Bruce Brugmann

God bless Larry Bensky and KPFA

-
0

By Bruce B. Brugmann

It was a near perfect political moment. I was driving last night across the Bay Bridge and into Berkeley for the first anniversary dinner of the Chauncey Bailey investigative reporting project. I turned on KPFA radio and started listening to the on-the-street coverage that Amy Goodman and Larry Bensky were doing for KPFA on the Democratic convention.

They were covering what CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and other mainstream broadcasters weren’t: a dramatic anti-war demonstration in the streets of Denver. I could hear the staccato military commands as the Iraq Veterans Against the War marched in uniform to the Democratic convention gates, backed by hundreds of demonstrators.
The City of Denver had not approved the protest and trucks of armed police in riot gear were dispatched to watch for any eruptions of violence, but there were no reported arrests.

Whether or not there were incidents, the event was newsworthy and certainly more important than the pundits desperately looking for somebody to interview and something to say. But KPFA was there. And KPFA, unlike much of the broadcast media, covered the convention by allowing the convention speakers to speak and not doing lots of aimless interviews and adding mostly pithy and relevant comments. God bless Amy Goodman, Larry Bensky, and KPFA. They are a national treasure we can enjoy as a local radio station.

Here are two of the best print stories on the demonstrations:

The protest was not approved by the City of Denver.

Click here to read the Guardian UK story, US election: Hundreds of anti-war demonstrators march on the Democratic convention hall.

Click here to read the L.A. Times’ article, Obama camp meets with Iraq war veterans protesting at Democratic convention.

PG&E: the best politicians we can buy!

-
0

By Bruce B. Brugmann

For a complete list (2.35 MB) of everyone who signed on to a PG&E-paid ballot argument and a full list of all of the individuals, companies, and nonprofits that got PG&E money in 2007, click here (Excel).

Click here to read Amanda Witherell’s story, PG&E’s blank check: Who is the utility buying off? Start with Newsom, Feinstein, and Willie Brown.

And so there they are, up on the website of PG&E’s front group (www.closeitcoalition.org), in their blizzard of mailers and doorhangers, and on PG&E’s ballot arguments against the Clean Energy Initiative (Prop H):

The best politicians that PG&E can buy!

For starters, as Amanda Witherell lays out in the current Guardian (“PG&E’s Blank check, who is the utility buying off?”) note that the list is headed by two former mayors who churned away for PG&E during their terms in office (Diane Feinstein, of the sellout Turlock/Modesto contracts fame, and Willie Brown, of the “stolen election” and missing ballot box tops fame) and our current Mayor Gavin Newsom, who with PG&E funding and sponsorship is throwing a big expensive party tonight called “Unconvention ’08” at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Stop the presses: Guardian city editor Steve Jones sends the following blog item on Newsom’s refusal to allow him to come to tonight’s PG&E party with this email note: “’Due to the high volume of submissions, we were unable to process your request at this time. If tickets become available we’ll send you an e-mail and SMS text with details,’” it said. Unable to process my request? And this is the guy who wants to be governor? I plan to go anyway and see if I can crash the party, backed by my publisher’s promise to bail me out of jail if I get arrested. Wish me luck.”

Alas, maybe Steve’s problem is that he doesn’t qualify for the PG&E donor list or the permitted press list of press people and bloggers who don’t write critically of PG&E or write supportively of Prop H and clean energy and renewables. With Steve, it’s a story whether he gets in or gets kicked out. Watch for it on the Bruce blog.

I am putting up two instructive lists on who PG&E is buying. One is the list of everyone who signed on to a PG&E-paid ballot argument, plus those who paid for the argument themselves. The other is a full list of the hundreds individuals, companies, and non-profits that PG&E gave tens of millions of dollars to in 2007, according to a financial statement PG&E filed with the California Public Utilities Commission.

The key point: go through the lists so that you can pose the right questions: Why did they sign on with PG&E to take chunks of money from PG&E? Why did they sign ballot arguments retailing PG&E lies? Why did they take money for PG&E, what did they do for PG&E (example: what did Willie Brown do for his $200,000 in “consulting services’)? Are they getting money during the campaign and if so, how much and what services are they providing?
I think you will be surprised at who is getting what from PG&E and how embarrassed they will be when you start asking questions. Let me know what you find out.

B3, watching from my office window today’s smoggy fumes from the Potrero HIll power plant, courtesy of PG&E, Mayor Newom, Willie Brown, and Hearst journalism

Ballot Arguments paid for by PG&E:

SF Firefighters Local 798, POA, and David Wong
Professional Property Management Association and Coalition for Better Housing
SF Republican Party
Doug Chan
Anni Chung, senior activist
FDR Democratic Club, under August Longo
Elsa Cheung
SF Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Nadine Weil and Rev. Sally Bingham
Bay Area Council
Citizens for a Better San Francisco, Michael Antonini, Edward Poole, Harmeet Dhillon
Golden Gate Restaurant Association
Lorena Hernandez and Joe Manzo, residents of Potrero Hill
Asian Pacific Democratic Club
Thom Lynch and Don Cecil
Nancy Lenvin and Claire Pilcher, former PUC commissioners
Mel Lee, Library commissioner
Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 38 and IBEW Local 6
SF Small Business Network
Sandy and Jeff Mori
Amos Brown and Calvin Jones
Rudy Asercion

Not paid for by PG&E:

Jeff Brown
Chamber of Commerce
BOMA SF PAC
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
Plan C
IBEW Local 1245
James Fang
Harold Hoogasian

Kucinich: his speech at the Democratic convention

-
0

By Bruce B. Brugmann

This year, as always, I am struck by how badly the mainstream press covers conventions and often doesn’t bother to even cover the rousing speeches or the real action. Lots of pictures of Bill Clinton beaming away while Hillary spoke. Endless chatter about only the main speakers. Etc.

For example, I heard the speech of Dennis Kucinich, a rouser, last night on KPFA but couldn’t find it anywhere else.
I was delighted that he got a chance to speak. Here it is:

Extra! Hearst blacks out the word progressive

-
8

“Ultra liberal?” “Far left political factions”? In San Francisco? Hearst, Mayoral Press Secretary Nathan Ballard, and an “ultra liberal” supervisorial candidate from the Excelsior District comment on this astounding election development

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Audrey Cooper, assistant metro editor of the Chronicle/Hearst, has admitted that the Chronicle “has decided to stop using the word ‘progressive’ to describe the more liberal of San Francisco’s political factions.” (See my previous blog).

Does this mean that supporters of the Clean Energy Initiative are suddenly and unexpectedly given the derogatory terms “ultra liberal” and “far left.” Does this mean Aaron Peskin and a majority of the board of supervisors? Assemblyman Mark Leno? Former PUC General manager Susan Leal? Former Mayor Art Agnos? A majority of the Democratic County Central Committee? A batch of supervisorial candidates? Labor leaders? The Sierra Club?

Here’s the email Cooper sent me this afternoon responding to questions from the Bruce blog and the Guardian. Cooper, let us stipulate upfront, has one of the toughest jobs going, trying to explain why Hearst suddenly banned the word progressive in the middle of a PG&E offensive against the Clean Energy Act. More: Hearst banned the word progressive in one of the world’s most progressive cities, in a city that spawned the famous progressive Hiram Johnson and his successful fight against the Southern Pacific Railroad, and on the newspaper founded by a publisher who called himself at one time a progressive and ran for mayor of New York on a platform of municipal ownership of utilities. In San Francisco, Hearst campaigned vigorously on a pro-Hetch Hetchy public power, anti-PG&E platform until he reversed himself in the late 1920s because of a PG&E loan from a PG&E-controlled bank. Hearst’s pro-PG&E, anti-public power position has remained in effect to this day. (See previous Bruce blogs, Guardian stories, and David Nasaw’s authoritative biography, “The Chief.”)

Cooper wrote:

“Hi Bruce.
I’m Wyatt Buchanan’s editor — he passed your e-mail along to me. Sorry that it took me a day to get back to you. In general, feel free to ask anything about our coverage. I’ll always answer as quickly as I can (that is, when it’s an issue I have control over).

I’ve also sent versions of this explanation to others who have inquired. (I’m only telling you that in case you get a similar e-mail forwarded to you — it’s just easier for me to explain it the same way to everyone.)

In short, just because a label is embraced by a political group does not mean it’s the best way to report a story. As you’ve probably noticed, we generally eschew political labels when possible. In some stories (such as the fight for the DCCC and Board of Supes), this is not as easily done. In those cases, we choose adjectives we think are as politically neutral as possible.

We decided to stop using the word ‘progressive’ to describe the more liberal of San Francisco’s political factions because it is a politically loaded term that doesn’t mean much to our readers. And 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.

Thanks for your time. Feel free to call me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Audrey”

Reliable sources told us that the mayor’s campaign had complained to the Chronicle about the use of the word progressive and that means Eric Jaye, who runs the Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign at the same time he works for PG&E as a paid consultant to PG&E.

Cooper and Nathan Ballard, the mayor’s press secretary denied this. Cooper said:

“Also, I should tell you that we did not make this change in response or after complaints from anyone in the mayor’s office. The mayor’s office does not dictate what words we use.

“Nobody from the mayor’s office has ever contacted me about this issue as far as I can honestly remember. And I can’t recall them saying anything about it over the last two weeks, either.”

Ballard said:

“Personally I’ve never really complained to the Chronicle about this subject. It just wasn’t very high on my to-do list. In fact I don’t recall ever having any conversations about this topic with anyone from the Chronicle until after Heather Knight’s article about the far-left takeover of the DCCC ran.

“I have to admit that I’m pleased to learn from you that the Chronicle will no longer be using the term ‘progressive’ to describe politicians who aren’t. It always struck me as Orwellian doublespeak to describe somebody who wants to legalize sex trafficking and force lobbyists to wear badges as ‘progressive.'”

Executive Editor Tim Redmond responded to Ballard:

“Well, it’s true that the progressives of the early part of the century tended to be against prostitution and drugs and were prohibitionists, a description that I don’t think would accurately describe, say, Aaron Peskin. But over time the term has evolved, and most progressives today are at least open to the idea that sex work should be legalized. Almost all progressives support the legalization of marijuana (and I think Mayor Newsom does, too.)

“I don’t think far-left even remotely describes people like Peskin, whose economic views are pretty close to the mainstream of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Jake McGoldrick clearly isn’t ‘far left.’ I’m not sure even Tom Ammiano could accurately be called ‘far left.’

“I say this as someone who has been called all sorts of names, including Communist, because I advocate higher taxes on the rich and government spending on social services for the poor. At one time, that was pretty much the mainstream opinion of the Democratic Party.

“So who in SF government do you really believe is ‘far left?'”

Ballard responded back to Tim:

“Tim, do us all a favor and count me out of this dorm-room style debate. I never really cared that much whether the Chronicle called these guys progressives, just like I never really cared that much that CW Post calls them Grape Nuts even though they are neither grapes nor nuts.”

George Avalos, a supervisorial candidate in the Excelsior District, also asked Cooper about her designation and sent us her answer and then his comment to her answer. Question: how did Avalos and other progressive candidates in other districts suddenly become “ultra left” and part of a “far left faction?”

Subject: 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 hear 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 shakey it may be.

Sincerely,

John Avalos”

B3 sums up this historic announcement:

So there you have it: a timely snapshot of Hearst double standard ethics: Let Willie Brown do a featured political column on Sunday without disclosing that he is a paid PG&E lobbyist ($200,000 last year alone). Brand all clean energy politicians opposed by PG&E as “ultra liberals” and “far left factions.” And for God’s sake, don’t cover the election in an honest and professional manner and tell us who PG&E is buying off. (See Amanda Witherell story, “PG&E’s blank check, who’s the utility buying off Start with Newsom, Feinstein, and Willie Brown.”) Question: so what will Hearst call the politicians who PG&E buys off? We call Willie PG&E’s Secret Agent Man.

B3, who insists to Cooper he is still a Rock Rapids (Iowa) liberal, and she says she will not challenge it.

Hearst: Here come the ‘far left factions’

-
0

Extra! Extra! Hearst suddenly finds “far left factions” at work all over town

And now Wyatt Buchanan in his otherwise fine story on supervisorial candidates and public financing (8/25/2008) came up with a new derogatory term for progressives: “far left political factions.”

Yup, first it was “ultra liberals” in the Heather Knight story of Aug. 15. That didn’t seem to fly after the Guardian and others raised the obvious questions about the definition of an “ultra liberal” and where the term came from and the fact that it tied in with the Mayor Newsom operatives who want the term “progressive” for Newsom and the PG&E/downtown operatives who want to bash progressives pushing clean energy and other progressive measures on the November ballot.

So now it’s “far left factions,” even according to Buchanan “far left factions” suddenly operating in, surprise, surprise, the Richmond, Mission, Bernal Heights, and Excelsior Districts. I sent an email to Buchanan and his metro editor, Ken Conner, and asked what they meant by “far left factions.” No answer.

Impertinent questions to the Chronicle’s political reporters and editors: Can you define “ultra liberals” and “far left factions?” If not, why not? Why not just cover this critical election honestly and professionally and tell us what PG&E is really doing to kill the Clean Energy Act? It’s quite a story. I know, I know, this is not the fault of the Chronicle’s reporters and editors. It’s Hearst DNA at work again.

B3, a Rock Rapids (Iowa) liberal who is tired of watching the fumes from my office window of the Potrero Hill power plant, courtesy of PG&E, Mayor Gavin “the Green” Newsom, and Hearst journalism.

Ammiano: Don’t foreclose on McCain’s houses

-
0

Today Ammianoliner (actually from last Friday):

John McCain sings: My house is a very very very fine house.

I don’t know where they are, but please don’t foreclose, while I doze.

(From the home answering machine of Sup. Tom Ammiano on Friday, Aug. 22, 2008)

Tom, Tom, speak up and enunciate clearly. I couldn’t understand the little snort at the end: “Obama endorses same sex ticket.” B3

Pelosi: is she punting on SF Clean Energy Act?

-
0

Is Pelosi for clean energy in Washington and Denver but standing with PG&E and punting on supporting the Clean Energy Act in San Francisco? Is she investing with T. Boone Pickens and his Clean Energy Fuels Corp. in Texas and punting on clean energy in San Francisco?

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Paul Hogarth, the agile staff writer and columnist for the Beyond Chron website, asked a key question of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a press conference this morning on the first day of the Democratic Convention in Denver.

Hogarth reported on Beyond Chron that he had asked Pelosi that, “because she endorsed Al Gore’s ambitious goals of energy independence by 2019, does she support San Francisco’s Clean Energy Act (Prop H)–which calls for energy independence by 2040.”

“I haven’t see the text,” she told Hogarth, but I support going in that direction. This timetable of energy independence is a path we hope to go on.”

Hogarth made the proper point: Maybe, he noted, she should have sent a proxy to the Democratic County Central Committee endorsement meeting, referring to the recent vote by the DCCC approving the Clean Energy Act. She did not send a proxy to vote and her quote to Hogarth is her only known public response to the measure. The head on Hogarth’s story made his point more direct: “Pelosi Schools Traditional Media; Punts on SF Clean Energy Act.”

Meanwhile, the punting question was raised again for Pelosi by a major story in the Wall Street Journal (8/23/08). The Journal reported that Pelosi and her husband Paul invested between $50,000 and $100,000 in T. Boone Pickens’s Clean Energy Corporation in Texas. The Journal said the investment “could benefit from legislation the California Democrat favors to boost U.S. use of natural gas.”

“The investment is a small fraction of the Pelosis’ net worth. But it highlights the unlikely alliance evolving between Mr. Pickens, an old man with a long history of support for Republican causes, and powerful Democrats who have welcomed Mr. Pickens’s recent campaign for developing alternatives to oil.” (B3: Pickens was a major funder of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, which helped defeat John Kerry in the last presidential election.)

Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, told the Journal that the investment “does not raise any direct conflict of interest issues” or violate any ethics rules of the House of Representatives. “The speaker has been an advocate for increasing our country’s energy independence and for renewable energy for years, long before this purchase.”

Pelosi has always been a PG&E ally in San Francisco and Washington, notably in her move to help PG&E and the development gang privatize the Presidio and set the precedent for privatizing the national park system.

So the question for her is even more tantalizing: will she go for clean energy in Washington, Texas, and Denver but stand with PG&E and punt on the Clean Energy Act in San Francisco? We’ll try to get the questions to her. But I suggest that others work on it as well. She’s tough to pin down when it comes to PG&E, clean energy, and renewables back in her home district. B3

PS: How much are the Pelosis worth? Anywhere from $15 million to $156 million (including real estate), according to the The Journal. The investment amounts to less than one per cent off the Pelosis’ total 2007 public and private investment assets, which, not including real estate, are estimated at between $15 million and $52 million, based on the Speaker’s disclosure record, according to the Journal. Including real estate and bank account assets, the Pelosis’ net asset value is estimated at between $35 million and $156 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Ethics? PG&E, Willie Brown, and Hearst

-
0

What is there in the Hearst DNA that keeps it honoring the shameful deal that William Randolph Hearst made with PG&E in the late 1920s to reverse his long standing pro-public power and anti-PG&E position?

By Bruce B. Brugmann

And so when our Guardian reporter Amanda Witherell flashed the word that ex-mayor Willie Brown is still on the PG&E payroll, I sent the following note to Hearst corporate in New York City (which owns the San Francisco Chronicle):

“PG&E has disclosed a $200,000 payment to Willie Brown for ‘consulting services’ for 2007 in its annual report to the California Public Utilities Commission. Now that Willie is doing a featured top-of-the-page political column each Sunday in the Chronicle, I’m curious if he is doing a Chronicle column while still providing ‘consulting services’ for PG&E?

“If so, does Hearst have an ethics policy that covers this apparent conflict? Would it at minimum require disclosure of PG&E payments to Willie in this year and previous years and what was the nature of these ‘consulting services?’ I would appreciate a comment.”

Chronicle Editor Ward Bushee to his credit called me promptly to respond to my questions. (Let us just say his predecessors adopted a variety of stonewalling techniques to avoid answering such questions from the Guardian.)

As attentive Guardian readers know, there is a long history here between Hearst and PG&E and the Willie/PG&E incident is but the latest example of a geologic outcropping of some shameful Hearst history. Hearst was a powerful influence in pushing the original Hetch Hetchy public power project through Congress and beyond, then reversed his policy in the late 1920s as a condition to get a major loan from a PG&E-controlled bank. The pro-PG&E/anti-public power policy continues to this day and nobody I’ve talked to from Hearst through the years can explain why the policy is still in effect to this day.

There is also a juicy history with then Mayor Willie Brown and Hearst. Willie as mayor helped secretly orchestrate for Hearst the deal that allowed Hearst in 2000 to buy the Chronicle, give away the Examiner to the Fang family, and dissolve the Ex/Chron joint-operating agreement with the approval of the Justice Department. Remember all those horse-trading charges in which then Examiner publisher testified under oath that he had used the Examiner editorial pages as a bargaining chip with Willie. (“The Truth Hurts,” by Tali Woodward and Tim Redmond, Guardian 5/10/2000.)

Chronicle editor Ward Bushee to his credit promptly called me to respond. This was a refreshing change from his predecessors who went to creative lengths to stonewall on such questions. I asked Bushee if he knew about the PG&E payment to Willie and if Hearst considered this a conflict with its ethics policy for Willie to be on the PG&E payroll while, among other things, attacking the progressives who voted for the Clean Energy Act that PG&E is opposing with mighty muscle and many millions.

Bushee did not see a conflict nor think that disclosure of Willie’s clients was necessary. Bushee said that Willie is widely known, is “a man about town,” has a popular column, is subject to “strenuous editing,” but is “a freelance columnist who is free to pursue his business interests as any other person who is not a part of the staff.” He said that, if Willie were on staff, he would be subject to Hearst’s “ethical standards.”

Since this issue is of such journalistic importance, I summarized Bushee’s positions and sent him an email and asked if I had properly and fully reflected his and Hearst’s position. I also asked how he could reconcile his and Hearst’s position with the Ethics Code of the Society of Professional Journalists which states that “journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know…should avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived…disclose unavoidable conflicts. (The Guardian and many media use the SPJ code.)

Bushee responded by email by my deadline (missing it by two minutes). He wrote, and I quote in full,

“I’m not going to cover the same ground that we did this morning. However, I will say that since Willie Brown’s column was introduced into the Sunday Chronicle, it has been very well received by readers because it is amusing, topical, controversial and informed. Willie has special connections to the Bay Area. That Wiliie Brown has outside interests and income was well noted when he undertook the column and was no secret to anybody who has followed his career.

“A summary of his political career was published when the column was launched.

“You well know that Willie is one of the most quoted San Franciscans in the Chronicle and other media outlets around the Bay Area. He is a sought-after guest for local, regional, and national TV shows. I’m told that you have been a guest of his radio show with Will Durst. Willie is not a journalist or a member of the news staff of the Chronicle, but his column goes through extensive planning with one of our most experienced journalists and then then same rigorous editing processes as any staff produced article. Our freelance agreements give the newspaper complete control of the content we use including his column. So if you question is that Willie is somehow avoiding ethical scrutiny, that’s not correct.

“Look, Bruce. If we ever found that Willie had knowingly used his column to benefit his clients, we would end the relationship. As with any agreement, trust is implicit.

“The Chronicle news staff always has aggressively—and fairly—covered Willie Brown as a newsmaker. And I have told our editors that I expect nothing less when Willie Brown makes news in the future.

“Besides that, Willie writes a great column. I’m delighted he is in the Sunday Chronicle.”

Well, I am still unable to crack the Hearst corporate fortress that has protected and promoted PG&E all these years and is now protecting and promoting Willie Brown as PG&E’s Secret Agent Man in this critical Clean Energy election. PG&E is conducting the most massive and nasty campaign ever against clean energy and public power, with huge Lies, and Hearst is once again refusing to cover the story, correct the lies, or give any indication it is not going to once again back PG&E all the way. Why?

This enduring Hearst position of more than eight decades raises some of the most tantalizing questions in American journalism: What is there in the Hearst corporate DNA that forces its editors and reporters in San Francisco to keep in effect honoring, against early Hearst history, against all evidence, and against all ethical standards, the shameful deal that William Randolph Hearst made with a PG&E- controlled bank in the 1920s to reverse his pro-Hetch Hetchy/anti-PG&E stand and go forever after with PG&E and against public power? (For details, see previous Guardian articles, Bruce blogs, and the authoritative David Nasaw biography of Hearst called “The Chief.”) Repeating for emphasis:

Why does Hearst allow a key PG&E lobbyist to write a featured political column in its Sunday paper without proper disclosure by either Willie or Hearst? Will the Chronicle today, in August of 2008, with a non-Hearst publisher and non-Hearst editor (meaning Frank Vega and Ward Bushee, both experienced executives who came new to Hearst with solid Gannet credentials) be allowed to cast off this terrible yoke and start covering PG&E, clean energy, public power, and the Raker Act scandal in a professional manner? Will Hearst and the Chronicle cover this critical Obama/Clean Energy election honestly?

Meanwhile, I am waiting anxiously to see what Willie and Hearst will report on the big Newsom party that PG&E is helping pay for at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Newsom is gearing up to run as the “green progressive” candidate for governor, but there is no way in the world he can be Gavin the Green when he fronts for PG&E against the Clean Energy campaign in San Francisco and then lets PG&E stamp its logo on his forehead and derriere before a national political audience in Denver.

Newsom and Willie want to be known as real progressives but alas they are “PG&E progressives” and their opposition to the Clean Energy Act only illustrates the difference in 96 point Tempo
Bold between a real progressive with real green credentials and a PG&E progressive taking money to help with PG&E greenwashing and progressive bashing. Guardian City Editor Steve Jones will be at the Newsom event in Denver and will keep you posted. On guard, much more to come, B3

P.S. 1: The Hearst and Willie horse-trading story is my favorite example of Hearst ethics. (See our “The Truth Hurts” story.) Just a few hours into the Clint Reilly antitrust trial challenging the Hearst monopoly deal, Examiner publisher Tim White admitted, in no uncertain terms, that he had used the paper’s editorial pages as a bargaining chip with then Mayor Willie Brown shortly before Wille’s reelection bid in November of l999. White testified that at the Aug. 30, 1999 lunch with Willie, he suggested that the Examiner would give Willie more positive coverage if he’d get behind Hearst’s plan to take over the Chronicle and create a daily monopoly.

“You were doing a little horse trading of your own, weren’t you?” asked Reilly attorney Joseph M. Alioto.

“I was,” White said calmly.

The day after White’s testimony, Hearst issued a press release saying the company had “reaffirmed its policy that the content of news and editorial pages may not be negotiated or compromised in any way.”

And then came many pious denunciations from Hearst of White’s “horse-trading” with Willie and many solemn promises from Examiner and Chronicle editors that their news and editorial coverage wasn’t for sale. The ethics problem for Hearst was that, despite several news stories critical of Willie, the paper wound up two months after the lunch giving Willie a glowing endorsement for mayor with no reservations or discouraging words whatsoever. Willie had earned the endorsement by working with the ranking local and national Democrats to orchestrate the deal and knock out any official opposition. He even told Hearst that he had called then U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno and gotten assurances that the U.S. Justice Department would not intervene to stop the deal.

As we put it at the time: “The bottom line: it appears, based on all available evidence, that White was doing exactly what he had been sent out here to do–buy the Chron, shut down the Ex, and create a monopoly–and if he offered to trade positive coverage in the pages of the paper for the political clout it took to make that deal, that was just fine with the people at Hearst headquarters back in New York.”

However, we put some questions to Hearst and found that if such an ethics policy really existed at Hearst, nobody from Hearst could produce it, then or later, either at corporate in New York or at the Examiner in San Francisco. The Hearst spokesperson in New York told us that each Hearst publication had independent editorial policies and that we should contact the Examiner.

We contacted then Editor Phil Bronstein who told us the Examiner had an ethics policy, but that it covered reporters and editors, not publishers. “It certainly doesn’t cover situations like this,” he told us. He promised to fax over a copy but it never arrived. Again: Why don’t Hearst ethics policies apply to Willie and PG&E?

PG&E’s $200,000 payment to Willie Brown?

-
0

Is PG&E making payments to Willie Brown while he is writing a featured political column for the Chronicle/Hearst?

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Earlier today, I sent the following questions to Hearst Corporate in New York, which owns the San Francisco Chronicle. I sent copies to
its Chronicle management and staff. Read my blog below for context, details, and my take on the difference between a real progressive and a PG&E progressive. I’ll keep you posted.

“PG&E has disclosed a $200,000 payment to Willie Brown for
‘consulting services’ for 2007 in its annual report to the California Public Utilities Commission. Now that Willie is doing a featured top-of-the-page political column each Sunday in the Chronicle, I’m curious if he is doing a Chronicle column while still providing ‘consulting services’ for PG&E?

“If so, d oes Hearst have an ethics policy that covers this apparent conflict? Would it at minimum require disclosure of PG&E payments to Willie in this year and previous years and what was the nature of these ‘consulting services?’ I would appreciate a comment. Thanks very much. B3

Click here to read my blog, PG&E and a Rock Rapids, Iowa, liberal.

PG&E and a Rock Rapids, Iowa, liberal

-
2

By Bruce B. Brugmann

I confess. I am an old-fashioned Rock Rapids, Iowa, liberal. For starters, that means I grew up in a little town in northwestern Iowa that has had public power since 1896 and so i know personally that public power is cheap, reliable, and accountable.

In San Francisco, where PG&E private power is expensive, unreliable, and unaccountable, I was startled to find that I am suddenly an “ultra liberal,” along with a host of other progressives and independents who support the Clean Energy Initiative and public power.

Yes, according to PG&E and the San Francisco Chronicle, we are all suspicious characters and ought to be kept under watch for the duration for advocating such “ultra-liberal” things as clean energy, renewables, public power, mandates for making San Francisco a world leader in renewables, and kicking PG&E out of the mayor’s office and the DCCC.

As Tim Redmond points out in his Editors notes (8/20/08), the term first appeared in Heather Knight’s Aug. 15th article on the changes in the Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC), for decades the unassailable bastion of the Burton/ Brown machine. Her lead, he noted, was “almost breathtaking ” in its drama. She wrote that the party “has veered dramatically to the left,” and that it would be telling voters to vote for a raft of “ultra-liberal politicians supervisorial candidates” and, among other things, to “embrace public power.” (The Clean Energy Initiative, as it is appropriately known, mandates aggressive goals for renewables but PG&E gallops swiftly by this point and loves to say without evidence that the initiative is a $4 billion takeover of PG&E, which is yet another Big PG&E Lie.)

Meanwhile, the new Chronicle columnist Willie Brown, who ran endless errands for PG&E as mayor and as a private attorney on the public payroll, and collected a nifty $200,000 in “consulting services” in 2007 from PG&E, wrote without gulping:

“It was quite a week for local politics, with the certified takeover of the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee by outgoing Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin and Chris Daly…But what’s really going on here behind the headlines is a move by the ‘progressives’ to take over the central committee a la Tammany Hall or Richard Daley’s Chicago. The goal is to control the party money and endorsements–and that way be able to pick candidates for office as well.

“In other words the central committee will be Peskin’s shadow mayoralty, allowing Peskin to keep calling the shots even when he leaves office.”

Tammany Hall? Richard Daley’s Chicago? Why didn’t Wiillie just say what the facts are: that the Burton/Brown machine, and Mayor Newsom and PG&E et al, are no longer calling the shots on the DCCC and that a group of real progressives are cutting the umbilical cord to machine politics and calling the shots with real progressive issues and initiatives, such as the Clean Energy Act. Willie also couldn’t say of course that PG&E got much of its influence through his office as mayor and the Burton/Brown machine, which never put as much as a pebble in PG&E’s monopoly path. Thus, until now, the machine-dominated DCCC has been a safe haven for PG&E and even this time around the real progressives only won through a major organizing effort and tough battle.

Tim wrote that he thinks Newsom’s political operatives are mad that “the progressives have seized control of the term ‘progressives.’ which is in fact an accurate and historically valuable term. They’d like to call Newsom a progressive mayor, which is inaccurate and historically invalid. But since they can’t get away with that, they’ve pushed the Chronicle to use another term for people like Chris Daly and Aaron Peskin and the best the editors could come up with is ‘ultra liberal.'” The Chronicle, which appears to be once again revving up for PG&E, tosses a juicy T-bone to PG&E and its campaign theme that only the loony left would support such dread issues as clean energy and public power.

Maybe we have a new insight into the term progressive. A real progressive supports the Clean Energy Act and public power, while a phony Willie Brown/Gavin Newsom ‘progressive,’ in quotes, supports PG&E and opposes the Clean Energy Act. In short, there is a big difference between a real progressive and a PG&E ‘progressive.’

And me? I’m still just an old-fashioned Rock Rapids, Iowa, liberal.

More to come on this illuminating subject, B3

P.S. 1:Hearst ethics policy: If Hearst wants to present Willie Brown as a “legitimate” journalist and featured political columnist, making value judgments and ethical pronouncements on who is and is not a real progressive and whether the DCCC has been taken over by clean energy progressives playing Tammany Hall/Richard Daley machine politics, the Chronicle ought at minimum to require disclosure of his “consulting services” for PG&E and other private interests that would conflict his column? What specific “consulting services” did he provide for PG&E in 2007? What is he doing now for PG&E and for how much in the November election? Is he writing a political column for the Chronicle and working for PG&E at the same time? Is he advising PG&E on how to “steal” another election?
(I left a message for Willie at the Willie Brown Institute and I put out an email to Hearst corporate for comment on Willie’s PG&E/editorial role.)

It was Mayor Willie, as the public power campaign was winning in the 2001 public power election, who ordered that the ballots be moved from City Hall to the Civic Auditorium because of an anthrax scare. I remember standing with Angela Alioto about l0:30 p.m. on election night when then Elections Director Tammy Haygood, announced the anthrax move. “Angela,” I said, “we’ve lost the election.” She didn’t believe me and kept saying, “No, no, we couldn’t lose the election now.” Alas, I was right.

We raced over to the Auditorium where there was only minimal security. There was no evidence then or later of an anthrax scare. PG&E came from behind and won by a bare 500 votes. Several days later, several tops of the election boxes were found floating in the bay. There was no explanation from Willie nor his election director and no real investigation. The gallows humor was that the campaign should hire divers to go into the bay and find the missing ballots.

PG&E’s big payments: PG&E discloses the $200,000 payment to Willie Brown for “consulting services” in 2007 in its annual report to the California Public Utilities Commission. In a key section of this report (called page 257), PG&E is required to list every payment that it made to an outside company or consultant. This amounts to billions year.
PG&E has the entire annual report posted on its Investor Relations website, but, significantly, page 357 is missing.
PG&E’s statement explaining the omission says: “Details of this page are filed with the California Public Utilities Commission.” Reporter Amanda Witherell formally asked the CPUC press office for it and they said they’re “trying to track it down.” But she did get a copy.

The State of Sarah Palin

-
0

Click here to read Philip Gourevitch’s September 22 article from the New Yorker, The State of Sarah Palin: The peculiar political landscape of the Vice-Presidential hopeful.

Tell the House to veto the FCC

-
0

Big Media is big enough. Here’s how to cut it back a notch.

By Bruce B. Brugmann

(Big Media is big enough. This is yet another Big Media story you won’t see in the mainstream media: the ruling by the Federal Communications Commission to gut media ownership rules and the media reform moves to overturn it. You also won’t see the news of the overwhelming Senate “resolution of disapproval” (H.J. Res. 79) . And you won’t get the information on how to click in on how to join the media reform campaign and send your personal message to Rep. Nancy Pelosi and other congresspeople to support the “resolution of disapproval” and veto the FCC ruling. See below.)

In 2003, nearly 3 million people signed an online petition demanding that Congress stop the Federal Communications Commission from gutting media ownership rules. Those millions of actions added up and helped turn the tables on the FCC.

Now the FCC is at it again.

After hearing from a quarter million people, the Senate rejected Big Media’s plan to get even bigger.

Now we need you to click here and send a message to the U.S. House asking them to do the same thing.

This isn’t just another online petition. We’re connecting online and offline actions to make the most of every click. Soon we are going to hand-deliver these petitions to members of Congress in their home offices, so it is vital to add your name now.

Your click matters. It only takes a few seconds. Click here to make a difference today!

In solidarity,

Josh Stearns
Campaign Coordinator
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/
http://www.freepress.net/

Ken Garcia: Keep trafficking out of city

-
0

Click here to read Ken Garcia’s Friday Examiner article, Keep trafficking out of city.

Georgia: Media forces conflict into Cold War frame

-
0

By Bruce B. Brugmann

FAIR made a key point in its analysis of the conflict between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia (8/14/08).

The Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting media advocacy group wrote about the big corporate media coverage:

“A striking feature of the coverage was the ability of pundits who have enthusiastically advocated for U.S. invasions of sovereign countries, dismissing concerns that these would violate international law, to demand that Russia be punished for breaking the same law by violating Georgia sovereignty.

“These commentators seemed blissfully unaware of the contradiction, as when New York Times columnist William Kristol wrote (8/11/08) that ‘in Iraq, we and our Iraqui allies are on the verge of a strategic victory over the jihadists,’ citing this as evidence that 2008 was ‘an auspicious year for freedom and democracy,’ while two paragraphs later condemning the fact that ‘Russia has sent troops and tanks across an international border.’ Kristol even cited Georgia’s eager participation in the violation of Iraq’s sovereignty as a primary reason that ‘we owe Georgia a serious effort to defend its sovereignty.'”

FAIR noted that “alternatives to the official media narrative were difficult to find outside of independent and foreign media.” I particularly liked the linked Guardian piece (8/14/08) by Seumes Milne: “This is a tale of U.S. expansion, not Russian aggression. War in the Caucacus is as much the product of an American imperial drive as local conflict. It’s likely to be a taste of things to come.” B3

Click here to read FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) media advisory titled, Georgia/Russia Conflict Forced Into Cold War Frame.

The Nation: Blood in the Caucasus

-
0

The Nation‘s coverage on the crisis in Georgia in its Sept. 1 edition:

*Georgia’s Biggest Mistake? Taking John McCain Seriously
by John Nichols
Did Saakashvili misread senator’s March message about “the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia” and Black Sea “solidarity.”

*Blood in the Caucasus
by Katrina vanden Heuvel
As a wobbly cease-fire takes hold in Georgia, it’s time for the United States to dissolve its cold war military alliances and develop realistic new policies toward Russia.

*A Dispatch from Tblisi by Margarita Akhviediani
In Georgia’s Capital City, residents worry they may have put too much faith in the West to save them from Russian aggression.

Georgia: a neocon August surprise election ploy?

-
0

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Robert Scheer, the journalist who did one of the first major early critiques of the Vietnam War,
today weighed in on the Georgia war.

His lead paragraphs make his point: “Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election?

“Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government, ending his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser.” B3

Click here to read Scheer’s op-ed column in today’s Chronicle, Georgia war is a neocon election ploy. Scheer was most prescient on the Vietnam War. Is he as prescient on this one?

And now, the controller’s big lie

-
6

By Bruce B. Brugmann (Scroll down for links to our current editorial on PG&E shenanigans on the Clean Energy Act initiative and a similar l982 Guardian story on PG&E shenanigans on the public power initiative of that era)

To repeat: When PG&E spits, City Hall swims.

In September of l982, public power forces placed Proposition K on the ballot, an initiative that would authorize a city study of the feasibility of municipalizing PG&E’s electric distribution system in San Francisco.

The Guardian headlines told the emerging story of the standard PG&E response whenever its illegal monopoly in San Francisco is threatened.

Front page: “Uncovered! PG&E’s inside moves at City Hall to squash public power: To subvert Prop. K, the utility sets up a front group, circulates a secret poll and recruits Feinstein, Kopp, Molinari and the city controller and city attorney.” (Feinstein was the mayor and Kopp and Molilnari were powerful supervisors. This time around, PG&E won’t have that luxury of public officials falling over themselves to run their errands and they have been forced to scramble for political support as never before.)

The head on our inside story: “PG&E attempts a coup against public power in San Francisco, The controller puts a misleading, one-sided and apparently illegal $1.4 billion cost-estimate for Prop. K in the voters’ handbook–using PG&E’s numbers.” The story pointed out that the data submitted by the controller for the handbook was originally supplied by a PG&E attorney and a City Hall lobbyist for PG&E. And the controller never bothered to talk to the public power group nor do any independent investigation of his own. Why? The big PG&E Lie ran in the controller’s statement in the voters’ handbook and was a major factor in PG&E’s victory over the public power initiative. PG&E’s major campaign theme, then and now, is the relentlessly repeated argument, “too risky, too costly.”

Today, as our current editorial discloses, the situation is much the same in the controller’s office.
Controller Ben Rosenfeld wrote in an Aug. 7 letter to the Department of Elections for the voters’ handbook that the costs to the city of acquiring PG&E’s local distribution facilities are “likely to be in the billions of dollars.”
What’s his evidence for this astounding figure? The only evidence is a July 24 letter to the controller from David Rubin, PG&E’s director of service analysis, who argues that the company’s San Francisco system is worth $4.18 billion.

Once again, the controller took PG&E’s word without gulping. He didn’t check with the public power people. He didn’t check with the state Board of Equalization, which sets a much lower value on PG&E property (which PG&E doesn’t protest at tax time.) He didn’t do his own research. He misinterpreted the initiative (which provides for revenue bonds, which would be paid off through a dedicated income stream and thus would cost the city nothing.) And he didn’t discuss revenue (public power cities have cheaper power and lower rates than PG&E and they make gobs of money). In short, public power in San Francisco, with its own power source at the Hetch Hetchy dam, is the biggest potential source of new revenue for the city. Again, why didn’t the controller do normal due diligence and research on such a vitally important issue for a cash-strapped city? Why is the controller once again so slavishly buying the PG&E Lie and propaganda line? The public deserves an explanation.

Sups. Ross Mirkarimi and Aaron Peskin, authors of the measure, and the clean energy forces are working hard to get PG&E out of the controller’s proposed ballot information and get some honesty in. Our suggested language: “The costs of purchasing or building energy facilities would be substantial–but those costs would be covered entirely by the revenue from operating the facilities. The net cost for the city would, at worst, be minimal and the potential exists for the city to bring in significant new revenue to offset taxes and general fund expenses.”

Let’s kick PG&E out of the controller’s office. Let’s kick PG&E out of City Hall. B3

Click here to read this week’s editorial And now, the controller’s big lie.

Click here to read a similar Guardian story from Sept, 1982, outlining PG&E’s mode of attack on a public power initiative

Don’t let PG&E screw you!

-
2

An open letter to the small business community

I was astounded to see that once again some small business organizations, and leaders, are about to put an argument on the November ballot that retails without blushing the PG&E lies and propaganda line against the Clean Energy Act and does not represent the views of many of us in the small business community.

As you can see from my recent blog, the current Guardian editorial, and our stories and editorials since l969, PG&E screws our small businesses and residents in many ways: high rates ( much higher than public power cities), frequent blackouts, lousy service, unaccountability, and a propensity to cut off power or force small businesses to buy an expensive bond if they are late on payments. And there’s no way to effectively complain about PG&E’s terrible service, rates, and glacial moves toward renewable energy.

Most embarrassing of all, the ballot argument retails the big PG&E Lie: the erroneous whopper that the cost to the city of acquiring PG&E’s local distribution system would be $4 billion. For starters, the Clean Energy Act never mandates that the city buy PG&E’s aging facilities. The charter amendment sets aggressive goals for renewable energy and directs city officials to study the best way to achieve those goals.

Since public power agencies around the country are leading the way on renewables, and since PG&E has already said it can’t meet even the state’s weak clean energy mandates, the city ought to be looking at taking over the business of selling retail power to businesses and residents. But buying out PG&E’s old system might not be the best way.

More: even if San Francisco did buy out PG&E, there would be little or no cost to the city at all. The act would authorize the city to issue revenue bonds to buy electric power facilities. Unlike typical general obligation bonds, the revenue bonds would not be backed by taxpayers, and would be repaid by the money the city would make by selling retail electricity. Revenue bonds are paid off entirely through a dedicated revenue stream. So unless the city can prove in advance with a detailed study that buying out PG&E would bring in enough money to cover costs, there’s no way Wall Street would ever buy the bonds.

In short, there is no possible scenario under which the Act could cost money. The opposite is true: Public power cities all over the United States make money, including the public power system in my hometown of
Rock Rapids, Iowa, which has had a successful public power system since 1896. Many public power systems
make large amounts of money while keeping rates well below private power rates. And our figures show that San Francisco would net millions, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars, in revenue from buying out PG&E.
Moreover, PG&E each year yanks upwards of $650 million out of the city with its high rates, according to our study.

So why are some small business leaders once again buying PG&E’s Big Lies and once again trying to get small business groups and businesses to sign a ballot argument that undermines their own economic self interest? Would any of them run their own businesses this way? Small business people should steer clear of this embarrassing, self-immolating argument and either support the Clean Energy Initiative or stay neutral.

Most important, the business of PG&E Lies is academic. Because of the federal Raker Act giving San Francisco an unprecedented concession to dam a beautiful valley (Hetch Hetchy) in a beautiful national park (Yosemite), San Francisco is the only city in the U.S. mandated by federal law and a U.S. Supreme Court decision to have a public power system. And the longer the city is in violation of the Raker Act (because it does not have a public power system), the more vulnerable the city is to the tear-down-the-dam movement quietly orchestrated by PG&E and its allies. And that would be a costly catastrophe.

Meanwhile, the supervisors should hold hearings on the economics of this measure and demonstrate how lucrative public power is for cities–and how cheap for businesses and residents. They should also invite small business people to testify about their problems with PG&E. We’re posting charts at SFBG.com that show that in California and throughout the U.S., public power is less expensive than private power across the board. B3

P.S. We are doing a major story on how PG&E screws local small business on many levels. If you have specifics and examples with your business, or know of any, please let us know at the Guardian. On guard, B3, who watched today from my office window as the fumes curled up from the Potrero Hill power plant, courtesy of PG&E

*PAID BALLOT ARGUMENT LANGUAGE

Proposition ___ Will Hurt San Francisco Small Business Owners

The Board of Supervisor’s plan to takeover PG&E would force San Franciscans to pay an estimated $4 billion for the power system through a dramatic increase in monthly utility bills. If Proposition___ passes the City would lose the more than $20 million a year that PG&E pays in taxes and fees. That means our taxes would need to go up to pay for this lost revenue or basic services, like libraries, street cleaning, police and fire services. It will cost more to do business in San Francisco as small business owners and their families will face an additional $400 to $600 a year expense in utility bills.

Join San Francisco ‘s Small Business Community in Voting No on Proposition___

Olbermann

-
0

Click here to read MSNBC story: MSNBC shifts Matthews, Olbermann: White House correspondent Gregory to anchor network’s political coverage.

Click here to see the “RNC 9/11 Tribute” video along with Olbermann’s response to it from Fark.com.

Ammiano enters the Olympics

-
0

Today’s Ammianoliner:

Muni enters the Olympics with the cable car luge. (ooooooo)

(From the home telephone answering machine of Sup. Tom Ammiano on Friday, Aug. 8, 2008.)

Newsom: a hands free honeymoon

-
0

Today’s Ammianoliner:

Mayor brings cell phone on hands free honeymoon.

(From the home telephone answering machine of Sup.
Tom Ammiano, running unopposed for the state assembly, on Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2008.) B3

Did Obama play the “race card?”

-
0

By Bruce B. Brugmann

You really don’t have to be watching the presidential race that closely to understand the charge of the McCain campaign that Barack Obama, the first African American to have a serious chance to be president, “played the race card.”

It was and is nonsense. I liked the analysis by the media organization FAIR, a media advocacy organization. FAIR stands for Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. I’m glad to see FAIR quoted David Gergen on “This Week” as a “rare exception to the media’s uncritical coverage of McCain’s claims.” Gergen:

“There has been a very intentional effort to paint him a somebody outside the mainstream, other. He’s not one of us. It’s below the radar screen. I think the McCain campaign ahs been scrupulous about not directly saying it. But it’s the subtext of this campaign. Everybody knows it. There are certain kinds of signals. As a native of the South, I can tell you, when yoiu see this Charlton Heston ad, ‘The One,’ that’s code for “he’s uppity.” He ought to stay in his place.’ Everybody gets that who’s from a Southern background.”

Click here to read FAIR’s (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) article titled, Media Fall for ‘Race Card’ Spin: Outraged press ignores McCain’s ties to GOP race-baiting tradition.

Extra! Extra! Exposing PG&E’s Big Lies

-
0

By Bruce B. Brugmann

For connoisseurs of PG&E’s Big Lies in political campaigns, the company’s early massive carpet bombing against the Clean Energy Initiative is most revealing. They are panicked.

Most likely, PG&E will not attack the fundamental premise of the pioneering measure (after all, clean and renewable energy is in this year). But, as our editorial this week notes, PG&E’s theme is to try and scare voters into thinking that the Clean Energy Act is too risky and too expensive in these difficult times. (The last time out, PG&E just used the phrase “too risky, too costly.”)

And they use just plain Big Lies, repeated endlessly in mailers, ads, astroturf campaigns. The reason they often get away with the ads is that they spend millions of dollars to push them and the local media retails them allegro furioso and does little to correct them. and even, in the case of the San Francisco Chronicle, just leaves the initiative out of the news and has yet to do a decent story or insert the local clean initiative angle on their energy stories.
For example, take David Baker’s otherwise creditable front page story in the Saturday (Aug. 2) Chronicle, “”Utiliies To Miss Energy Deadline, PUC says providers are failing to harness 20% from sun, wind.”

Baker doesn’t says nothing about the initiative, which sets ambitious goals for renewable energy. He didn’t quote its sponsors (Sups. Ross Mirkarimi and Aaron Peskin). He didn’t talk to any of the campaign leaders (chair Julian Davis, the Sierra Club’s John Rizzo et al). He didn’t point out that other studies, including one for the California Energy Commission, gave higher marks to public utilities. Why did he ignore the hottest issue on the fall ballot that tied directly into his story? I put the question to him in an email. No answer.

The point: since the local mainstream media don’t correct PG&E’s Big Lies, we’ll do so on a regular basis. .
Let us know if you spot one we haven’t covered. On guard, B3

P.S. A Potrero Hill martini to Matthew S. Bajko, who corrected a PG&E whopper in the Bay Area Reporter blog.
He noted that PG&E got “glowing media coverage” for its $250,000 shareholder donation to the campaign to defeat Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage ban on the November ballot. The news, he said, was “just the latest in a string of pink steps the company hs taken this summer.”

However, he reported that the pro-gay moves “strike some San Francisco officials as suspect, as the company is locked in a fierce battle with state and local officials over two similar clean energy bills on the fall ballot.”
Some are questioning “PG&E’s altruism in the marriage fight” to shield it from the company’s “homophobic smear campaign” this spring against openly gay Assemblyman Mark Leno in his successful primary victory and that PG&E was behind the mayor’s ouster of Susan Leal as general manager of the PUC.

And he did what Chronicle reporters have not done: called the Clean Energy Campaign for comment. Spokesperson Julian Davis had a good one, “I think addition to greenwashing, PG&E is engaged in gay washing.”

1...181920...37Page 19 of 37

48hills.org is the official publication of the non-profit San Francisco Progressive Media Center.
Contact us: info@48hills.org