The timing could not have been more exquisite, coming during the week of Guardian's annual Censored Project package, including our annual local Censored story on how Hearst censors the PG&E/CityHall/Raker Act scandal out of its PG&E stories and out of the paper. (See our Censored package.)

Nowhere in this lead story does Hearst mention the main point of any rate increase story: that San Francisco is the only city in the United States of American that is required by federal law to have public power, thanks to the Raker Act of l9l3 that allowed the city to dam a beautiful valley (Hetch Hetchy) in a national park (Yosemite) for the city's water and power supply. The city got cheap public water, but it never was able to transmit cheap clean Hetch Hetchy public power to its residents and businesses as federal law mandates. The reason: PG&E's political muscle in City Hall and PG&E's ability to change Hearst's position from a key supporter of Hetch Hetchy back in the l920s to a craven pro-PG&E position which Hearst has kept intact up to this latest PG&E censored story last Saturday.
The Guardian and the Bruce blog have laid out the smelly deal whereby Hearst got much needed capital from a PG&E-controlled bank, on condition he change his position to support PG&E for the duration.

And so the Baker story was another in a long line of PG&E censored stories. No mention of the PG&E/CityHall/Raker Act scandal, the biggest urban scandal in the U.S. And no mention of the fundamental issue: PG&E has an illegal private power monopoly peddling ever more expensive power and the answer is for the city to enforce the Raker Act and bring our own Hetch Hetchy to our own people in San Francisco. No mention of the local public power movement to kick PG&E out of City Hall (and of course bring down PG&E rates through cheaper public power and local accountability.) No mention of the two public power initiatives to do just that. No attempt to contact for comment any of the elected leaders of the public power campaigns (Sups. Mirkarimi, Ammiano, Daly, McGoldrick or former Sup. and Mayoral candidate Gonzalez et al). No attempt to contact any of the other leaders of the public power movement. No mention of the community choice aggregation bill making its way through City Hall (which would take some power from PG&E and lower rates).

Perhaps the most telling point of misdirection came with the front page box "Want to comment" box that suggested only that people call PG&E' service line (B3: you must be kidding, right?) and a reference on how to get instructions to complain to the California Public Utilities Commission (you must be kidding again: the CPUC, a PG&E lapdog, just gave PG&E the regulatory go-ahead and brought us PG&E-sponsored deregulation, remember?)

Instead of sending readers on a ludicrous wild goose chase, I urge the real solutio. Keep the pressure on our elected officials in San Francisco: to enforce the Raker Act, move ahead on public power, to push ahead on cca, soloar power, and other renewables, expose PG&E's greenwashing campaign, put pressure on all of those PG&E recruits to flak for and provide cover for its greenwashing campaign.

To cite but one specific example: since the small business community is once again getting screwed by PG@E, it ought to join the public power campaign. (Scott Hauge, where are you and Small Business California?) At minimum the community ought to insure there is a PG@E ombudsman component to the small business assistance proposal on the fall ballot. And it ought to demand that the city and the Small Business Commission study the impact of PG&E rates and practices on small business and residents. To sum up in three words, keep the pressure on. And keep the pressure on Hearst and the local media that pitches in so handily to back PG&E and censor its coverage on behalf of PG&E.

P.S. The question always remains: Did the reporter censor his own story? Did his editor? Did Hearst corporate? I always side with the reporter and editor on Hearst's corporate line, but the question remains: Does anybody over there ever say out loud, why does Hearst corporate continue to force us embarrass ourselves and our paper with this kind of institutional censorship? Wouldn't Hearst reporters and editors like to be given permission to tear into this story and start telling the truth about this historic scandal? The silence for decades at Hearst corporate in New York and at Hearst San Francisco has now made this scandal the most censored story in San Francisco history. (See Guardian stories and editorials going back to l969 for the full context and background of this story.)

B3, who right now sees from my desk the fumes of the ruinous Mirant Power plant at the bottom of Potrero Hill, poisoning the city on a 24 hour basis, seven days a week, courtesy of PG&E and Hearst censorship