Rich, I don’t often agree with you, but you nailed it here. The SF Standard’s main strength is optics—full stop. There’s no other outlet, print or digital, even pretending to do real journalism in San Francisco, and that’s the only reason the Standard stands out. The site’s clean, professional-looking, and not drowning in clickbait or ads like SFGate, which gives it an illusion of credibility. But when you look at the actual journalism, there’s nothing particularly original or impressive. It just seems serious because the competition is nonexistent. The bar is so low that simply showing up with a halfway decent layout makes it look like Pulitzer material.
I like the Standard. Better than the other major Bay Area "papers"
I don't get the point that not having name columnists is a strike against it as Rich says. Opinionated name columnists are part of the reason why newspapers have faltered because they've been prioritized at the expense of nuts and bolts feet on the ground journalism.
I do question how long The Standard is going to stick around for, however. The fact it went paywall already says a lot about the deep pockets billionaire publisher's stamina for backing the paper.
And to whomever mentioned californiaglobe.com...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"We are pro-growth and pro-business, non-partisan and objective"
I didn't like the Standard for a long time. Now I think it's ok. I prefer Mission Local, which I think has more credibility, but has a more left viewpoint. I gave up on the Chronicle and the Examiner. Besides 48 Hills (Tim Redmond, more left) and the Public Press, what else is there?
Rich, I don’t often agree with you, but you nailed it here. The SF Standard’s main strength is optics—full stop. There’s no other outlet, print or digital, even pretending to do real journalism in San Francisco, and that’s the only reason the Standard stands out. The site’s clean, professional-looking, and not drowning in clickbait or ads like SFGate, which gives it an illusion of credibility. But when you look at the actual journalism, there’s nothing particularly original or impressive. It just seems serious because the competition is nonexistent. The bar is so low that simply showing up with a halfway decent layout makes it look like Pulitzer material.
ReplyDeleteYou summed it up perfectly.
DeleteAgreed, but can we do away with "full stop". It's overly dramatic and serves no purpose. Period. The end.
Delete"full stop" is annoying AF. Figures it's one of Newsom's go-to's.
DeletePeople actually reads the SF Standard?
ReplyDeleteI used to read it before the paywall.
ReplyDeleteYou should read the californiaglobe.com to get a fact based detail reporting on the Califorina.
ReplyDeleteI used to read SFS but once they started the paywall I moved to sfist....mostly the same stories but for FREE!
ReplyDeleteI go to Voice of SF. Rothmann on daily.
ReplyDeleteI like the Standard. Better than the other major Bay Area "papers"
ReplyDeleteI don't get the point that not having name columnists is a strike against it as Rich says. Opinionated name columnists are part of the reason why newspapers have faltered because they've been prioritized at the expense of nuts and bolts feet on the ground journalism.
I do question how long The Standard is going to stick around for, however. The fact it went paywall already says a lot about the deep pockets billionaire publisher's stamina for backing the paper.
And to whomever mentioned californiaglobe.com...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"We are pro-growth and pro-business, non-partisan and objective"
Oxymoron alert!
Would have kept reading SFS over SFGate or The Examiner, until their paywall started. (TBH, not much difference between the three.)
ReplyDeleteI didn't like the Standard for a long time. Now I think it's ok. I prefer Mission Local, which I think has more credibility, but has a more left viewpoint. I gave up on the Chronicle and the Examiner. Besides 48 Hills (Tim Redmond, more left) and the Public Press, what else is there?
ReplyDelete