Never try to sabotage a story when the facts can come back to haunt you. B3

Hearst, MediaNews talks included possible sale of Chronicle

SFBG ONLINE: Barons of monopoly

SFBG ONLINE: Plus: how the media blew a media story

SFBG ONLINE: News: The media blows a media story

Bruce B. Brugmann

Well, to its credit, the Associated Press did put out a Feb. l correction to its story of Jan. 24, which reported wrongly that the Guardian and the Media Alliance had "failed to convince" a federal judge to open the sealed documents in the Reilly vs. Hearst antitrust and media consolidation case. The story made it appear that Hearst and the Media News Group/Singleton won and the Guardian lost the motion and the records would stay sealed. The story appeared in the Contra Costa Times and San Jose Mercury News (both Media News Group/Singleton papers).

The problem with the correction: it only compounded the original mistake and kept the point of it all neatly obscured. I couldn't understand it, as the blogger on the story. G. W. Schulz couldn't understand it, as the reporter on the story. And Executive Editor Tim Redmond couldn't understand it, as the writer of the editorial on the issue. So how could anybody else ever understand what happened. Here is the AP correction:

"SAN FRANCISCO--in a Jan.24 story, the Associated Press said a federal judge had denied requests from Media Alliance and the San Francisco Bay Guardian for access to documents from a deal between the San Francisco Chronicle and the owner of about a dozen Bay Area daily newspapers. The story should have noted that Denver-based MediaNews Group Inc. and the Hearst Corporation, the Chronicle's publisher, had earlier voluntarily
released some records that had been filed under seal."

"Had earlier voluntarily released some records?" The publishers refused our request to release the documents and only released a large portion of them under legal duresss after we filed our lawsuit. "Some records?" We got 90 per cent of the sealed records, including such key documents as a Sept. 26 deposition taken by the U.S. Department of Justice from James Asher, Hearst's chief legal officer and business development officer, that showed that Hearst and Singleton had discussed mutual investments and collaboration for years. We also got the right to stay in the case as an intervenor so that we are in a legal position to challenge any further sealing of documents for the duration of the case.

It was a clear and decisive victory in an important sunshine in the federal courts case, but you couldn't tell it from the original story or from the "correction."

Note to Dean Singleton, incoming chairman of the board of directors of the Associated Press. Spread the word down through the ranks. In stories involving you and other AP member publishers sealing records in federal court and seeking corporate favors, it's best for AP to take special pains to do fair straightforward stories of what is actually going on. And if you are asked to do a correction or give the non-monopoly side a fair shake, do a correction that is a real correction and explains what actually went on in context. It would also be helpful to provide links to the original story and to the actual documents so people can check for themselves. B3

AP: Clarification: Hearst-MediaNews story

By Bruce B. Brugmann

And so it comes to pass that Dean Singleton, already weighted down with 56 daily newspapers and l20 non-dailies in l3 states, including a virtual monopoly of the Bay Area daily market, is buying the Santa Cruz Sentinel.
The story in the San Jose Mercury News/Singleton paper is a snapshot of how things stand in California journalism.The announcement came from out of state (Singleton himself from his Denver headquarters). The paper was bought in a quick shuffle aimed at giving Singleton an even tighter lock on the Bay Area market: Ottaway of New York, a subsidiary of Dow Jones, sells to another New York-based firm (Community Newspaper Holdings Inc) two months ago. And then CNHI sells to Singleton and Singleton says without blushing in a house press release, "We are delighted to accquire the Santa Cruz Sentinel and expand our reach in this very competitive region. The Sentinel is a fine newspaper today but it will be strengthened by the resources of our existing papers." Chop, chop, whack, whack.

Technically, the Sentinel will be acquired by a Singleton-controlled entity called the California Newspaper Partnership, with the Gannett chain headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, and Stephens Media, out of Las Vegas and Little Rock, Arkansas, as the remaining partners. Meanwhile, as the newly unsealed federal court documents show, Singleton out of Denver and Hearst out of New York have been collaborating on several levels and Hearst is now a major investor with Singleton and helping finance his acquisitions.

This is Singleton's modus operandi: he doesn't compete, he clusters and collaborates. I once asked him, back when the old Hearst Examiner was up for sale, why he didn't come to town and buy it. "Dean," I said, "come to San Francisco and compete with the Chronicle and we'll make a real man out of you." Nope, he replied in five words, "Too much energy, no profit." And that was that. In short, Singleton and his "competitors" are now partners and there will be no real daily newspaper competition in the Bay area. Why is the only major impediment to this monopoly mess Clint Reilly and his attorneys Joe Alioto and Dan Shulman? Where is the outrage?

Repeating: where is the U.S. Attorney General and the California Attorney General as the monopoly noose of ever more conservative newspapers tightens on one of the world's most liberal and civilized areas?
Not a peep from former AG Bill Lockyer, who lived under the thumb of Singleton in Hayward with the Hayward Review, and not a peep from current AG Jerrry Brown, who lives under the Singleton thumb in Oakland with the
Tribune and an East Bay monopoly now stretching all the way south to Santa Cruz and Monterey and north to Vallejo. Thank God there are three lively alternative newspapers in the area: the Santa Cruz Good Times and the Santa Cruz Metro and the Monterey County Weekly in nearby Seaside. There's now even more for them to do. B3

The Mercury News: MN owner acquires Santa Cruz newspaper

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Well, there it was in the Chuck Squatriglia story in the Feb. 7 Chronicle: the mystery story with the mystery headline: "Hetch Hetchy line in Bush's budget blasted."

The lead continued the mystery story with a mystery lead: "A single line deep within President Bush's $2.9 trillion federal budget has renewed the debate over draining the Hetch Hetchy Valley and returning it to its natural state."

The second paragraph added some mysterious detail to the mystery: "The president set aside $7 million within the National Park Service budget to 'support Hetch Hetchy restoration studies' that would explore the environmental and recreational benefits of draining a reservoir that provides water for 2.4 million Bay Area residents."

In the second to last paragraph in the story was yet another mysterious paragraph that added to the mystery: "No one at the Department of Interior or within the Park Service or the Office of Management and Budget, which compiles the president's budget proposal, could say who included the Hetch Hetchy item in the spending plan or why."

Gosh, golly, gee: How in the world did a line asking for funds to restore Hetch Hetchy Valley get into the federal budget of one of the most anti-environment presidents of all time? The Chronicle and everyone else who covered the story without gulping, including the Sacramento Bee/McClatchy papers and their self-immolating tear-it-down-and-damn-the-consequences position. could not come up with the answer. Nobody even seemed to try or disclosed who they called or what anybody told them or indicated how hard the papers tried to tackle this tough Washington story with a big local angle. Nor did the papers call anybody from the public power forces to see if they had a clue or a comment.

Well, we have a clue. Bush is no sudden born again environmentalist and he doesn't really give a damn about opening up a dammed up valley in a national park. "But," as our Wednesday editorial states, "he's a hell of a privatizer, and supports almost anything that shifts public resources into the hands of profit-making companies. And blasting the city's water and hydropower dam into dust would be a huge favor to one of the nation's largest private power companies--and a huge blow to public-power efforts in San Francisco."

The federal Raker Act that allowed San Francisco to dam Hetch Hetchy Valley for water also mandated that the dam generate electricity, and that the cheap power be sold to the residents and businesses of the city as a public alternative to PG&E's private monopoly. Thus, PG&E would be the biggest beneficiary of any restoration project.

Once again, I am curious why the restore Hetch Hetchy forces are so adamant on restoring Hetch Hetchy, but seemingly not as interested in other major environmental issues. Why do they not put at least comparable energy into saving and taking back the Presidio? Or properly funding the other major longtime maintenance problems at Yosemite? Or helping stop the moves to privatize the national park system and other public assets? Or moving to stop and/or criticize and confront the many moves of the Bush administration to turn back the clock on the environment and environmental protections?

All of these issues, let me emphasize, are not important to PG&E and its allies except to help PG&E's astroturf green campaign to stop the inroads of public power and enforcement of the Raker Act to bring our own Hetch Hetchy public power to our own people in San Francisco. Repeating for emphasis: PG&E would be the major beneficiary of any restoration project. Anybody have any other suggestions or ideas? B3

Professional note to Hearst corporate in New York via Chronicle/Hearst publisher Frank Vega and Editor Phil Bronstein: Isn't it about time, after all these decades of abject Hearst obeisance to PG&E, to allow your reporters and editors in San Francisco to tell the truth and do the real story about the PG&E/Raker Act scandal. (See Guardian stories and editorials going back to the pioneering story of Professor Joe Neilands in the l969 Guardian). B3, who is for restoring Hetch Hetchy Valley only after public power and real environmental reform come to San Francisco under the public power mandates of the Raker Act and a U.S.Supreme Court decision, much more to come, stay alert

P.S. Ever wonder why the Washington press corp and the mainstream media couldn't figure out what Bush was up to with his propaganda march into Iraq? And why they now are having so much trouble with those anonymous military sources who are now beating the tom toms about Iran influence in Iraq? Go back and read this story again and follow our coverage on what we consider to be the biggest scandal in U.S. history involving a city. The PG@E/Raker Act scandal is also, let me emphasize, one of the most censored stories in U.S. history. Details to come.

Idle question: do you suppose those "competitive" Dean Singleton papers down the Peninsula, in the East Bay, in Marin, all over the place, will pick up on the mystery and figure it out?

SFBG ONLINE: Bush's big favor to PG&E

Modesto Bee-Hetch Hetchy Editorials

Compiled by Paula Connelly

Bush asked congress to approve $622 billion for defense spending, most for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a $2.9 trillion budget request for 2008, according to Reuters.
Source: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nL05586874&imageid=top-news-view-2007-02-05-151653-RTR1M0R9_Comp%5B1%5D.jpg&cap=A%20copy%20of%20U.S.%20President%20George%20W.%20Bush's%20budget%20sits%20on%20a%20table%20in%20the%20office%20of%20the%20House%20Committee%20on%20the%20Budget%20in%20Washington%20February%205,%202007.%20Committee%20members%20had%20used%20the%20scissors%20to%20open%20the%20packages%20of%20the%20new%20budget.%20REUTERS/Jonathan%20Ernst%20%20%20(UNITED%20STATES)&from=business

Here is a running total of the cost of the Iraq War to the U.S. taxpayer, provided by the National Priorities Project located in Northampton, Massachusetts. The number is based on Congressional appropriations. Niko Matsakis of Boston, MA and Elias Vlanton of Takoma Park, MD originally created the count in 2003 on costofwar.com. After maintaining it on their own for the first year, they gave it to the National Priorities Project to contribute to their ongoing educational efforts.

To bring the cost of the war home, please note that California has already lost $46 billion and San Francisco has lost $1 billion to the Bush war and his mistakes. In San Francisco alone, the funds used for the war in Iraq could have hired 21,264 additional public school teachers for one year, we could have built 11,048 additional housing units or we could have provided 59,482 students four-year scholarships at public universities. For a further breakdown of the cost of the war to your community, see the NPP website aptly titled "turning data into action."

Compiled by Paula Connelly

Casualties in Iraq

U.S. military:

U.S. military helicopters are being targeted by insurgents, according to the New York Times.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/world/middleeast/12copters.html

The U.S. military said most recent of the seven helicopters shot down since January 20th was brought down by a sophisticated piece of weaponry, according to Reuters.

Source: http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-02-14T171356Z_01_COL447628_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-USA-HELICOPTER-COL.XML

The Department of Defense confirmed the name of the following U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, according to the New York Times.
Belser, Donnie R. Jr., 28, Capt., Army; Anniston, Ala.; First Infantry Division.
Camacho, Leeroy A., 28, Specialist, Army; Saipan, Mariana Islands; First Cavalry Division.
Clevenger, Ross A., 21, Specialist, Army; Givens Hot Springs, Idaho; 321st Engineer Battalion.
Harris, Jennifer J., 28, Capt., Marines; Swampscott, Mass.; Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 364, Marine Aircraft Group 39, Third Marine Aircraft Wing.
HoltomJames J., 22, Sgt., Army; Rexburg, Idaho; 321st Engineer Battalion.
Kurtz, Russell A., 22, Sgt., Army; Bethel Park, Pa.; 25th Infantry Division.
Landaker, Jared M., 25, First Lt., Marines; Big Bear City, Calif.; Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 364, Marine Aircraft Group 39, Third Marine Aircraft Wing.
Pathenos, Matthew P., 21, Lance Cpl., Marines; Ballwin, Mo.; Fourth Marine Division.
Pfister, Travis D., 27, Sgt., Marines; Richland, Wash.; Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 364, Marine Aircraft Group 39, Third Marine Aircraft Wing.
Regan, James J., 26, Sgt., Army; Manhasset, N.Y.; Third Battalion, 75th Rangers.
Ross, Eric, 26, Staff Sgt., Army; Kenduskeag, Me.; First Cavalry Division.
Saba, Thomas E., 30, Cpl., Marines; Toms River, N.J.; Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 262, Marine Aircraft Group 36, First Marine Aircraft Wing.
Shaw, Alan W., 31, Staff Sgt., Army; Little Rock, Ark.; First Cavalry Division.
Thrasher Robert B., 23, Sgt., Army; Folsom, Calif.; First Cavalry Division.
Tijerna, James R., 26, Sgt., Marines; Beasley, Tex.; Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 364, Marine Aircraft Group 39, Third Marine Aircraft Wing.
Werner, Raymond M., 21, Pvt., Army; Boise, Idaho; 321st Engineer Battalion.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/us/13list.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

3,349: Killed since the U.S. invasion of Iraq 3/20/03

Source: http://www.icasualties.org/

For the Department of Defense statistics go to: http://www.defenselink.mil/

For a more detailed list of U.S. Military killed in the War in Iraq go to:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/2007.01.html

Iraqi civilians:

98,000: Killed since 3/03

Source: www.thelancet.com

56,122 – 61,840: Killed since 1/03

For a week by week assessment of significant incidents and trends in Iraqi civilian casualties, go to A Week in Iraq by Lily Hamourtziadou. She is a member of the Iraq Body Count project, which maintains and updates the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq.

Source: http://www.iraqbodycount.net

A Week in Iraq: Week ending 11 February 2007:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/weekiniraq/30/

For first hand accounts of the grave situation in Iraq, visit some of these blogs:
www.ejectiraqikkk.blogspot.com
www.healingiraq.blogspot.com
www.afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com

Antiestablishmentarianism attitudes among Iraqi religious groups is fueling intolerance and violence towards homosexuals in Iraq, according to the UN.

Source: http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories07/february/0202071.htm

Iraq Military:

30,000: Killed since 2003

Source:http://www.infoshout.com

Journalists:

151: Killed since 3/03

Source: http://www.infoshout.com/

Refugees:

The Bush administration plans to increase quota of Iraqi refugees allowed into the U.S. from 500 to 7,000 next year in response to the growing refugee crisis, according to the Guardian Unlimited.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2013034,00.html

Border policies are tightening because one million Iraqi refugees have already fled to Jordan and another one million to Syria. Iraqi refugees who manage to make it out of Iraq still can’t work, have difficulty attending school and are not eligible for health care. Many still need to return to Iraq to escape poverty, according to BBC news.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6293807.stm

1.6 million: Iraqis displaced internally

1.8 million: Iraqis displaced to neighboring states

Many refugees were displaced prior to 2003, but an increasing number are fleeing now, according to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ estimates.

Source: http://www.unhcr.org/iraq.html

U.S. Military Wounded:

47,657: Wounded since 3/19/03 to 1/6/07

Source: http://www.icasualties.org/

By Bruce B. Brugmann

As attentive Bruce blog readers recall, I raised the issue in previous blogs why the New York Times and its sister paper in Santa Rosa (the Press Democrat) has for 30 years refused to run the local Project Censored story from the local Sonoma State University.

I pointed out that the issue was particularly timely because on Sept. l0, 2003, while the Times and the PD and affiliated papers were running the disgraced Judith Miller's stories making the case for the Iraq War and then seeking to justify it, the Guardian published the annual Project Censored list of censored, or underreporterd stories in the mainstream press. I further pointed out that our front page had a caricature of Bush, standing astride the globe holding a U.S. flag with a dollar sign, and a headline that read, "The neocon plan for global domination--and nine other big stories the mainstream press refused to cover in 2002."

And I noted that our introduction to the timely censored package made the critical point: "If there's one influence that has shaped world-wide politics over the past year, it's the extent to which the Bush administration has exploited the events of Sept. ll, 200l, to solidify its military and economic control of the world at the expense of democracy, true justice, and the environment. But President George W. Bush hasn't simply been responding to world events. The agenda the administration has followed fits perfectly with a clearly defined plan that's been place for a decade."

I noted that the neocon story, and the many other such stories that Project Censored put out during the war years and again this year, laying out the dark side of the Bush administration and the drumbeat to war in Iraq, got no play in the Times or the nearby PD and very little play in the rest of the mainstream media that helped Bush march us into war--and now is keeping us there.

Not once, in all of the past three decades, has the Times nor the PD run the Project Censored story nor explained why. And they refused to respond to my repeated questions on this point.

That was the backdrop for the Feb. l0 Times lead story, :"Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says."
I was astounded when I read the story because it made the most serious and incendiary charges without once naming a source by name. Fair, the media group for fair and accuracy in reporting, said in a Feb. l6 report that
"In the wake of its disastrous pre-war reporting on Iraq, the New York Times implemented new rules governing its use of unnamed sources. Its lead story on Feb. l0, promoting Bush administration charges against Iran, violated those rules."

Fair said that reporter Michael Gordon cited a "one-sided array of anonymous sources charging the Iranian government with providing a particularly deadly variety of roadside bomb to Shia militias in Iraq: 'The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran.'" Fair goes on, and even quotes Editor & Publisher, a trade magazine, as saying that Gordon "aimed to quiet the skeptics, cited only the following sources: 'American officials'...'one military official'...military officials'...'American officials'...American military officicials.,'"

FAir also made the critical point about the similarity between current times reporting hyping the Iran threat and the paper's "credulous" prewar Iran reporting are not coincidental. Gordon, Fair pointed out, was the co-author, along with Miller, of two of six stories singled oiut in the paper's May 26 2004 apology for faulty Iraq reporting, including the Times story that falsely touted the now-famous "aluminum tubes" as components of an Iraqi nuclar weapons program.

The critical questions: why in the hell, after all that has gone down on Iraq and Times reporting, has the Times violated its own rules on anonymous sources without explanation and without apology?
I have often wondered through the years how Guardian could be right on Vietnam and right on Iraq, without any hotshot sources or intelligence reports, and the New York Times and other mainstream media were so wrong for so long and are still wrong (we can't pull out now, chaos will occur, Iran is the problem, etc.) Every time I read stories like these, I know why.

For starters, if I were responsible for Times coverage, I would tell my reporters to refuse to attend a "press conference" or "press briefing" mandating anonymity. Instead, I would tell them to stay away and to interview the reporters and principals later and do a full story with full identification and make the critical Project Censored type points. Or do a Fair type critique after the fact. So what if you miss yet another self-immolating Iraq weapons story. If I ran an alternative paper in Washington, D.C., I would cover all those anonymous briefings and press conferences by not going and then reporting on who did go, who wrote what, what it added up to, and then put it in the context of non-embedded and non -mission accomplished reporting. I would concentrate on the stories the Times/PD and other mainstream press censored.

Fair's concluding point: In his original February l0 report, Gordon wrote, "'Administration officials said they recognized that intelligence failures related to prewar American claims about Iraq's weapons arsenal could make critics skeptical about the American claims. While 'critics' are surely skeptical, shouldn't reporters for the New York Times, given their recent record on similar matters, be even more so?"

Further questions: shouldn't the Times/PD, given its wartime record, publish the Project Censored story and its prescient group of stories that happened to be largely on target year after year? Shouldn't the Times/PD explain to the Censored director and to the Guardian why it refuses to do so? Repeating: neither the project directors (founder Carl Jensen, current director Peter Phillips) have ever been given a reason and I cannot get one either.

Fair recommends action: contact Times public editor Byron Calame and urge him to look into why the paper's rules about anonymity are not applied to Michael Gordon--especially considering how Gordon's pre-Iraq War reporting embarrassed the Times. And: from the Guardian and me: ask Calame, as I have in vain, why the Times/PD won't run Project Censored and won't say why?

New York Times: Byron Calame, public editor, public@nytimes.com, phone: (2l2) 556-7652. Good luck, let me know what happens. B3

Bruce B3: The Santa Rosa Press Democrat/New York Times "censors" the annual Project Censored story.

Bruce B3: The Santa Rosa Press Democrat/New York Times: still no answers on why…

Bruce B3: The new media offensive for the Iraq War. Why the Santa Rosa Press Democrat/New York Times…