At first glance, it is definitely arguable that the paper versions of San Francisco Bay Guardian and SF Weekly publications are one in the same. Depending on your level of experience with either one of these weeklies, you might choose to read one over the other simply based on the cover story or even your preference in title.
Either way, you are likely to notice some physical similarities. Both are oversized, single-fold, local and free. Also, both of them are printed on paper that looks kind of dirty and leave your hands with that inky not-so-great feeling after extensive handling.
There are numerous ways these freebies are useful in their physical form. They can both serve as what-to-do guides for out-of-towners. Likewise, both papers are great directories for those who know where they’re going and just need a venue address or phone number. Some folks might even grab a stack to use as kindling at an Ocean Beach bonfire. Pallets-check! Gasoline-check! SF Weeklies-check!
These two publications are not one in the same. They are from opposite sides of the tracks. The San Francisco Bay Guardian is a self-confessed independent, locally owned and edited newspaper (though it is widely considered to be a left-wing magazine), whose masthead quote reads: “It is a newspaper’s duty to print news and raise hell.”
SF Weekly, on the other hand, is owned by Village Voice Media, which controls a quarter of the circulation of alternative weekly newspapers in North America. SF Weekly claims to be San Francisco’s smartest publication with a serious attitude about journalism but not about following agendas, and cherishes political independence.
Again, at first glance, it is arguable that the online versions of these two publications appear to be none in the same. Village Voice Media has outfitted sfweekly.com with the exact same layout as the online versions of all of the other alternative weeklies that it owns, such as eastbayexpress.com and 15 others. These sites are clean, functional, and easy to navigate through. The top stories are prominently displayed at the center of the home page, along the left side of which is a well illustrated slideshow of feature story links. Above those, you’ll see a standard index of sections that most large websites have these days (home, news, about us, etc). Underneath the headline stories, you’ll find a “going out guide,” and links to articles and reviews organized into categories such as entertainment, restaurants, movies and music. There is a general appeal to consumer culture, as well as popular urban issues and arts.
The Guardian’s site, sfbg.com, looks a little bit like the website that time forgot. In comparison, its home page seems a little sloppy and under-illustrated, like a successful first attempt at web design with a large amount of content. The font sizes and colors just don’t look right together; the sections and cells are not very well defined, in spite of which it seems to be functional. There is no index on the home page, but all the categories are there: news, features, movies, arts and entertainment, food and drink, etcetera. Contrasting sweekly.com, sfbg.com features sections for reader blogs and articles on literature right on the homepage. You’ll find that there is a left-wing progressive impression on much of the content featured by sfbg.com. Both their news and top stories sections of the homepage are filled with the Guardian’s November 7th election recommendations. No political independence here, but they don’t hide that fact.
The two publications rarely see eye-to-eye. In recent years, SF Weekly has published articles and satirical advertisements criticizing the San Francisco Bay Guardian approach to the news, as well as to condemn their overt political agenda. In turn, the Guardian has accused New Times (SF Weekly’s parent company before merging with Village Voice Media in late 2005) of practicing unfair competition. Last year, the Guardian sued New Times for unfair pricing in local advertising costs.
The current state of these two websites seems to parallel the fundamental problems regarding the threats posed by the possible outcome of the Senate decision regarding “net neutrality,” more specifically the lack thereof, which could have devastating effect on the ability of many "less fortunate" websites to provide content to their users. Companies like Comcast and AT&T would like to establish a multi-tier hierarchy among internet service provisions that only the super-wealthy big-name websites will benefit from, beacuse they can afford it, leaving the underdog in the dust. Larger corporate websites will be able to send and receive information over the internet much faster than those who simply can’t pay for the new bandwidth. We can only hope that the Senate will decide to protect the interests of these smaller websites and those who use them, and in turn, that of the first amendment and democracy.
Not withstanding these encroachments on net neutrality, sfbg.com will continue to look more low-budget than sfweekly.com, and its content will not be delivered as fast either. They can't afford to rival their competition in the pay-per-play world of the internet in the imminent future. Right or wrong, alternative or mainstream, these websites will need protection if the wealth of the corporate conglomerate press industry continues to overshadow and impede the ability of the alternative press to keep up with the changing times.
1 comment:
Post a Comment