Mike Lacey's rant

SF Weekly's big boss responds to merger reports -- and we respond to him

Editors note: Michael Lacey, executive editor of New Times Newspapers, which owns the SF Weekly, has penned a long, rambling retort to our recent coverage of the pending New Times-Village Voice media merger. His piece is at http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-09-07/news/news.html
Here's Tim Redmond's response to Lacey:

An open letter from Tim Redmond, executive editor of the Bay Guardian, responding to Michael Lacey's piece
By Tim Redmond

Geez, Mike, why does Bruce get all the credit? I'm the one who broke the story on the New Times-VVM merger. You'd think you could at least insult me a little, too. But thanks for effectively confirming my story.

I do want to respond to a couple of little factual and perceptual issues in your otherwise exceptionally deranged rant. For starters, I think you know that there's a difference between taking ads from a company like Clear Channel (we all take ads from folks we don't love) and entering into an exclusive arrangement that cuts competitors out of the market. I can't figure out why you glossed over that point in your attack on us; were you just trying to confuse the readers, or are you so used to thinking like a monopolist that you really figure that's just normal business practice?

More important, you don't seem to get why I'm concerned about the New Times-VVM merger. Let me begin with six words that I can't believe I'm saying in the same sentence: I think Russ Smith is right. You read his piece on the merger, right? Here's what he thinks will happen after New Times takes over the Village Voice:

"Sayonara to Robert Christgau, who could then be reached at either an upstate retirement community or the publicity department of a record label. Political endorsements, a longtime Voice (and Bay Guardian) fetish, will be eliminated. One would imagine Michael Musto, the ubiquitous gossip at the weekly-and about 100 other publications; like Christopher Hitchens, the man is nothing if not prolific-stays on, but longtime contributor James Ridgeway's D.C. dispatches will probably disappear as quickly as Eddie Cox's GOP primary challenge to Jeanine Pirro. The latest "Press Clips" columnist, ex-Times man Sydney Schanberg, will look for a post at yet another newspaper."

Russ, of course, thinks that's just dandy. I don't.

For most of its history, the Voice has been a political paper. It takes stands. Its writers have passion. The Voice supports grassroots movements, people who are trying to build a better world. That's not what New Times does; I'll quote you, Mike, from your own paper, the SF Weekly:

"If it is political, we are against it, meaning that we are skeptical of political movements and politicians."

I'm skeptical of politicians, too, but I believe in political issues and movements.

I don't like your style of journalism, which is fine, because you don't like mine. But I'm not trying to force my approach on anyone else.

I'm against concentration of media ownership. (I guess that makes me part of a "political movement"; in my mind, that's something to be proud of.) I don't think anyone should own 17 alternative newspapers - not you, not me, not Bruce, not anyone. It's bad for journalism, bad for readers, bad for what the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies bylaws refer to as "a multiplicity and diversity of media voices."

The problem with investment bankers and venture capitalists owning a significant share of a company is that these folks care only about the almighty bottom line (always a danger in the newspaper world) - and they tend to want to get their money out after a few years. Weiss, Peck & Greer, Goldman, Sachs and (I suspect) Alta Communications aren't in this business for the long haul; in a few years, they'll try to unload the whole company. Then New Times/VVM will be sold to É. who? Microsoft? Tribune Media? Viacom? Who knows.

This isn't idle speculation; it's right in the draft merger agreement, which states that after five years, as few as three of the nine board members (and the VC people will have at least four seats) can force a sale and everyone else (including you) "shall be required and hereby agree to cooperate with and participate in such sale."

And I'm not the one who started talking about conspiracies. The attorney general of the United States and the attorneys general of Ohio and California are the ones who charged New Times and VVM with conspiring to destroy alt-weekly competition in Los Angeles and Cleveland. And the consent decree that you signed goes so far as to prohibit the two companies from engaging in any more anticompetitive conspiracies (their words, not mine) for another five years.

I think if Justice is going to make an exception and approve this merger, the rest of us ought to have some say in the matter. Unless, Mike, you'd rather that you, your business partners and the politicians you so dislike and distrust just get together and cut this deal in secret.