The San Francisco Chronicle did the same thing, in its 2007 interview with PG&E CEO Peter Darbee:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/18/BU80TD6ER.DTL

Look, I'm willing to pay for my news. I admit it. I'll pay $5 or $7 a month to the three newspapers I read online. Extort me, Hearst, because I'm willing to pay. I hope the rest of you chumps realize the value in newspapers too.

And, Hearst, try thinking "web 2.0". Your writers aren't being monetized to their greatest extent. A hack at another paper picks up your story and rips it off, using your research. Sell those stories, or require linking as a reference. These days, "As reported by a chronical staff writer" should be a hyperlink to an advertisement-heavy version.

How to enforce legally? A web-EULA, of course.

Ann,
Again, while there's much that I dislike about the Chronicle, its Darbee piece was actually journalism, with some tough questions and without the Examiner's unsupported conclusion that Darbee is our savior. That, combined with the splashy play on the cover, was why I thought the Examiner's piece was nothing but horrid pro-PG&E propaganda without a hint of journalistic value (unless we could the piece's subtle implications that Darbee might not be very smart, which were perhaps designed to be sneaked past the editors)

I have to agree with Brian on his point about requiring subscriptions for online content. But for some inexplicable reason, newspapers expected print sales to be unaffected when they published the content online, for free. All of 'em! Why did they do that? Did publishers think online advertising impressions and clicks would pay for the content?

The Chronicle and its competitors need to all agree to implement an online subscription model. Without this, newspaper circulation will continue to decline and revenues will continue to sink.

So lemme get this straight. The major propaganda organ which has been unsuccessful at electing their candidates against ours but successful at framing the policy debate against us is on the ropes economically.

Instead of going for the kill, what does Steve Jones hope for? He hopes that the corporate mouthpiece with wide circulation and undeserved esteem be preserved to fight against us another day! Unbelieveable!

Does anyone really think that a tabloid newspaper which endorsed John McCain would carry salience with the electorate the way the Chronicle has and with that salience be able to frame the debate against our electeds so successfully?

Steve, when you write crap like this, after supporting nonprofits that do arguably more harm than good, it really makes me think that you're an embedded saboteur, working for the other side.

All the whining here is that journalists need to get paid to do their job. But whether it is stuff like this or Rachel Gordon's tepid coverage of MUNI, I can't tell the difference and you all get paid.

Newsflash: why doesn't the Guardian figure out a business model to fill the void by encouraging San Franciscans to cover local news in the Chronicle's absence? Remember when the Guardian had a regular "Hall Monitor" column?

-marc

Yeah, Marc, I also remember when I had six reporters rather than two. Times are tough, and even tepid coverage of important agencies is better than none at all. Once again, I think your bitterness has blinded you to larger realities. Nobody who believes in democracy and desires an informed citizenry should want to see the Chronicle fold.

Steve,

I want to see the Chronicle fold precisely because I do not want to see a misinformed citizenry manipulated into participating in democracy on the Chronicle's right wing terms, because it has cost our communities so much.

We need to support new media models appropriate to the context which arises after this economic and political transformation in which we find ourselves plays itself out, rather than propping up anachronistic dinosaurs which have done immeasurable damage to our communities.

There are two competing interests here, the desire for local coverage with a daily paper and the threat to community empowerment that the coverage of that paper means.

Steve, you all have a choice. You can not cover local issues in depth and lament the Chronicle's decline. Or you might take advantage of all of the cheap labor on the table with people unemployed and such, and figure out how to take those resources which are on the table and incorporate them into the business of providing coverage to San Franciscans by San Franciscans of our government from a community perspective. If the choice between no coverage and paying folks a stipend to cover the Board Commitee or Commission of their interest, whatcha gonna do?

I'd bet that if the SFBG found a way to throw a coupla hundred bucks a week at a few dedicated activists to cover City Hall both alerts and analysis that their readership might appreciate it more than another party story on Burning Man or Bay to Breakers and it would serve those lofty principles that's being farmed off to the corporate Chronicle so they can continue to fuck us.

Why can't you all play for keeps, as if it counts? Because it does. Wanting to play for keeps is not bitterness.

The only thing that salves the pain of economic meltdown is watching those who fought most vociferously and successfully for the economic entitlements that led to this crisis crashing and burning in a bonfire of their own bullshit.

The Chronicle is but one of many causalities of Reaganism which are headed to the distbin of history. Good riddance, it is time to move forward!

-marc
Don't blame me, I voted for Jimmy Carter!

Just a few notes, without conclusions:

1) Re that Peter Darbee interview in the Chron, which I read many times over back in 2007:

I couldn't call that good journalism because the reporters were fawning all over Darbee, describing his green ambitions, etc., and doing no work to give us any real insight into PG&E. But, there was information there about who both Darbee and the Chronicle were. That is how I read the vast majority of the news, take almost none of it as presented. A few sources, but a very very few. I more often expect "real journalism" from websites devoted to staying on a particular subject, like, e.g., that of the Nuclear Information Resource Service.

That said, do I want the Chronicle to stick around? I certainly can't get passionate about it, but I suppose so. Two propaganda organs is better than one, and once in awhile they pay for something really worthwhile,like the "Too Young to Die" series, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/03/MNINFANTMO.DTL

2) In December of 2007, Peter Darbee said, in San Luis Obispo, as quoted by the San Luis Obispo Tribune, that "The U.S. future is nuclear." I had a URL for that for a long time, but now the Tribune, clearly in need of a new business model, has it locked up in their archives, so they can charge for it. I'm always forgetting to send stuff like that to the Internet Archive, to avoid fees and vanishing URLs, and secure third party back-up that the page did appear on the Web.