How Will SF's Boycott Of Arizona Businesses Apply To Phoenix-Based SF Weekly?

• 6 Comments
• +0 Votes
• Share
• Email

As noted by our friends at the SF Weekly Monday morning, San Francisco's getting set to "Boycott Arizona" after the Grand Canyon State's passage of a controversial set of anti-immigrant laws.

The first most of us heard about this proposed boycott was the Weekly story, in which Supervisor Campos suggested a boycott might mean that city employees would skip conferences set in Arizona. Or something.

It is funny, however, that the news broke in an Arizona based business -- SF Weekly's parent company, Village Voice media, is headquarted in Phoenix.

Even as I was reading the Weekly piece, City Attorney Dennis Herrera chimed in, releasing a statement calling for "a sweeping boycott of the State of Arizona" including offering "the services of his office's contracts, government litigation and investigations teams to work closely with City departments and commissions to identify applicable contracts and to aggressively pursue termination wherever legally tenable."

What would this proposed boycott do to SF Weekly's ability to report stories? If Herrera spokesperson Matt Dorsey is any indication, they have little to worry about, at least editorially. "I don't discriminate against any publication" he told the Appeal "I'll return a call from anyone, regardless of editorial agenda."*

Which is how it should be! I interrupted "...but that doesn't mean I'm going to buy advertising from them" he finished. OUCH.

Dorsey wasn't sure if any City agencies purchased advertising with the Weekly, and a quick spin through the copy we have in the office showed, at the most, ads from a couple of orgs that either receive City support directly or have City help to raise funds. (A call to the Weekly's ad department did not receive a response.) Probably for the best that Rec and Park's found another place to market itself!

One (not I! But "one") could argue, however, that by responding to questions or calls from SF Weekly, one is enabling them to write stories around which advertising will appear, thus contributing to their bottom line. In response to this, Dorsey emphasized that the City Attorney was "calling on policymakers" like "Supervisors or the Mayor" to cut Arizona off, and that he believed the potential boycott already had "pretty broad support," suggesting that Supervisor Campos might be more willing to elaborate on a Weekly cutoff.

So I called Campos to ask if he and his Supe pals might, soon, be hitting "ignore" when the Weekly calls. Will the proposal he brings to the board today (whatever it is) include a "don't buy ads in the Weekly" imprecation for city agencies and policymakers?

Well, we don't know, because despite numerous calls (and even a text) to Campos over the course of the last 24 hours, we haven't received a single response. Hmm, a lovely, long, conversation with AZ-owned SF Weekly resulting in (we're told) a well trafficked (and therefore lucrative from an online ad-serving perspective) article, but no love for the local team (that's the Appeal)? Looks like it's advantage: Arizona.

*Dorsey helpfully reiterated our question and his response to the Weekly later that day.