The Chronicle Drove Him Over the Edge

This is a great message recieved by the Editor of the Chronicle: Click here for podcast.

At First You Think It's Good. Think Again.

So I took a break from criticizing the Chronicle. Well, I actually haven't read it in a while but really like some of the photos they have on the front page. Anyway, today I decided to buy a Chronicle. Buried in section A was an incredibly important article about redevelopment, the 49's possible move to Santa Clara, and other related matters. I loved this article...until I found the typo. Why? Why? Why? Yet again, the only thing worth reading in the Chronicle is egrigiously flawed. Bummer.

So I used it to sop up some ketchup. Money well spent.

It Takes a Village to Make a Newspaper.

In today's Sunday edition of the Chronicle, there are a total of 32 stories in section A. Of these, only eight were written by Chronicle writers. A paltry 25%.

I wish the Chronicle, supposedly the 11th most-read newspaper in the United States, was interested in covering the news of the world and the nation. Why must the majority of our news come from other outlets, e.g. the New York Times and the Associated Press? It's embarassing. Instead of paying for these stories, the Chronicle should give us coupons for 50% off the New York Times or the Washington Post and limit its reporting to wine, gavin newsom, and earthquakes.

Chron? Not a Fan.

Today in the section known as "Pink Pages," a reader from North Carolina wrote the following:

"Editor - Just thought I'd say I enjoyed Aidin Vazirir's article on Nick Lachey...I'm a big fan (of Lachey's, that is)..."

Which is Worse: Chronicle or USA Today?

Chronicle
Pro: The Bay Area section; the Food and Wine section (unless there are egregious and gross errors that make me create blogs about the local newspaper); occasionally, the Style section.
Con: Poor coverage of news; drunken or perhaps nonexistant copy editing staff; lack of reporters; color of pink pages; "The Poop." Too many to list really.

USA Today
Pro: That part where they have a news story from every state; an apparently-functional copy editing staff; above-par newspaper boxes; their obsession with graphs and charts.
Con: Their obsession with graphs and charts; poor coverage of news; de facto loudspeaker for conservative America.

I don't know what to say. It's kind of like comparing rotten apples to moldy oranges.

"Top Wines of 2006" - A Copy Editing Nightmare

How can a major newspaper like the Chronicle run a front page story that contains multiple, obvious typos? Is their copy editor drunk? Does anyone at the paper care that no one in the world takes the SF Chronicle seriously? The article, "Top Wines of 2006," was a magazine feature about the best wines of 2006. You know they’ve been working on it for months – there was no “breaking news” that necessitated an overnight, rush-job in the editing room. Again, were they all drunk?

You know, wine writing is just about the only coverage area the Chronicle does well, so it’s particularly infuriating to witness the newspaper’s overall ineptitude extend to wine coverage and the Sunday magazine. Can you find the errors? I only found two and I was reading the print edition. Once I found the second, I threw the magazine on the floor in disgust, so there may be more.

One more thing, who were the people who compiled this list of the 100 best West Coast wines in 2006? I couldn’t find the names of anyone but the author, a freelance writer who used to work for the Chronicle. Why not list all of those who helped judge? It would be highly informative and would give much more gravitas to the piece. Maybe it was just the author, sitting in wine country by herself in a stupor. Or maybe it was the entire staff of the SF Chronicle, which would explain why the paper is such a piece of junk: They're all so busy drinking wine, they don't have time to report, edit, or proofread.

I think I'm especially peeved because I bought the paper only to read this story. Unbelievable!

Thanks a lot Chron.

The Worst Newspaper in the World

Whose idea was "The Poop"?

Whoever thought it was acceptable for the Chronicle to have an online column about parenting with this type of gross name should be fired. I can't look at sfgate.com without cringing because something called "The Poop" is prominently featured. Why? Why? Why?

Like more people need to associate San Francisco with potty jokes.