Talk:The San Francisco Examiner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Journalism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Deletion of Fang history[edit]

While I would like to convert the references into something conforming more with the "References" standard, it does not give me motivation when a single purpose account keeps whitewashing the Fang tenure. The text, incidentally, of this section follows:

For 35 years starting in 1965 the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner operated under a Joint Operating Agreement whereby the Chronicle published a morning paper and the Examiner published in the afternoon. The Examiner also published the Sunday paper. Circulation was approximately 100,000 on weekdays and 500,000 on Sundays. By 1995, discussion was already brewing in print media about the possible shuttering of the Examiner due to low circulation and n extremely disadvantgeous revenue sharing agreement for the Chronicle. [1]
When Chronicle Publishing Company divested its interests, the Hearst Corporation purchased the Chronicle. To satisfy antitrust concerns, Hearst sold the Examiner to ExIn, LLC, a corporation owned by the politically connected Fang family [2], which also own the national magazine AsianWeek, for $100. San Francisco political consultant Clint Reilly filed a lawsuit against Hearst, charging that the deal did not ensure two competitive newspapers and was instead a sweetheart deal designed to curry approval. On July 27], 2000, a federal judge approved the Fang's assumption of the Examiner name, its archives, 35 delivery trucks and a subsidy of $66 million, to be paid over three years. The last day the Hearst Corporation published the Examiner was November 21, 2000. [3]
The Fang's tenure was criticized as being heavily partisan, supportive of mayor Willie Brown, and accused of using the Hearst subsidy as a means of supporting the Fang family instead of journalism. On the other hand, the Examiner was also praised for detailed coverage of local politics that at times rankled local politicos. During this period, content from the Fang's other newspaper, the thrice-weekly San Francisco Independent, often ran in the Examiner. [4]
In May 2002, the Examiner relaunched as a tabloid, as part of an attempt to capture a younger audience. Mario Garcia, who was responsible for the redesign of The Wall Street Journal, designed the newspaper to integrate color and reflect the influence of the Internet on readers. [5]
On February 24, 2003, the Examiner became a free daily newspaper. Three days later, the Fangs laid off 40 staffers in the paper's circulation and news departments. The switch to a free tabloid was made easier by the fact that a profitable free tabloid, the Palo Alto Daily News, was operating just 20 miles south of San Francisco, providing a model the Examiner could copy. [6]
On February 19, 2004, Philip Anschutz of Denver, Colorado purchased the Examiner and its printing plant. The move was expected by the Fang family once the subsidy expired. His new company, Clarity Media Group, launched the Washington Examiner in 2005 and Baltimore Examiner in 2006. The Examiner is currently run by Anschutz subsidiary SF Newspaper Company. In 2006, Anschutz donated the archives of the Examiner to the University of California, Berkeley Bancroft Library, the largest gift ever to the library. [7]

Please discuss why you are shortening the text on the talk page, please. Thank you. Calwatch 03:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I agree. Some of this information is quite pertinent, and in fact I'm glad I clicked on "discussion" since the main page is horribly void of the history that again comes back to life here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.195.196 (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:San Francisco Examiner Front Page.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:San Francisco Examiner Front Page.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsolicited delivery[edit]

There is significant concern over their use of unsolicited delivery to homes to distribute the paper with many claiming that this is widespread litter and amounts to physical spam. At present, however, the article has no information on this when the presence of a wet, unwanted pile of newspapers is the only thing that many citizens manage to notice about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.55.239 (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)