Our local paper

It's fashionable to bash the SF Chronicle, but I've always defended it. I've always thought it does a decent job for a paper in a comparitively small market. But recently I've started to have problems with the way it does things.

Today's thing is actually nothing the Chronicle did wrong; it's merely a matter of tone. As The New York Times released a series of investigative stories about a teenager with a webcam who was pimped online, the Chronicle runs a story on bloggers promoting themselves with branded merchandise.

No, there's nothing wrong with that; it's a lightweight story with weak but perceivable business and technology links, though whether or not bloggers sell a few t-shirts makes absolutely no difference to anybody. The Times story, on the other hand, is not only much more serious, lengthy and studiously researched, it really documents several larger trends in the world of the 21st century: unsupervised kids with lots of expensive technology; the way the sex trade constantly pushes economic and technological boundaries; the persistence of pedophiles; the contrast between the kids' seeming sophistication and their naivete.

But the Chronicle: bloggers are selling t-shirts, get yours now.

Previously: Chronicle entertainment reporter not skeptical of J.T. LeRoy hoax
Chronicle blowing its near-monopoly?

San Francisco Chronicle, bloggers, webcam sex, online prostitution