Andy Van De Voorde, the Denver-based hit man for the Village Voice Media chain who is out here to cover the Guardian’s trial against the SF Weekly, rambles on at great length in print, using nasty personal attacks to fuel his vitriolic blogs.
But when you try to ask him a question in person, he’s not quite as forthcoming.
I tried to engage him outside of the courtroom yesterday. I had a question for Andy, and it went like this:
Isn’t it standard journalistic practice and basic professional ethics to call the other side for comment when you do a story? And when you dredge up a story that’s 30 years old just to try to smear the people who dared to sue your almighty employer for predatory pricing, doesn’t basic decency require that you check the facts before you go to print?
Van De Voorde refused to answer the question. The tough-sounding writer who excoriates his foes in print couldn’t handle a simple question from a reporter. “You write what you want and I’ll write what I want,” he said.
There’s a reason I confronted Mr. Van De Voorde yesterday morning. One of his blog posts from earlier in the week contained some startling inaccurate information about a fascinating battle the Guardian was involved in back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The hit man dredged up information that was more than a quarter-century old to try to make some point about the Guardian (although I’m still not quite sure what it was or how it relates to this trial), and in the process, stuck his foot into a political and journalistic swamp that he clearly didn’t understand.
I understand it all too well. I was right in the middle of it, right after I started working for the Bay Guardian.