Seeking technology and economic/social justice columnists


The Bay Guardian is looking for a pair of new freelance writers to do separate monthly columns covering the technology industry and economic/social justice issues. The two new columns would go into a rotation we’re tentatively calling Soul of the City, along with Jason Henderson’s Street Fight column and a new environmental column by News Editor Rebecca Bowe that we’ll debut in our Earth Day issue.

For the technology column, we want someone with a deep understanding of this industry, its economic and personality drivers, and the role it could and should play in the civic life of San Francisco and nearby communities. We aren’t looking for gadget reviews or TechCrunch-style evangelizing or fetishizing of the tech sector, but someone with an illuminating, populist perspective that appeals to a broad base of Guardian readers. 

The other column, on economic and social justice issues, would cover everything from housing rights to labor to police accountability issues, with an eye toward how San Francisco can maintain its diversity and cultural vibrancy. We want someone steeped in Bay Area political activism and advocacy, but with an independent streak and fearless desire to speak truth to power.

We envision the columns running on a monthly rotation at around 1,100-1,400 words each, with the potential to sometimes run longer and to even be featured on our cover when circumstances warrant. Columns can focus on a single issue or multiple items. Pay is 10-15-cents per word depending on the depth of reporting required. We strongly encourage candidates of color, young people, and those representing communities that need a stronger voice in the local political discourse to apply.

If you’re interested, please sent your qualifications and concepts, along with one sample column and ideas for future columns, to Editor-in-Chief Steven T. Jones at Help us escalate this fight for the soul of the city by adding your voice to the Guardian’s mix.    


Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 6:23 am

Stop by? You live here, useless child troll. There's no "stopping by." This is your residence. And you have one sick-assed sense of "amusement." That's just some lame excuse for your residency here.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 5:04 pm
Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 5:35 pm

I'm not applying for the job, but here's a couple things I wrote which I'm moderately proud of in the comments section of a Breitbartian story about the tech boom. Two upvotes and an unknown number of down-votes and flags-for-removal:


Just fourteen years ago (at the height of the 1st dot com boom) then-mayor Willie Brown caused shock and chagrin by opining in his grandly reptilian fashion that residents who didn't make at least 50K per year had no place in the city.

Now during this second dot com boom--a boom once again funded by starry-eyed investors and once again peopled (in many cases) by those who have no true connection to the place are not about to leave their hearts here upon the next bubble pop--the number is 120K.

Aside from the fact that this high-dollar Twittery being lauded as "progress" (once again) doesn't make the world a better place but instead represents another wave of time-wasting nonsense that tends to sap people's ability to function normally in human society--aside from the fact that tech boom (once again) doesn't create anything of value and therefore will never make a profit--the main problem is (once again) the rate of this change.

From where you sit you can glibly call it "progress," but this has happened in the space of less than one generation--and if you were faced with what is tantamount to strangers coming to your hometown marching up your front steps and dragging you out of your bed by your heels, I think you'd see it differently.

Average rents have gone from $1000 to $4000 during times when everybody's wages (except for the techsters) have been stagnant.

ps--I know my having facts at my disposal that weren't disseminated on Breitbart seems suspicious to you, but please consider the possibility that the situation in that regard is not as it appears to you.


This one got deleted and I had to repost it. (Not banned yet!)

You can't believe accounts you read at Breitbart. The fake video of a make-believe Google employee excoriating the protesters of the Google buses was the work of one misguided or self-aggrandizing person, Max Bell Alper. Nobody else knew who he was or what he was doing.

By the way, though the joker made a fool of himself, gave ammunition to the counter-protesters, and served to promote division between tech workers--many of whom do not agree that Google should be able to monopolize public transportation stops--and those protesting the company's behavior, it should be pointed out that what he said in the guise of a tech worker was not dissimilar to what tech boss Greg Gopman (formerly) of Angelhack said just months before.

Similarly all the graffiti which ostensibly threatens tech workers is probably the work of one misguided person--if not, as might even be suspected in the case of Alper, an agent who is actually acting against the side he is ostensibly on.

There is no "left-wing" campaign against tech workers per se, but it is a fact that tech workers are displacing long time San Franciscans by bidding-up the rents and--by virture of their critical mass--displacing the sorts of businesses which the less well-heeled San Franciscans depend on to maintain their way of life.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 10:14 am

have no reason to believe that SFBG would want to hire you other than that they have been kind enough, so far, not to ban you for trolling here.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 10:34 am

To be fair, the SFBG did kinda ban him. Remember that stupid troll bumper shit he tried a while back? Even the BG wouldn't put up with his idiocy. You have to be a real jackass to get your stuff pulled from this site.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 2:47 pm

real way SFBG can block anyone. All they can do is block emails and IP addresses. Lilli probably just isn't smart enough to know how to get around that.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 4:27 pm

One troll washing the other's back.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 5:05 pm

" Lilli probably just isn't smart enough to know how to get around that."

A basic DuckDuckGo search would likely bring that information up.

Stop bullying people with this banning shit. Many people all over the internet whether they are trolls or not get banned for any number of reasons. If a site doesn't like your view point, one can be banned no matter how "respectful" and "courteous" the comment. Some sites will ban people if they comment too many times per day. There are any number of reasons for banning people. So stop with this "so and so was banned from many sites." WHO CARES! That happens to many people, idiots. But from my experience on sites, trolls seem to be allowed to say anything and are not banned no matter how hateful and vile the comment. It's often the person who responds to the troll who is banned or warned. Loco. That's crazy shit.

And I'm not Lili whoever that is. I've seen Lili on here, but I'm not Lili. I've just read repeated comments on here from the useless trolls bullying Lili and I'm sick of it. Mind your own goddamned business you useless trolls. Clearly you have absolutely nothing better to do in your pathetic lives than to reside on this site and bully, nag, whine, moan and complain. You are one wasted life experience, Worry about yourself and not Lili or anybody else.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 5:20 pm

As noted, he even got his Barrier persona banned here and SFBG bans nobody.

And it would not have worked except that Lilli admits he doesnt know anything about tech

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 5:37 pm

"But Lilli gets banned everywhere"

and that concerns you why?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 6:01 pm
Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 7:28 pm

But that's none of your business. That would be between Lili and the BG. Not you, busybody.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 8:53 pm

but I'll admit there's part of me that likes all the attention--and I don't feel "bullied" in the least.

I suspect it is obvious enough that I let many comments go by without responding and it is also probably understood that I do so because I see those as diversions from what might otherwise be useful discussions going on--and anyway I think the attackers are the quintessential psychopathic trolls who reveal themselves as such without any real need for assistance.

Just for the record, though, I've been banned from one site only--SFGate--and mostly just for the same reason I'll eventually get banned from Breitbart: writing stuff which attracts the attention of right wingers who exploit the semi-automated moderation system to have comments censored. Too many censored comments and one gets banned eventually.

Now more than ever I focus on being polite--98% of the time, anyway, since every now and then I still like to deliver a "zinger" back into someone's lap who has mad a habit of attacking me*--and I do this because I've come to believe that the real purpose of much of this trolling is to foment a sense of resentment and distrust across a left-right divide.

I've come to see that there is far more opportunity for comity across left-right lines than is typically acknowledged, and I have a passion for bringing such out.

Were I to re-establish a presence on SFGate, I'd probably last a bit longer than my previous one-and-a-half year run; both because of my better understanding about how to certain keywords get exploited by censorious trolls, and also because of my new attitude.

But as ever I hold the Chronicle to be a crypto right-wing rag and if one comments frequently and makes points that certain people don't want to see made, one will end up censored and then banned there. Also SFGATE has been fairly casual about purging old comments out of carelessness, and I'll be damned if I write for the comments section of some publication which holds so lightly the value of my work. (Noted that all my previous inputs to can still be found through a Startpage search, thanks.)

*Here's what I mean by "zinger"--a response to the comment I posted above and my response to it... which even though I didn't use any of the obvious keywords got deleted (so I had to repost it):

D.I. > lillipublicans • 2 hours ago

I've never seen a post of yours based on facts before and you're still batting 1.000. Your perception of this situation borders on derangement with a side dish of hallucinatory. Keep up the good work there, Ace, you may some day get a gig as a stand-up comic. You're certainly amusing enough.
2•Reply•Share ›

lillipublicans > D.I. • 2 hours ago

Really? The names of two people and details about events aren't "facts" to you? Typically your "comments" consist of agit-prop pictures. Here you've just served up a simple dish of ad hominem, with a side of ad hominem, and an ad hominem after dinner mint... similar to your apparent intellect.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 7:10 pm

Ever hear of that?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 7:32 pm

What? Your toddler-level attention span can only handle 8 words?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 8:55 pm

Lilli has verbal diarrhea.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 4:37 am

He's so ugly he could crack the lens of a camera.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2014 @ 12:44 pm

"Just for the record, though, I've been banned from one site only--SFGate"

Consider that a compliment. That site is just... ugh.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 8:59 pm

than SFBG, and has probably 1,000 times the readers

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 5:40 am

Hiring "freelance workers"

ie, you won't have to pay them any benefits. No heath insurance, no social security contribution, no pension payments, no sick/grievance leave, not guaranteed defined-contribution plan that might break your company.

Steve thinks only public-sector workers deserve such benefits.

Steve is a big defender of the bloated pension pots for public-sector workers that are destroying finances and reducing monies paid to schools and for hospitals and road construction etc.

That's for them. That's not for Guardian workers.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 10:18 am

Again, the Guardian's ass backward policy and politics reflect just why it sucks.

You don't pay people a living wage, you don't hire them on staff and provide things like health benefits or sick leave or anything that would allow these writers to treat this like a job and have the investment into it that having an Actual Job does.

Instead you pay shit, you don't live up to your own lefty ideals about fair wages and health care, and you do it all for The Corporation of which you are but one of many drones, serving the hive that is the out of town chain this rag is part of.

You suck.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 12:55 pm
Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 1:22 pm

under the feet of its staff - to real estate speculators no less, who immediately set to turning the building into high-priced condos. I don't understand why he can't direct some of that money back into the SFBG and underwrite a couple of extra positions at the company with high wages and excellent benefits - something like a staff tech columnist who makes around $120,000 per year with a matching 401k. After all, as Steven is always telling us in regards to public employees - you get what you pay for. Bruce and Steven are constantly calling on everyone else to sacrifice for the greater good - why can they not do the same?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 3:06 pm

We don't do it, but others should.

It's all hip-ocracy.

Speaking of which...whatever happened to Tim Rod-mend?

He has pretty much stopped posting on his blug, and city hall pols and workers don't answer his calls/email anymore: in other words, they are treating him like they treat all the other bluggers humping their PCs at home out in cyberspace

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 4:38 pm

Tim redmond ceased to be relevant years ago, around the time he hired Steve Jones and his foul mouthed phony "journalism" and fired all the GOOD reporters.

this paper is a joke and a pack of lying hypocrites. you get what you pay for and in this case it's basically what you scrape off your shoe at the dog park lol!

The only bigger loser are the out of towners who take these crappy paying gigs. A pity Warren Hellman can't fund the paper...oh wait he did and he DIDN'T HIRE STEVE JONES WHO BEGGED ON HIS KNEES FOR A JOB AT THE DEFUNCT BAY CITIZEN LOL!

Posted by Guest from Your Hell on Mar. 25, 2014 @ 11:46 am

clear all the effects now what to do?

Posted by Elma Sherry on Mar. 27, 2014 @ 2:04 am

only one of its kind has gone perfect. exclusively exceptional.

Posted by angeljulie3 on Jun. 05, 2014 @ 3:35 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.