In our excitement over news of the eventual sale of Paragary's and Fitzy's reaction to said sale we forgot something (I blame residual affects from yesterday's high holiday). Namely, should Mike Fitzgerald be the one reporting on it? The conflict of interest chart I keep in my wallet sadly says "no".
Why? Well, for one Fitzy hasn't really hidden the fact that he's pals with Randy Paragary. He even went as far to hold a contest on his blog attempting to name the already named roof of the old Hotel Stockton.
More recently he called our understanding of subsidies into question, because subsidies are what I take into consideration when I'm constemplating where to eat. Quality of food, service, atmosphere, and price have nothing to do with it. Plus he argued that we shouldn't hate on Paragary's because it wasn't the recipient of the biggest subsidy. Yet, he never mentions what other places received larger subsidies because all subsidies are created equal apparently.
But, perhaps most damning, is what he mentioned in his initial blog post about the future sale of Paragary's:
"I'll check this out later today. If this is legit, please consider going in with me on this venture."
He's a potential buyer! I know the Record doesn't really give a shit about conflicts of interest, but this seems like a big one. He could skew the coverage to scare away potential buyers! Which is a way more effective way to scare off buyers than talking to employees and customers (oh craigslist, you're so full of hilarity).
So yeah, as much as we'd love to see it for our own twisted purposes, Mike Fitzgerald is the last guy who should be covering the possible sale of Paragary's, besides perhaps Randy himself.