Letters to the Editor

But when the subject of a story writes in saying he's been "had," what's an editor to do?

Write a cheeky bold-faced lead-in!:Ever wonder what it's like to be interviewed by SF Weekly? I recently was for a story on my restoring a Victorian.

"Hi Mike, Thank YOU for showing me around and telling me all about your gorgeous house. I think it's great you're doing it. I would love to come to the [thank you neighbors] party when you throw it." -- e-mail from the author

The story was different:

"Somebody didn't like what he saw in the reflection [of the house]. More likely, he saw a reflection of somebody he liked even less -- the owner" ... a "schlumpy-looking guy" and "former dot-commer" who "looks forward to throwing killer parties."

I was had.

Talk about polarizing stereotypes. Actually I've never thrown a killer party in my life, and I resent being typecast as a "dot-commer." In the same way that not all Muslims are terrorists, not all programmers are dot-commers. We were the furthest thing from it. But for right or wrong, "dot-commer" brings a host of negative associations and judgments with it, especially in San Francisco. Editors know this.

I object to the twisting of the story to fit a stereotype that makes it easy for a politically divided readership to quickly choose sides and root for their own: political candy that serves nothing.

Graffiti is a fact of life in the Haight, invariably committed by elements from outside the neighborhood. The article seems to imply that vandalism is understandable, if not justified. Casting vandalism in such stereotyped political terms just serves to encourage it further. It gives it a phony excuse.

Mike Farr
Haight