Bad to the bone: It may be a legitimate story to explore the psychological trials of those hapless hoopsters, the Warriors ("Daydream Believers," Feb. 14), but to spend so much space pointing out just how horrible this team is is really a poor editorial judgment. What value does this story provide? Everyone in the Bay Area who remotely cares is already painfully aware of how hopelessly bad this organization is. The target is way too easy. Your readers are better served by the in-depth investigative, contrarian pieces that you more often than not manage to provide.
Fathers and Summons
Disappearing daddies: As a single mother who has been attempting to collect child support from my daughter's father for eight years, I found your article on "Full Court Fathers" (Feb. 7) both uplifting and irritating. I do agree, child support bureaucracies do not always operate fairly. In fact, it is estimated that collections from "deadbeat" parents are successful about 5 percent of the time. The other 95 percent of the time the system does not work and children remain hungry. It is inspiring that there are fathers out there, like the ones in your article, that really do care about their children, want to spend time with them, and even want custody of them. It is disturbing to hear the battles they have faced with the system as well as with the mothers of their children.
I think it is fair to say that they are the exceptions to the rule, and they should certainly be commended. But to purport that child support services tend to be oriented toward mothers and children, as [Midnight Basketball League Director Barbara] Edmiston does, is asinine. There is no objective evidence that this is the case, and if there were, why are there billions of dollars owed in back support to single mothers and their children? I have come to the conclusion that the system is not based on anything except unpredictability, injustice, and unaccountability. There is no rhyme or reason to any particular case outcome, and if you're looking for a really good article, you've got one right there.
TV Journalism: News You Can Lose
We have a smart-ass comeback, but first we need to check with Phoenix: Gee, thanks for your objective analysis of what constitutes good journalism around here ("KRONic Complaints," Matt Smith, Feb. 7, on ownership changes at TV station KRON). Since you are a corporate for-hire whore for those asses in Phoenix, I know your views are unreliable. SF Weekly has never been alternative, at least since the white-trash crowd in Phoenix took over, and to call anything appearing in New Times "journalism" is a stretch.
Michael P. Hardesty
We thought everybody knew: Matt Smith reaches new heights of shamelessness in his pro-media-chain screed by simultaneously kissing his boss' butt and patting himself on the back. He casually mentions that "among the alternative weeklies, the best journalism is done by the New Times chain." Funny, he forgot to add that this fine journalistic organization happens to own SF Weekly. I guess writing for the best darn weekly newspaper chain in the Bay Area means you can plug your parent company without revealing that they write your paycheck.
Such flattery. We're getting all misty.: I'm not really into news or information, so when I get your paper I usually just read Dog Bites and Savage Love and, depending on how much free time I have that week, Red Meat or Red Meat and Puni. But this week I read Matt Smith's column, the one about TV or something, and, hey, good job, Matt.
If this has not already been made clear by the tone of this letter, I am a very busy man. So Matt, if I am to take the time to read another one of your columns, I need some assurance: Was that just a strange, extra-good column, or are you always that good?
Thanks a lot. Now Wellman keeps asking for another performance review: I wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed reading "Abroad in the Hoochie Nation" (Dog Bites, Feb. 7, by Laurel Wellman). Haven't read some good "gonzo" style material in a long while. Laurel, I really dig your stuff. Reminds me of Didion, Wolfe, and Hunter S. Thompson (ooh, scary). I look forward to reading much more of your work.
The photo credit in last week's Bay View, "The Battle for Walpert Ridge," was incorrect. The photographer was Sarah Hughes.