On Guard

The story behind the Bay Guardian's new ownership and the departure of Editor-Publisher Tim Redmond

|
(6)

Read the unabridged online version of this story here.

steve@sfbg.com, rebecca@sfbg.com

Longtime Bay Guardian Editor Tim Redmond left the newspaper last week in a dispute with its new owners over personnel changes and his autonomy within San Francisco Print Media Company, which also includes the San Francisco Examiner and SF Weekly.

Redmond led the Guardian newsroom for most of his 31 years with the newspaper and engineered last year's sale to Todd Vogt and a Canadian ownership team. As part of that sale — which Redmond cast to staff as saving the Guardian from bankruptcy and closure — Bruce B. Brugmann and Jean Dibble, the couple who founded the Guardian in 1966, retired from the paper, its Potrero Hill office building was sold, and the Guardian moved into the Examiner's downtown office in June 2012.

Redmond was the Guardian editor and publisher, the name at the top of the masthead and the person solely in charge of Guardian operations, and he told staff he had been guaranteed full autonomy by the new ownership, which was important to the Guardian staff. As such, he resisted Vogt's periodic efforts to control the newspaper, including early threats to fire City Editor Steven T. Jones for unspecifed reasons.

Nonetheless, Vogt did make some successful incursions on the Guardian's independence, initially by encouraging layoffs, later by interfering with Guardian endorsements in the November 2012 election.

Then, on Oct. 26, 2012, without consulting Redmond, Vogt named Examiner Editor Stephen Buel to be vice president for editorial overseeing both newspapers, announcing that Buel would "oversee the editorial direction, content, tone, and voice of our newspapers and web sites."

Shortly after the purchase of the longtime Guardian rival SF Weekly two months later, Vogt similarly appointed Weekly writer Erin Sherbert to oversee online communications at all three papers.

Neither Buel nor Sherbert directed or reviewed any Guardian editorial content prior to publication, although some stories from the Guardian and the Weekly began to appear in the Examiner's newspaper and website, often edited by Examiner editors but giving credit to their original source.

The Guardian's weekly revenues continued to remain flat or decline, at least partially because of the departure of two of the Guardian's commission-based advertising representatives, positions which remain unfilled. The Guardian's sales staff remains significantly smaller than that of the other two publications.

Vogt, Buel, and Chief Financial Officer Pat Brown began a conversation with Redmond about the need to cut expenditures, focusing on the newsroom, which until June 14 had seven full-time Guardian staffers and a part-time art director, who also works for the Examiner.

Redmond expressed a willingness to make cuts while also emphasizing the need to hire more ad reps to boost revenue, Redmond and Buel both told us. "He made it very clear that we need more salespeople," said Buel, who also told us that he supported Redmond's stance with Vogt and Brown that he should be allowed to choose where the cuts would be made.

"Todd and I were in the middle of difficult and ongoing negotiations for how to cut costs. My position is that it is entirely appropriate for the owner to ask us to cut costs, and then I would come back with a plan," Redmond told us.

Comments

Tim was a friend, an encouraging mentor and an unbelievably passionate journalist when I was SFBG's political cartoonist in the 1980's. He was the heart, soul and spirit of Bruce and Jean's newsroom -- a tireless campaigner for justice and truth and good thinking. It is literally impossible to imagine the Guardian without Tim. Without presuming to judge what went on in the process of his departure, whatever comes next will not be what the Guardian has been for Tim's 30 years of moral and intellectual leadership. Godspeed, old friend. You did good, and a lot of it.

Posted by Robin Steele on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 10:06 am

The young and hungry eventually become fat and happy, and then we must move on.

If anything, the SFBG has suffered because it has NOT changed enough with SF's changing economy and demographic, rendering Tim's "lovable anti-cultural anti-business hippie" persona somewhat moot and dated.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 7:31 am

As one of the many freelance writers still owed thousands of dollars by Todd Vogt and company, my guess is that the current owners plan to bankrupt the Guardian completely so they will never have to pay a penny of it, and their other acquisitions, the Weekly, the BAR, or, gods help us, the Examiner will be the only free SF paper left standing once the dust settles. As for why they didn’t “like” Cheap Eats, Dani Leone is the only freelance writer to date to publicly call them out on their refusal to pay her what she was owed. Sadly, I’m not as brave. –Chicken Farmer Fan

Posted by Chicken Farmer Fan on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 12:30 pm

And so isn't your comment prejudicial?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 2:08 pm

It's important that San Francisco have a progressive media voice. It's also important that such a voice speak usefully about one of San Francisco's worst problems--the massive shortage of housing. Unfortunately, the Bay Guardian got stuck in 1973, when housing was cheap and plentiful. It has continued to act like new housing is the enemy, instead of a vitally needed remedy. I don't believe in summarily firing people, and it's very disturbing that the Guardian, SF Weekly, and the Examiner are all owned by the same company. But maybe the silver lining in this cloud can be a Guardian that stops taking a NIMBY line that's indistinguishable from the one being propagated in Marin.,

Posted by Wanderer on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 6:21 pm

to build new homes because we could never build enough to make a difference to the price and, moreover, that even if we did there would still be many people who could not afford homes in SF.

So because new build will not solve the problem, Tim thought we should not build new at all. Pathetic.

In fact, clearly if we built 200,000 new high-rise units, home prices would decline. Yet the leftie NIMBY's oppose any new build while whining that housing isn't affordable. They want bureaucratic regulations not new build. Why? Because what they really want is to micro-manage the population here in the hope that they can win elections forever.

IOW, the left doesn't give a crap about home affordibality. What they want is to change nothing in the hope of retaining some ill-gotten power.

Miserable.

Posted by anon on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 6:59 pm

Also from this author

  • Cash backwards

    Ten things San Francisco should fund -- and 10 things it shouldn't -- to create a fair, equitable, and forward-thinking city budget

  • Clean Power SF still moving forward

  • Tale of two parties: Voters reject 8 Washington project