[gailtate]

I was a little surprised to see that the SF Chronicle's Sunday print edition didn't include a story on the Cal or Stanford football games.

I was even more surprised that there's no story on the Stanford-ASU game online at sfchronicle.com.  A staff reporter did write about the Cal game, though.

On sfgate.com (a site owned by the same company as the SF Chronicle but editorially separate) there is at least the AP news story on the Stanford game.

For today, there is coverage online of the Pac-12 women's basketball media day and the news of Casey Filkin's injury, but neither story made the print edition.

Takeaway: the battered and bruised business model for print journalism is such that publishers are doing their damndest to ween the fogies off print and onto digital. I don't like it either, but I do understand the imperative to make money. They'll inevitably get their way, when the die-hard fogies get to that big news-stand in the sky.

[gailtate]

I was a little surprised to see that the SF Chronicle's Sunday print edition didn't include a story on the Cal or Stanford football games.

I was even more surprised that there's no story on the Stanford-ASU game online at sfchronicle.com.  A staff reporter did write about the Cal game, though.

On sfgate.com (a site owned by the same company as the SF Chronicle but editorially separate) there is at least the AP news story on the Stanford game.

For today, there is coverage online of the Pac-12 women's basketball media day and the news of Casey Filkin's injury, but neither story made the print edition.

Takeaway: the battered and bruised business model for print journalism is such that publishers are doing their damndest to ween the fogies off print and onto digital. I don't like it either, but I do understand the imperative to make money. They'll inevitably get their way, when the die-hard fogies get to that big news-stand in the sky.