4 ms·

> everything wrong with "journalism" today Mission Local is one of the best sources of local San Francisco news, especially anything directly relevant to the M

> everything wrong with "journalism" today Mission Local is one of the best sources of local San Francisco news, especially anything directly relevant to the Mission District. If rich jerks don't want to be called out by local journalists, they shouldn't post unhinged public death threats, even as a "joke" or "song reference".

lupusreal 3y ago
If local politicians don't want jerks (rich or otherwise) talking shit about them, they picked the wrong profession in the wrong country.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Publicly wishing death on people is a whole different category from "talking shit about people".
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    It isn't. It's crass but constitutionally protected political speech.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      I never said it wasn't constitutionally protected. That status isn't relevant to the point.
timr 3y ago
> Mission Local is one of the best sources of local San Francisco news OK. Maybe their coverage of potholes is fantastic, but this article is a terrible, obviously partisan hack job. Both things can be true.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  It isn’t a partisan hack job, the facts are just bad for Gary.
  - jeltz 3y ago
    Nah, it is a bad article. And facts look bad fir Gary.
- jacobolus 3y ago
  I think your own "partisanship" is coloring your reading of a fairly neutral and factual article. Mission Local regularly publishes stories which are (implicitly or explicitly) critical of the supervisors Tan was threatening here.
  - timr 3y ago
    I have no idea if missionlocal is partisan, but this article is obviously partisan -- it brings in a bunch of irrelevant factors (e.g. the value of Garry's liquor collection) into a story that boils down to "someone said a thing on Twitter that was bad and offensive, while drunk, and someone else took an obviously unhinged action in result". It's the easiest thing in the world to report this in a neutral, factual way. You don't need to focus on Gary's money, his association to tech, his liquor cabinet, or anything else. That the reporter(s) could not do this speaks volumes about their motivations. Aside from that, I have no dog in this particular fight. I haven't lived in SF in years, and if you're insinuating that I'm on a particular side of the political spectrum, you're way over your skis. Partisan doesn't have to mean "left" or "right", by the way...you can just be partisan against tech.
    - jacobolus 3y ago
      Here's the text of the article directly: > During his online tirade, Tan posted photos of his private liquor stash, and indicated to a fellow Twitter-user that he was inebriated. Describing the tweets adjacent to the offensive one gives useful context. This is not the reporter dredging up some irrelevant trivia from deep in Tan's past or something. Readers might not know who Tan is. It is even more essential context to explain that: > Garry Tan, the CEO of Y Combinator and a heavy campaign donor to efforts to oust progressive politicians [...] > Tan is a well-heeled donor for San Francisco’s moderate causes and candidates. He sits on the board of Grow SF, a political pressure group favoring moderate causes and candidates and targeting progressives. Tan gave more than $100,000 to the 2022 campaign to recall then-District Attorney Chesa Boudin. He gave at least $20,000 to the 2021 school board recall, too. If Tan was just some random person with no influence and no relation to SF politics this would probably not be much of a story. That he is one of the major donors to the political rivals of these supervisors is the reason this is a political shitstorm. Tan's tweet damages the reputation of his "Grow SF" group and the candidates they support, and has possible further political implications: > Peskin today asked the City Attorney’s Office to look into requiring public disclosures from recipients of political donations from “purveyors of hate and violence.”

lupusreal 3y ago

If local politicians don't want jerks (rich or otherwise) talking shit about them, they picked the wrong profession in the wrong country.

JohnFen 3y ago
Publicly wishing death on people is a whole different category from "talking shit about people".
- lupusreal 3y ago
  It isn't. It's crass but constitutionally protected political speech.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I never said it wasn't constitutionally protected. That status isn't relevant to the point.

timr 3y ago

> Mission Local is one of the best sources of local San Francisco news OK. Maybe their coverage of potholes is fantastic, but this article is a terrible, obviously partisan hack job. Both things can be true.

bee_rider 3y ago
It isn’t a partisan hack job, the facts are just bad for Gary.
- jeltz 3y ago
  Nah, it is a bad article. And facts look bad fir Gary.
jacobolus 3y ago
I think your own "partisanship" is coloring your reading of a fairly neutral and factual article. Mission Local regularly publishes stories which are (implicitly or explicitly) critical of the supervisors Tan was threatening here.
- timr 3y ago
  I have no idea if missionlocal is partisan, but this article is obviously partisan -- it brings in a bunch of irrelevant factors (e.g. the value of Garry's liquor collection) into a story that boils down to "someone said a thing on Twitter that was bad and offensive, while drunk, and someone else took an obviously unhinged action in result". It's the easiest thing in the world to report this in a neutral, factual way. You don't need to focus on Gary's money, his association to tech, his liquor cabinet, or anything else. That the reporter(s) could not do this speaks volumes about their motivations. Aside from that, I have no dog in this particular fight. I haven't lived in SF in years, and if you're insinuating that I'm on a particular side of the political spectrum, you're way over your skis. Partisan doesn't have to mean "left" or "right", by the way...you can just be partisan against tech.
  - jacobolus 3y ago
    Here's the text of the article directly: > During his online tirade, Tan posted photos of his private liquor stash, and indicated to a fellow Twitter-user that he was inebriated. Describing the tweets adjacent to the offensive one gives useful context. This is not the reporter dredging up some irrelevant trivia from deep in Tan's past or something. Readers might not know who Tan is. It is even more essential context to explain that: > Garry Tan, the CEO of Y Combinator and a heavy campaign donor to efforts to oust progressive politicians [...] > Tan is a well-heeled donor for San Francisco’s moderate causes and candidates. He sits on the board of Grow SF, a political pressure group favoring moderate causes and candidates and targeting progressives. Tan gave more than $100,000 to the 2022 campaign to recall then-District Attorney Chesa Boudin. He gave at least $20,000 to the 2021 school board recall, too. If Tan was just some random person with no influence and no relation to SF politics this would probably not be much of a story. That he is one of the major donors to the political rivals of these supervisors is the reason this is a political shitstorm. Tan's tweet damages the reputation of his "Grow SF" group and the candidates they support, and has possible further political implications: > Peskin today asked the City Attorney’s Office to look into requiring public disclosures from recipients of political donations from “purveyors of hate and violence.”