zlacker

>>etc-ho+(OP)
This article is emblematic of everything wrong with "journalism" today. Regardless of what Garry wrote on Twitter (which I'm not defending), he didn't send the letters in question, which are the core of the incident. So some lunatic prints out a tweet and mails it to politicians at their home addresses, and the "journalist" spends a couple thousand words focusing on the tweet, and how the guy who wrote the tweet is rich.

Also, featuring the price of his liquor bottles (prominent in the first article about this by the same writer) is indicative of the level of pettiness involved. Maybe there's an actual story here, but this isn't it, and it's not clear that the story is more than "someone said something regrettable on Twitter".

>>timr+Y6
> 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".

>>jacobo+vb
> 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.

>>timr+Ec
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.

>>jacobo+9g
Mission Local is not “fairly neutral”. They are very closely aligned with certain SF politicians and their “news” coverage shows that.

This article is anything but neutral (not that I don’t think Tan screwed up here).