« Previous | Next »

star.gif Why people get mad at the media, part l

We have a tenant on the third floor of our Guardian building at l35 Mississippi St, at the bottom of Potrero Hill in San Francisco, called Digg.com, a new and bustling and highly publicized Dot.com operation.

It is getting lots of publicity these days and so I was highly interested to find that the company founder was displayed in full color on the front page of the Aug. l4th edition of Business Week magazine. He was a good looking young guy of 29, obviously full of Mexican jumping beans, wearing a T-shirt and some sort of earphones beneath a cap turned backwards. He was doing a jaunty thumbs up and between his thumbs in the middle of his T-shirt was the headline: “How this kid Made $60 million in l8 months, Digg.com’s Kevin Rose leads a new brat pack of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs.”

I opened the magazine and read the lead: “It was June 26, 4:45 a.m. and Digg Founder Kevin Rose was slugging back tea and trying to keep his eyes open as he drove his Volkswagen Golf to Digg’s headquarters above the grungy offices of the SF Weekly in Potrero Hill.”

I was astounded. The article had three major factual errors in the first three lines of the opening paragraph. First: Digg.com, we are happy to report, is a good tenant on the third floor of the Guardian building. Second: the SF Weekly is our chain competitor, the Village Voice/New Times conglomerate based in Phoenix, Arizona, with offices on the other side of Mission Bay near the Giants ballpark. We are suing the VVM/NT for predatory pricing. Third: we don’t have “grungy offices.” Did this pattern of factual errors, I wondered, continue throughout the piece?

Well, to be objective and fair, I am known to have a grungy desk and many people have commented on it through the years and it has even attracted a bit of publicity. In fact, there is a photo of me, sitting amidst a mountain of papers and books, grinding away on my trusty Royal typewriter (which I call fondly my l876 Royal), in the l988 edition of the book titled “A Day in the Life of California.” There is a similar photo of me at my grungy desk, back in the early l970s, in an old National Geographic magazine, with the cutline: If a writer in San Francisco was going to write like Mark Twain, he would be writing for the Bay Guardian. Reporter Sarah Phelan, hearing me mutter the word “grungy,” immediately pointed out that “grungy” is cool. She may be right. I am not going to argue the point.

However, I was curious to know how a major national business publication, an ornament of McGraw-Hill publishing, could make three such major embarrassing factual mistakes in its lead story. I also wanted to know what McGraw-Hill was going to do about it and what its policy was on corrections and retractions. I was also curious to know the whereabouts and the credits of the two writers, Sarah Lacy and Jessi Hempel, so I could ask them directly how this happened. Perhaps I could orient them over a Potrero Hill martini at the
Connecticut Yankee.

So I went to the phone book and found a Business Week office at 160 Spear St., in San Francisco, phone number 260-5390. I called and gave my questions to the young lady who answered the phone. Oh, she said, you will have to call Elizabeth Moses, an editorial assistant, at our editorial offices in San Mateo at 650-372-3980. I promptly called the number and got one of those deadly you’ll-not-get-in-here-if-we-can-help-it computer answering systems. After some fumbling and bumbling, I did get through to a voice mail with a name that I could not quite distinguish who told me she was unavailable right now but directed me to leave my phone number and email so that she could contact me. I did so. And I am now waiting patiently for an answer.

I will file my next bulletin as soon as I get the word back from Business Week/McGraw-Hill. Good luck and good night, or was it good night and good luck, B3

P.S. l: Wow! “$60 million in l8 months?” I must be in the wrong line of work.

P.S. 2: You will note that I say Giants ballpark. After the name changed from PacBell park (bad enough), to SBC park (terrible) to AT@T park (godawful), I will never again use any formal corporate name of any kind for the ball park. In this blog, it will always be the Giants ballpark in San Francisco. I hope you understand. B3


Here is what happened to Lani Silver, a Bay Guardian reader and occasional Bay Guardian contributor in an e-mail she sent to me:

I am still waiting for a call back from the San Francisco 49ers. Six weeks ago I saw a headline in the S.F. Chronicle that announced the campaign to build a new stadium, for $600-800 million. The sub-headline, said that if anything fell through, the team reserves the right to move to Santa Clara.

As a native San Franciscan, I called John York's office to suggest that they not make an announcement and threaten a population in the same breathe. After being transferred a half dozen times, I left a message on a voice-mail system meant for community feed-back. I wanted to tell York and others, but wound up telling a machine that it's rude to launch a campaign and threaten a city in the same moment. I thought my comment to the 49ers would be a valuable p.r. tip for the company.

This is what happens with big companies. You can never reach the top managers. You'll get transferred many times and then you'll have to leave a message on a machine that will never get to the people for whom they were intended.

I left my message, something nicely put about jamming a stadium down a community’s throat, when there is a perfectly fine stadium already, and how a corporation should not say that if they don't get what they want, a billion dollar stadium that they will move. I am still waiting for a call.

digg del.icio.usspheregoogle

Comments (4)

Robert [TypeKey Profile Page]:

I ask this question not in anger but with genuine curiosity: During the kerfuffle about the Danish Muhammad cartoons last year, the Guardian was silent. Why?

For the record, we had the same reaction at Digg, on a number of fronts.

As soon as the online version of the article printed (the mistakes, unfortunately, already sent to the printer, so they told us), we contacted the reporter, Sarah Lacy.

Sarah was mortified and embarrassed about the errors and changed the factual vs. subjective ones immediately.

If you see our offices or the Guardian's, you won't find a bit of grunge anywhere. Nor will you find $60M in any of Kevin's bank accounts, unfortunately for us.

bruce [TypeKey Profile Page]:

Dear Robert,

Thanks for your question. There are lots of issues we are "silent" on, because we are a small SF paper with limited resources and lots to say about lots of things, mainly local. More: people who know us would know our position.
Which was and is that we thought the cartoon assignment was a pretty dumb and insensitive one, but we would support the paper's right to publish the cartoons. However, we would not publish them in the Guardian to make the point, because others were publishing them and they were available on the web. No point in adding gratuitous logs to the fire.
B3

bruce [TypeKey Profile Page]:


Dear Jay,
Thanks for your good note.

I finally got a call from Jessi Hempel, one of the two authors of the piece.
She apologized and said the error about mixing up the Guardian and SF Weekly offices was "atrocious" and that Business Week/McGraw Hill would correct it in their next issue. Fine, thanks,I replied, can you read me the correction? NO, she said it is our policy not to do that. Why, I answered, I need to see proposed correction or at least know what is in it, so that the correction does not make the "atrocious error" even "more atrocious." For example, I said, are you going to correct the phrase saying our offices are "grungy," which Webster's dictionary defines as meaning "shabby or dirty in character or condition." She said that would not be corrected because that was "subjective." Well, I replied, did either of you visit the Guardian offices and if so when? And, specifically, what is "grungy" about the Guardian offices? (I stipulated that my desk was "grungy.") I could not get a straight or clear answer from her on any of these key questions. Finally, she suggested I call her editor in New York, Elizabeth Weiner, and she hung up. Click.

Then I checked to see how the "correction" looked on the online story. This made by point in 96 point Tempo Bold: the lead, which goes to a worldwide audience,
now said that Digg's offices were above the "grungy offices of the SF Bay Guardian in Potrero Hill," thus making the "atrocious" mistake even more "atrocious" as I feared. We are now identified internet wide as having "grungy offices" and the reporters on the story cannot back up their use of this pejorative adjective. It's as if the Business Week/McGraw Hill policy on corrections comes down to this: complain and we'll really stick it to you, fella. In short, we are witnessing, not "grungy offices" of the Guardian, but "grungy" journalism by BusinessWeek/McGraw Hill. And I wonder if the reporters and editors on the story will ever be up to a Potero Hill martini at the Connecticut Yankee. B3

P.S. Steve R. Hill, director of development for the College of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of Nebraska Foundation, was in our office on Tuesday when I was wrestling around with this issue. I gave him a full tour of our offices and even took up to our rooftop for an "alternative" view of the city from Potrero Hill.
He said, for the record, that he could find nothing "grungy" about the Guardian offices.

Post a comment