I GREW UP reading the Village Voice. At first it was the personal ads ("Bisexual Monoped Seeks Same") and the music. By the time I was in college, it was a young radical journalist's vision of hope. I cut Voice headlines out and stuck them on the door of my room: "Bozomania! Millions Disappointed as Fools Vie for High Office" perfectly summarized the 1980 presidential election. If the prospect of living in Manhattan hadn't sickened and terrified me, it would have been The Paper I Always Wanted to Work For.

Of course, eventually I got into the alt-press business myself, and grew a bit more cynical about my industry, and the Voice has had its ups and downs. But after more than a quarter century of regular reading, I have to say: At its worst, the Village Voice is still a goddamn good paper, better than the vast majority of what's published in the United States today. At its best, it's a reminder of what the alternative press has always been about.

I'd hate to see the New Times people get their hands on it.

It's more than just one paper – it's a philosophy of journalism. See, the thing that I've always loved about the Voice is that it had political passion; its journalism was a cause. When Wayne Barrett took on Ed Koch, and Joe Conason wrote maybe 100 columns, week after week, prying open the Westway development scam, and the editors endorsed candidates for local and national office, I could tell they were doing it because they loved their city and wanted to make it a better place. The people there seemed to understand that the role of an urban alternative was to make a difference (not just to do what our local competition here aims for, which is to "delight" someone's mind).

New Times doesn't operate that way. The New Times papers, including SF Weekly, have some good writing and some solid journalism, but it's hard to tell if any of their editors believe in anything.

As we report on page 12, New Times is negotiating a deal that would give it control of the Voice (and all the other papers in the Voice chain). That would be a terrible move to more consolidation in the alternative press (see Editorial, page 11). It would also wreck a great, shining example of the kind of journalism that has changed the world.

Tim Redmond tredmond@sfbg.com