Water Alliance, to manage a huge project: the overhaul of much of the city's aging water infrastructure system, which stretches some 150 miles and provides drinking water to San Francisco as well as more than a million additional customers in the Bay Area." Blackwell, S. "Bye-bye Bechtel: Supes OK deal to end water privatization contract," San Francisco Bay Guardian on the web, 7 November 2001. 8 December 2005
 * On cleaning up the elections process from special interest influence : "With fall elections out of the way, the San Francisco Ethics Commission is moving quickly to tighten campaign finance laws ahead of the five supervisorial races slated for next year's ballot and Mayor Gavin Newsom's reelection campaign in 2007. The most significant change would extend public campaign financing from the Board of Supervisors to other local races, including the one for mayor." Hirsch, M. "Money rules: Public financing for mayoral candidates tops the list of electoral reforms the Ethics Commission is pursuing," San Francisco Bay Guardian on the web, 16 - 22 November 2005. 8 December 2005
 * On media censorship : "Here's what you didn't read while the papers were full of blow jobs and fluff: Genetic engineering is threatening the world's food supply and might be contributing to a dramatic outbreak of infectious diseases. Your government trained death squads in Mexico and sold weapons to Saddam Hussein; money you spent at a gas station helped soldiers kill nonviolent protesters in Nigeria. Your eyeglasses, silverware, and contraceptive devices might be made of "cleaned" radioactive metal -- and that's the way the Department of Energy wants it. And the governments of the world's richest countries spent 1998 discussing the idea of turning the planet over to multinational companies." Roth, G. "Not fit to print? Project Censored uncovers the stories that didn't make the news in 1998," San Francisco Bay Guardian on the web, 24 March 1999.  8 December 2005

Any questions? Rasax 22:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

ONe question: Do you work for the Bay Guardian?

No. Rasax 20:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do work for the Guardian, albeit as a freelance photographer, so I'm not touching the article itself. But, oh dear, this article needs work, and some decent additions from a FACTUAL approach, not some the horribly NPOV junk that's there from both sides of the fence. A 1975-1976 staff dispute is very interesting, I'm sure, but has there been anything of the kind recently? Why nothing about the increasingly heated war of words (and lawsuits) between the Guardian and New Times? I'm curious about who actually owns the paper. How about yesterday's redesign, or free classifieds? This article needs massive improvement. But they pay me, so I'm not doing it myself, sorry. Palnu 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and contribute. You're probably in a good position to do so. But remember: No tooting the Guardian's horn. This is an objective encyclopedia (or it's suppose to be). GriotGriot


 * See Middle-ground fallacy. "This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position ."  In other words, an article should be based on verifiable facts, not a balancing act between favorable and unfavorable outcomes or your belief about them. Rasax 22:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your point?
 * My point being objectivity doesn't demand watering down information when it's verifiable. Your argument fails to distinguish a fact from an opinion. When verfiable facts make an individual or entity look favorable or not, it isn't objective to water them down in a reductive, robotic monotone as you've implied. Withholding verifiable information is a form of bias, not objectivity.  I'm looking forward to seeing what our recent editor contributes and want to offer my encouragement without having this discussion board monopolized by another grinding axe. Rasax 16:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

YOUR POINT?


 * The discussion is much easier to follow when your comments are kept separate from mine, Griot. Rasax 20:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Palnu: Please feel free to contribute. Improving the article shouldn't hinge on who signs your paycheck in my opinion. I'd agree there could be a lot more useful information included about the paper and will leave it up to future editors to mention. It seems I cannot freely make contributions without the other editor splitting hairs over every word, and it has happened on another wiki article with this same individual. It's unfortunate you've gotten two sides of a fence from harassment when my contributions aren't intended to make the SFBG anything more or less than what it is - a local, community paper with progressive editorials. Because of this pattern with the other editor, I felt it's better to leave future fixes up to other editors. What's there can be used as a starting point, or not. If this same individual harasses other editors, it will be clear to any mods if the need to intervene occurs. Best of luck. Cheers Rasax 20:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As if that sloppily written and poorly researched "another wiki article" isn't anything but you.


 * Bombast not a substitute for substance "When no evidence or reasoning is available, advocates [for certain views] may sometimes attempt to suport their argument by sheer noise and histrionics." -- Freeley & Steinberg, "Argumentation and Debate," 10th ed, p. 175, Wadsworth: Belmont. Rasax 22:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. You're tiresome.


 * OK, I've made a start. I've not deleted anything, but added a few facts, and a hopefully even-handed outline of the New Times dispute. Palnu 22:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Still biased and with serious POV problems
This is a terrible article. It says almost nothing about the SFBG, it uses slanted language to describe the paper, and it spends more time discussing labor issues than the paper itself. There's nothing about the history, and such important issues as its feud with the Weekly and occasionally, the Chronicle. I personally happen to agree that the Guardian is a muckracking paper with an agenda, but I really don't think it's the point of Wikipedia to repeat opinions like that, particularly not without some backup. The labor section is okay for what it is, only that two paragraphs about labor is about right for a paper with a two page article, not such a short stub. I'm going to spend a few minutes cleaning up the tone but it would be great if someone could spend the time to expand the article. The SF Weekly article needs help too. Wikidemo 08:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Guardianlogo.jpg
Image:Guardianlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed section on anti union activities as not adequately sourced
Per BLP, and per adequate sourcing requirements, i removed the section on anti union activities. if someone wants to find a mainstream source for this information, or even with sources from the paper and from the union involved, i have no problem. article referenced is an online, edited reposting of an article originally published in Processed World magazine, a very cool independent mag but NOT a valid source for a WP article about the guardian. im surprised no one else has taken this action before, considering the discussion here. we dont have to decide whos right or wrong, just whether we have adequate sourcing to include controversial (or truly ANY) material in WP. i have no doubt a better article could be written that lays out the guardians issues, hypocracies, etc, as any organization of its size and nature would have. im not gonna do it, and until someone can research it properly, this article will unfortunately be less sexy. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on San Francisco Bay Guardian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423163239/http://www.eastbayexpress.com/92510/archives/2012/04/19/breaking-san-francisco-examiner-just-bought-the-san-francisco-bay-guardian to http://www.eastbayexpress.com/92510/archives/2012/04/19/breaking-san-francisco-examiner-just-bought-the-san-francisco-bay-guardian
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112024626/http://www.voicemediagroup.com/releases/2013-01-09a.html to http://www.voicemediagroup.com/releases/2013-01-09a.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131063338/http://sfist.com/2015/12/01/former_sf_bay_guardian_publisher_ma.php to http://sfist.com/2015/12/01/former_sf_bay_guardian_publisher_ma.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)