What do the San Francisco Chronicle and Bill O’Reilly have in common?

VICTORY PARTY

Co-hosted by

San Francisco Labor Council

&

San Francisco Democratic Party

Thursday, November 20^th

7:00 PM

628 Divisadero Street

(at Fell)

We hope you can join us to celebrate the tremendous victories we won on November 4^th !

Please call Emily Nelson at (415) 440-4809

for more information or to RSVP.

OPEIU3 AFL-CIO 11

From: John Avalos

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 5:25 AM
To: Buchanan, Wyatt
Subject: Dude, the preferred nomenclature is . . .

Hi Wyatt

You’re using some patently biased language here. The preferred nomenclature is "progressive" rather than the value laden "far" or "ultra left."

The Chron has typically used moderates and progressives, so it looks like manipulation when it uses this new terminology. Is this your language or the editors?

Let’s save the biased language for the opinion pages and keep it out of our news coverage.

Sincerely,
John Avalos

From: Cooper, Audrey

Date: Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Subject: RE: Dude, the preferred nomenclature is . . .
To: John Avalos

Dear Mr. Avalos,

Thank you for writing to Wyatt about this issue. We appreciate your feedback. However, just because a term is the preferred nomenclature of a political group does not mean we are bound to use it in the newspaper. As you’ve probably noticed, we only have chosen to use these adjectives to describe the city’s political factions in stories about the DCCC or the tussle for control of the board.

We decided to stop using the word "progressive" because it is a politically loaded term that doesn’t mean much to our readers. Far from being biased, we believe that this decision makes our reporting politically neutral.

While "progressive" may be the preferred term of some politicians – and, of course, they are free to use it to describe themselves – it doesn’t describe where they sit on the traditional political spectrum.

We believe using adjectives such as "far left" and "ultra liberal" more accurately describe city politicians and policies in that broader context.

Thank you very much for your time and interest in this issue. As always, we are most interested in accurately reporting on what happens in the city and we believe that this policy helps us to do that. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Audrey Cooper

Assistant Metro Editor

From: John Avalos

Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:04 PM
To: Cooper, Audrey
Subject: Re: Dude, the preferred nomenclature is . . .

Dear Audrey:

Thank you for your reply. I was throwing in a little humor here, albeit obscure — a reference to the Big Lebowski.

Having said that, I do believe the Chron’s use of "ultra left" and "far left" is completely biased. After all, who’s the arbiter here about what "ultra left" and "far left are?" What standard are you using and where did it come from? Seems pretty made up to me. Very rarely or better yet, never do I here progressives talk about themselves in these terms. The Chron’s making it up out of whole cloth.

It’s unbelievable, that you would even try to justify your use of this language.

Lastly, if any term is completely meaningless it’s "moderate." I don’t recall there being a moderate political movement or ideology. A Classical Greek philosophy maybe, but not a political movement like the Progressive Movement .  Progressives established labor laws, the women’s right to vote and regulations of our workplaces and food production.

I don’t believe Moderates can claim any such movement or transformation of our government institutions. If there’s something they can champion it’s ameliorating the effects of change or fighting against perennial progressive issues such as single payer health care, taxing high profits and rent control .

Thank you for your response. I really appreciate your sharing with me the Chronicle’s rationale, however shaky it may be.

Sincerely,
John Avalos

From: Cooper, Audrey

Date: Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Subject: RE: Dude, the preferred nomenclature is . . .
To: John Avalos

Dear Mr. Avalos,

We will probably have to agree to disagree. We could discuss it issue by issue but I don’t think that’s very useful. I guess I would only try to convince you that the words are simply adjectives and to ascribe some political bias to them seems to imply that it is somehow wrong to be at one end of the political spectrum or the other. To us, it’s all real
estate.

This discussion reminds me of a time in college when one of my professors asked all the feminists to raise their hands. Nobody did. And she yelled at us, pointing out that feminists simply believed in equal rights but that we had been talked out of embracing the label.

Best of luck with your campaign. Hope to meet you soon.

Sincerely,

Audrey Cooper

Assistant Metro Editor

In a post more fitting for GavinWatch than the SF Chronicle, former Chronicle editor Phil Bronstein criticized Gavin Newsom for his role in aiding the proponents of Proposition 8.

If you’re a liability but you keep reminding people you’re there, it’s gone beyond commitment to a cause and into the narrower world of self-importance.

Going from bad to worse, Bronstein takes the Mayor to task for everything from his drinking problem to the dying vegetables in his “victory garden.” All but declaring Newsom’s bid to become Governor dead, Bronstein writes, “Maybe he’ll get a legacy appointment to the Senate if Dianne is governor.” Harsh.

But back in their suites at 5^th and Mission, the bosses at the Chron re-anted in their war against all things progressive in San Francisco. In today’s Chronicle “news” coverage of the local election, Heather Knight admits to fitting "the facts" into the story provided to her by her corporate editors – that while “left leaning” candidates for Supervisor may be winning, SF voters are “surprisingly conservative on issues.”

Progressive (not ultra-liberal ) candidates swept the election in SF — from President to Community College Board. In an election where hundreds of thousands were spent attacking candidates for their opposition to JROTC, San Franciscans elected progressive School Board members who support alternative leadership development programs.

Despite getting outspent over $10 million to a few hundred thousand on ballot measures, progressives still won more than we lost — Yes on E, recall reform; Yes on J, Historic Preservation Commission; No on L, Community Justice Center; Yes on M, rent control; Yes on N, O, and Q, new revenues; No on P, takeover of the Transportation Authority; Yes on T, substance abuse treatments services; Yes on U, de-funding the war. Hardly a conservative sweep of the measures!

Of course, there is a significant legal difference between passing a measure and defeating one that would do the opposite. In this election, no significant bad measure passed – on the propositions, progressive gained ground and lost none (the only conservative measure to pass was Proposition V, the JROTC policy statement that is non-binding.) I guess it’s not surprising that this is not discussed in the Chron’s coverage.

Of course the progressive wins in the Supervisor races is the big news in SF politics. With well over $600,000 spent to defeat good, neighborhood-based progressive candidates, downtown came up empty once again. After their brutal assault on me 2 years ago, you’d think they’d learn their lesson. I guess old habits die hard.

Maybe one day we will have a newspaper that goes out and covers the news, based on the real facts. Until then, go to the blogs to find out what’s really going on.