Yesterday's front-page story in the SF Chronicle on the California budget crisis was shocking, dishonest and disgraceful. The piece described Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as a "steely-eyed, sword-wielding strongman" - who will "hold his ground" against Democrats in the state legislature. Never mind the Terminator has driven the state to bankruptcy - after six years of tax cuts for the rich, fiscal gymnastics and borrowing schemes. Never mind that Schwarzenegger lied about a voter mandate in the May 19th election - and says he won't support a "single tax increase whatsoever." Never mind that by vetoing last week's budget stop-gap measure, Arnold forfeited $2 billion that the state can no longer use - and our government now has to pay with I.O.U.'s. Never mind the Governor told the New York Times that despite the state's disastrous plight, he will sit down in his Jacuzzi and "lay back with a stogie." The Bay Area's paper of record would rather portray him as a "tough guy."
Yesterday's Chronicle portrayed San Francisco as an elitist island of the fringe left - out of touch with mainstream American values. Reporter Carla Marinucci used the recent commotion over Barack Obama's "bitter" comment at a local fundraiser to explain how the right uses San Francisco to hurt Democrats. Even as polls out of Pennsylvania show the race unchanged despite Hillary Clinton desperately pushing this issue, the Chronicle couldn't help perpetuating the stereotype that we are the "land of fruits and nuts." Marinucci did not quote any San Franciscans for her article - except for disgraced Newsom aide and Clinton supporter Peter Ragone, who repeated the line that only conservative places like the Central Valley matter in California politics. Does the New York Times politically marginalize its hometown, because that is exactly what the Chronicle did.
I hate to admit this, but I get the "dead trees" version of the San Francisco Chronicle. I know, not very eco-friendly, or really bloggy-centric, but what can I do. On occasion, I like to read something on a piece of paper. Don't worry, I'm sure the paper-based Chronicle has an expiration date in the fairly near future. But, while the questions of the Chronicle's form are being answered, there are other questions about just how the Chronicle is reporting on the presidential campaigns yet to complain about.
For example, take the "Today on the Campaign Trail" highlights a national poll on the Democratic primay, and a poll on the Ohio primary. First of all, why does it matter what the people of, say, California or Iowa, think of the Democratic nomination race. It's cute, but not all that relevant to the fight for the nomination. We keep getting berated about what each poll means, but we actually learn nothing of real substance. And, it turns out that John Diaz, of the Chron's editorial board, thinks all the horserace coverage kinda sucks too, over the flip:
In San Diego, the questions levied at Edwards during his press availability after what I would argue was the speech of the convention were pathetic. Hedgefunds and haircuts was all they could seem to talk about. And the SF Chronicle's Carla Marinucci wasn't much better. This was her idea of a probing question:
"So you are saying that YOU are the best positioned candidate to compete all over the country!?"
Edwards's rightfully dismissive response:
If I didn't would I be running for president?
Since then the media's obsession with Edwards's wealth (as though it somehow undercuts his credibility on the subject of poverty) has only escalated and now Marinucci is doing her darnedest to cement this intellectually dishonest media narrative with a story titled: Recent headlines threaten Edwards's main campaign theme.
UPDATE: Oops, forgot to point out the Controller Debate here. John Chiang "won" by being better on the issues, IMHO. The debate was quite civil, pleasant even. My kind of debate.
