Friday, February 08, 2008
SFBG VS new times media
this is purely my opinion, and it is on my own personal blog, please do not think that I posted this for reasons of my work: and I am going to leave it just as I wrote it, confused and messy, just like my whole day.
I have been watching the TN vs SFBG trial.
I have nothing involved here but the long term stability of my job, so here is what I see without any intentional bias.
new times does not lke sfbg because the owner ( mike lacy spelling ) does not like editorials and endorsing political endorsements (this guy is adamant about his position and used the phrase "I wanted to kill him" (directed at the owner of SFW that he got that paper from) is his testimony).
I don't know about you, but if I ever say "kill" I tend to mean it, and if he thinks that about someone over a way someone runs a paper, it seems like he would have no problem causing 60 or so people(that work at SFBG) to loose there jobs.
it is not a mony issue that he is trying to run SFBG into the ground.
the guy that was running the SFW quit after trying to make it profitable while new times owned it, and it is now clear to me that the reason for all this is not money, its political.
he just is devoted to crushing anyone that deals with a news paper in a way that he sees to be not appropriate, and he has 12 papers to get money from in order to crush the guardian,
as I type, he is saying that that was not his intention, but now he is court, not talking about what he really feels, but he is not saying that he did not hate the SFBG.
I tend to believe the last thing I here, so I really don't know what to think.
what I hope people have not forgotten is that there is a reason for the anti trust laws, and it has to do with money, not anything to do with who hates who, or anything that has to do with your political views or editorials.
things like him loosing co workers to 911 is very sad, but that trauma is no reason to let him use his corporation to run SFBG in to the ground.
and after mike said that he had never seen any financial documents for his work place ever, why was he still being questioned ?
this case is purely financial.
I have been watching the TN vs SFBG trial.
I have nothing involved here but the long term stability of my job, so here is what I see without any intentional bias.
new times does not lke sfbg because the owner ( mike lacy spelling ) does not like editorials and endorsing political endorsements (this guy is adamant about his position and used the phrase "I wanted to kill him" (directed at the owner of SFW that he got that paper from) is his testimony).
I don't know about you, but if I ever say "kill" I tend to mean it, and if he thinks that about someone over a way someone runs a paper, it seems like he would have no problem causing 60 or so people(that work at SFBG) to loose there jobs.
it is not a mony issue that he is trying to run SFBG into the ground.
the guy that was running the SFW quit after trying to make it profitable while new times owned it, and it is now clear to me that the reason for all this is not money, its political.
he just is devoted to crushing anyone that deals with a news paper in a way that he sees to be not appropriate, and he has 12 papers to get money from in order to crush the guardian,
as I type, he is saying that that was not his intention, but now he is court, not talking about what he really feels, but he is not saying that he did not hate the SFBG.
I tend to believe the last thing I here, so I really don't know what to think.
what I hope people have not forgotten is that there is a reason for the anti trust laws, and it has to do with money, not anything to do with who hates who, or anything that has to do with your political views or editorials.
things like him loosing co workers to 911 is very sad, but that trauma is no reason to let him use his corporation to run SFBG in to the ground.
and after mike said that he had never seen any financial documents for his work place ever, why was he still being questioned ?
this case is purely financial.
# posted by space @ 6:41 PM 
