And now Matt Smith and the SF Weekly/New Times/Village Voice Media claim the progressives were soft on AIDS. Where in the world do they get this stuff?
By Bruce B. Brugmann
I always read Matt Smith, the star columnist of the SF Weekly/New Times/Village Voice Media, with interest. But he often puzzles me. For example, in his column of May 30, he was banging away at his favorite target, those dread progressives, ("Lacking (Progressive) Definition, Lefty factions and a phony convention do not an effective political party make"). And he dropped this puzzling nugget:
"For more than a generation (liberals have been) opposing growth, while snubbing traditional liberal causes such as uplifting gays or African-Americans.
"When San Franciscans, for example, were dying en masse from AIDS during the l980s, progressives' minds were more preoccupied with opposing 'Manhattanization,' the term they coined for new office buildings. Today, when African-Americans in the Bayview District are losing their sons, nephews, friends, and neighbors to drug-related
street violence, progressives' official political pamphlet is concerned primarily with enacting a moratorium on construction of market-rate apartments."
The truth, as anyone who was here and had friends and loved ones dying of AIDS knows, the progressives in San Francisco put together a world-renowned system for caring for people with AIDS and pressing for prevention and research funding. The 'San Francisco Model' did not come from Washington or Sacramento or Dianne Feinstein. The progressives, led by people like Harry Britt and Cleve Jones and leaders of the Harvey Milk Democratic Club etc., did it themselves. Progressives did, indeed, oppose Manhattanization (and fight for rent control and police oversight and a lot of other good causes) in that era, but AIDS was very much a centerpiece of the progressive agenda.
More: it also puzzles me that Matt doesn't get the obvious: that the proposed march of expensive high end market rate housing into the Bayview and Hunters Point districts would, without proper planning and real affordable housing (which the Guardian and progressives support), drive out many African-Americans and low income folks just as it did years ago in the Western Addition. Let the market decide, Matt argues in good neoconese and Bushese. The Bay View neighborhood paper and the Guardian have laid out the facts and arguments on this doomed argument in detail.
And so Matt and the Weekly leave me once again with some puzzling questions: Where in the world do they get this stuff? Why do they so dislike progressives and progressive ideas? Why does Matt seem to so dislike living in San Francisco? B3
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (1)
SF WEEKLY'S MATT SMITH CAUGHT LYING IN 2007 JOURNALISM SCANDAL - PAID REPORTER OR PAID HITMAN?
Matt Smith, lead hitman-reporter for a weekly, free, alternative tabloid owned by news conglomerate, Media News has been reported for scandalous journalism. Smith recently wrote a hit-hate piece on an Examiner blogger that was full of inaccurate facts, out of context remarks, false quotes, slander, scandalous accusations, lack of fact checking and lies. What was his motive? Jealousy? Hate? Malice? Envy of the blogger's popularity? Was he actually trying to eliminate the competition to his rag and himself? Or did he make innocent mistakes – and is only incompetent?
Smith has been accused and found guilty in the past by the MSM of false reporting. In a serious journalism scandal in 2007- that of false and inaccurate news reporting - either on purpose or by a lack of fact checking. So even though Matt Smith is paid and edited, he apparently can publish lies, false facts and misquotes on the SF Weekly - and get away with it - WITH PAY. SF Weekly reporter, Smith, is guilty of a journalism scandal. He was caught and outed for unfair and inaccurate reporting of news – by making substantial reporting and researching errors with the results leading to libelous or defamatory statements. Perhaps Matt Smith’s media scandal was a deliberate attempt to promote himself or a means to further a political goal, or benefit his career. His paper did not deny the allegations – thereby proving his guilt.
According to Wikipedia, Journalism scandals are high-profile incidents or acts, whether intentional or accidental, that run contrary to the generally accepted ethics and standards of journalism, or otherwise violate the 'ideal' mission of journalism: to report news events and issues accurately and fairly.
SF Newspaper, Beyond Chron reported on Smith’s journalistic reporting and research errors … Read complete article @ http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5069
“It is no secret that the SF Weekly’s Matt Smith has trouble getting his facts straight …”
Smith apparently saw a total lobbying amount of $4.8 million on the Clinic’s most recent 990 form and ignored the fact that this was the maximum amount the group was authorized to spend. There is a line item just below that number that asks for the “Total lobbying expenditures.” Had Smith read more carefully, he would have noted that this amount totaled $728.00. In other words, Smith’s total – adopted and quoted without question by a sitting SF Supervisor – was wrong by over $4 million.
Smith’s error may be based more on malice than ineptitude - there is another line that asks about “Grassroots lobbying expenditures.” That amount also totaled $728.00. Smith ignored the title of the key section, which reads "Lobbying ceiling amount." To most people, "ceiling" meets the top amount that can be spent, not the actual expenditure.”
Posted by Reader | December 11, 2007 10:45 AM