Touchy San Francisco Can’t Handle a Little Coverage from Nee-oooow York City

The thing you ought to know is that anytime San Francisco gets a little ink from a New Yorky dead tree publication such as the New York Times or Time magazine, it’s the talk of our little burg, population 799,000 (even after the “recount“), altitude 0, attitude 999,999+. We care oh so much about what people in NYC say – that’s why we’re as touchy as the Pace Picante Sauce cowboys.

So when we notice an obvious error in an otherwise excellent bit with nice photos, instead of sending off a friendly email to the author, we’ll pen this retort. (Although if we did email the author, he’d send a message to the boys in graphics in Bangalore or someplace and they’d fix it in about 10 minutes, something that happened in real life yesterday afternoon.) And when we see this excellent bit about the greater Upper Haight area complete with nice photos and useful insights, we’ll find a way to quibble. (Of course that author had a few errors as well, but they were cheerfully fixed with a correction appended to the first page.)

One of the real, genuine F-line cars, from the photostream of Telstar Logistics.

So, writers of New Yorkish dead tree publications, please don’t take offense from our provincial attitude. Deep down, we love you.

Y’all come back real soon, hear?

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Touchy San Francisco Can’t Handle a Little Coverage from Nee-oooow York City”

  1. Joe Eskenazi says:

    Hey, I enjoyed both those pieces. I thought I made that very obvious. But, you know, being a native San Franciscan and all, I thought I might be able to add my own $0.02.

    Regarding your other point, I’m confused. I should have kindly sent an e-mail to the writer hashing out our differences and not written a Web article? How kind of you to point this out by writing a Web article — and not sending me an e-mail!

    Best,

    JE

  2. sfcitizen says:

    Oh really? The author of one of the pieces feels you think his bit was “ridiculous,” so maybe your enjoyment wasn’t very obvious. Wasn’t obvious at all to me.

    He knew the diff between a cable car and an “F” anyway. Mistakes happen, they can be fixed. That’s not something to hash out – if you think a mistake is important enough to comment upon, consider sending an email to the author.

    That author showed he knows a little something about SF. Do you know about the 5th amendment? It’s still not apparent even after the email. Compelled mean forced, right? BART or the DA can’t force or compel that ex-cop to do anything, right?

    You’re assuming BART made a mistake in dealing with a cop who lawyered up in two shakes of a lamb’s tail. IMO BART’s behavior before the shooting (having to do with training and such) is substantially more interesting than BART’s behavior after the shooting. But that’s more a matter of opinion, as opposed to a mistake of fact.

    Maybe you putting “compelled” and “forced” in quote marks would fix things.

    One time, in band camp, I put a comment up about how an author used the previous year’s state of the city transcript to comment upon the then current year’s address, resulting in much mockery. That wasn’t my intent, so I guess I could have sent over an email instead.

    Anyway, I’ll feel free to comment in the future. Sorry to “trip” about what appeared and still appears to be simple mistakes in interpretting criminal laws.