Looks Like Both The SF Examiner And SF Weekly Are Really Fucked Up

THE OTHER DAY I asked if anyone still reads the Examiner--both the print and on-line edition. The inference was clear: the Examiner and its sister publication, SF Weekly, are having massive issues and according to those in the know, their future is murky.


Now we know the shit has hit the fan.


A publisher that appears to be out of control. Reporters leaving en masse --like this one. And a dwindling editorial staff that apparently was fucked over by the increasingly "ballistic" big suit, Glenn Zuehls--who seems hellbent on destroying the already marginalized two media companies in town.


The Examiner used to be relevant about a thousand years ago when Hearst owned the paper and put out a decent afternoon fish wrap --of course back then, before newspapers began dying, people actually read a newspaper ---not so much these days as everything is digital, goddammit!


As for SF Weekly, I like their restaurant reviews--other than that, I'm not an enthusiast --oh, spank me!


Bottom line: Those of you that read these guys you may want to cherish your time as it appears, they are running out of time.


*Follow me on Twitter

SF Weekly Has Strong Pizza Fetish

  I enjoy SF Weekly. It has quirky stories that resonate well within the SF city limits and mostly churns out decent content. Sometimes even better than decent.

Then again, like most of your freaky alternative weekly news sites, they can become overly cute and resort to a lot of redundant material. I mean, a lot.

Take pizza for example.

Like today.

Or here, recently. And here too.

I think I get the idea that pizza images look good on computers and that pizza makes people compelled to eat a lot of pizza like me inclined to want to read on, it's a given --even for me who should know.

Then again, in the case of SF Weekly, it's gone way over the line. A medium with eight slices and pepperoni, black olives, and mushrooms would have sufficed.

SF Weekly ordered the Kitchen Sink.

*Follow me on Twitter

SF Weekly Calls out the Rolling Stones for their 'Absurdly Expensive New Tour'

I've been to many Rolling Stones concerts. In fact, in 1978 I was at the Oakland Stadium for a "Day on the Green"--it was Mick Jagger's 35th birthday. Start me up, it was a great show particularly when "Honkey Tonk Woman" was accompanied by giant-sized woman dolls dropped down over the cavernous stadium by helicopters.

The Stones will play the Oracle Arena in Oakland Sunday but if you care to see them it will cost you a small fortune. The cheapest tickets, at $85 a pop, are sold out. Most of the tickets still available are almost $700, face value. Take a friend to the show and do the math. A plane ticket to Paris is cheaper.

SF Weekly, in a skewering open letter, take the Stones to task. It's pretty pointed, funny, and, if you're a normal human being, makes a lot of sense.

To wit:


We've always understood how you Rolling Stones were with your cash (we all know how you moved to France in the '70s because you didn't feel like paying high British taxes anymore) but you are all -- as you would say in your own country -- more than taking the piss at this point.

Your fortunes were made pre-downloading. You were making loads of money from music for decades before the shit hit the fan. You are all multi-millionaires, several times over because of it. So you can't use that as an excuse.

We also aren't particularly interested in hearing about how, because this is a shorter tour, you need to make money faster. How is your own unwillingness to do more dates the fault of the fans? Why should we have to pay more for you to do less?

Start me up...as I go to the ATM machine....because at the sound of tumbling dice...

*Follow me on Twitter and listen to me Monday-Friday from 1-4 PM PT on KSCO/KOMY.