Good propaganda ain't cheap. Sorry, no rebates for errors.

|
(27)
Pravda-style propaganda dominates Shaw's "political analysis" in recent years.

UPDATED AND CORRECTED BELOW It wasn’t surprising to read Randy Shaw’s misleading praise of Mayor Ed Lee for appointing Rodrigo Santos to the City College board. Much of Shaw’s salary comes from the city contracts that his Tenderloin Housing Clinic administers, so he has turned his Beyond Chron mouthpiece into the equivalent of Pravda in touting the party line of Lee and his supervisorial apparatchiks.

For that blind loyalty, Shaw has been handsomely rewarded. On July 31, the Board of Supervisors even approved a Lee-proposed balloon payout of $91 million to THC for its contract administering the Mayfair Hotel that was retroactive all the way back to 2009. Can anyone imagine another nonprofit that could dig so deeply into city coffers, for work that has supposedly already been done, who wasn't giving a little something back to these ambitious politicians who sponsored it?

But apparently Shaw – who used to have some progressive credibility before so blatantly selling the movement out a couple years ago – doesn't need to even get the facts right in his propaganda posts. When I asked him at yesterday's Lee/Santos press conference whether and why he supported Santos – a villain in most progressive circles – he argued Santos was needed to help win support for Prop. A, the parcel tax for City College.

Shaw said the measure needed a two-thirds vote to be approved, a claim he also made in today's piece. That didn't sound right to me, and the Elections Department confirms that it isn't: Prop. A needs only a simple majority to pass. [[8/23 UPDATE AND CORRECTION: Ernestine at the Department of Elections told me yesterday Prop. A needed only a simple majority, but she called back today to say she was mistaken and that it does indeed require a two-thirds vote.]] Shaw also claimed a couple weeks ago that the Board of Supervisors would delay the Mirkarimi decision until after the election, which also wasn't true: the Charter requires the board to act within 30 days of receiving the Ethics Commission recommendations.

I sent Shaw a message asking about whether his erroneous beliefs affected his analysis, and to explain the basis for THC's $91 million kickback, and he hasn't responded to the questions, as usual. But when you're a poverty pimp feeding off of political patronage, you're probably golden as long as you get the politician praise right. Cha-ching!

 

Comments

"Beyond Chron" is basically "Baby Chron."

Let's put that poverty pimp out of business.

Posted by Orlando Chavez Jr. on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 12:31 pm

Considering The Guardian has opposed any attempt to get groups like the Tenderloin Housing Clinic to quantify the services they offer to city residents.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 12:40 pm

When did we do that? Actually, we'd like to see performance audits of nonprofit contracts, and we've caught hell in the past for proposing that nonprofits be covered by the Sunshine Ordinance, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Posted by steven on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 1:53 pm

"so I'm not sure what you're talking about."

Neither is Lucretia Snapples, a.k.a Troll II. She's loca and not worth anyone's time.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 3:56 pm

Which is why you keep endorsing candidates who are opposed to any hint of performance measurements for Non Profit Inc. If you really cared you'd make it a non-negotiable - you don't really.

Fact is The Guardian has now been burned by one of those Non Profits so its changing its tune - that doesn't mean anyone has forgotten the chorus you all have been singing for the past 40 years.

Like support for public power make this a non-negotiable when handing out endorsements. That'd go a long way towards showing good faith.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 4:27 pm

All employees of nonprofits, starting with the political nonprofits, which get funding from San Francisco who don't live in San Francisco should be fired immediately and replaced with unemployed San Franciscans who live in the communities these nonprofits are supposed to serve.

I warned about this more than a decade ago and have been more than proven right.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 12:52 pm
wow

just when I thought Tim's Hunter Thompson post was the douchiest thing I've read all week, along comes Steven and his poverty pimp quote. kudos to you, Steven.

and the audacity to call someone a propagandist after your ridiculously one-sided "reporting" of the Mirkarimi scandal for the past few months? stunning is too weak of a word. where's my thesaurus??

Posted by Guest on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 1:08 pm

For many years I really enjoyed reading beyondchron and many of Randy's other books. However recently they have become an extension of the mayor's press office.

Last year beyond chron wondered where the progressives were in the mayor's race, citing concerns that Santos was celebrating the new 'fiscally conservative Supervisors.'

In 2010 they called CRG a 'front-group used by San Francisco’s downtown and real estate interests for their all-out mail assaults on progressive supervisor candidates'

In 2008 they said 'The group’s Republican president—Rodrigo Santos—has written about the need to bring “moderate voices to the Board of Supervisors.'

In 2008, Randy said that Coalition for Responsible Growth was using the 'McCain-Palin strategy of relying on lies' and that their tactics were 'insulting' and that their behavior was 'appalling.'

I caught Santos on election day breaking the law, coming out of Ahsha Safai's office and sent this photo to the guardian: http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2008/11/04/yes-8-people-backing-safai

Now somehow Randy seems to think that Santos is a 'politically savvy activist whose ability to get things done made him attractive to a Mayor with similar qualities.' For a guy who was once a progressive activist who advocated for a fear and loathing approach to politicians, its disappointing to see this major flip-flop as he becomes a yes man for everything ed lee is doing, even when it goes against his recent beliefs.

Posted by Nate Miller on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 1:37 pm

The THC is reminiscent of AIPAC in that they take US taxpayer dollars and recycle those US taxpayer dollars into propaganda in order to secure more US taxpayer dollars.

We need conditions where recipients of City dollars cannot run media operations that provide cover for those who provide them City dollars.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

THC has a multi million dollar budget and houses many people in the tenderloin and other parts of the city. The cost of running beyond chron is really a minimal one. I disagree with the direction that they have gone in the past couple of years. With that said, it makes sense that people who are providing services and doing organizing in their communities do advocacy work for their clients, for their survival and for systemic policy change.

Posted by Nate Miller on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 2:48 pm

it's 15,000 dollars a year they spend on Beyondchron , see page 22 of the 2011 federal tax form 990

http://www.bluoz.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1536-Bay-Guardian-does-ano...

for what is essentially a blog that could be run for 5 dollars a month, like mine. that means people are getting paid to write. How are they getting paid?..With city funds. not exactly, see how they get around that illegal part

http://www.bluoz.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1425-How-the-THCs-BeyondCh...

you expected something else from attorneys?

Posted by auweia on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 6:08 pm

one correction. the first link with the 990 tax form should have been this one

http://www.bluoz.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1350-Tenderloin-Housing-Cl...

Posted by auweia on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 2:20 pm

It does not matter what it costs to run the blog. Agencies receiving city money should not run media operations that spew propaganda that ensure that they continue to get funded.

This is what happens when poverty and social services nonprofits leverage their relatively excessive resources try to take the place of grassroots organizing by folks who actually live here.

The corruptability of nonprofits and of labor, see Prop C, makes them incompatible with any popular or progressive coalition given the relative power imbalace of these multimillion dollar operations and whatever average folks can scrape together to organize and the price point that those with direct claims on public resources always have. They always sell us out, that is the point of this article, it is the same with the nonprofits and Eastern Neighborhoods. We're talking consequential shit here and we're hard wired to lose.

They've got our number, and they're turning the screws. using our tax dollars against us.

As far as I'm concerned, not one more cent in new revenues to this corrupt extraction operation. For every dollar you'd raise, 80c will go to the 1%. With the new appointee to the CCB that restores the old corrupt order, I'm damn sure not going to support a parcel tax that throws good money after bad.

Progressives made accommodation with corruption, that cost them legitimacy, now corruption is administering the coup d'grace to progressives and consolidating transformation of the public sector into private property.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 6:31 pm

It is a violation of federal law for a 501 (c) 3 tax-exempt organization such as the THC to engage in political activities. The City's contracts with the THC don't prohibt political activity unless City funds are used. This ridiculous loophole in contracts generated by the City Attorney's Office needs to be closed but I don't see Herrera taking that on any time soon.

Posted by roflynn on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 10:54 am

It is illegal for a 501c3 to endorse or do work for a candidate. I am pretty sure that it isn't illegal for them to take positions on ballot measures and it is certainly not illegal for the to speak about things that are political.

Posted by Nate Miller on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 12:32 pm

There is lengthy IRS guidance regarding public statements such as those frequently made in BeyondChron.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

As an individual, Shaw has a right to express an opinion. In BeyondChron however, for which "tax-deductible" donations are solicited under the umbrella of the THC (a 501 (c) (3) organization), his statements are subject to Federal law requirements of a 501 (c) (3), which include prohibition on political activites. BeyondChron is the sole LLC of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and is "published by the Tenderloin Housing Clinic. The activities of BeyondChron are therefore subject to the political restrictions for 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt non-for-profits.

This is a matter for the Federal government as the City will not take any action, especially when key players such as Lee and Herrera appear to have been the beneficiaries of the THC's prohibited political activities.

Posted by roflynn on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 1:04 pm

Nate, it does not need to be illegal for it to be unethical for someone who receives public dollars to turn around and try to influence public policy in order to get more public dollars. This practice needs to be stopped. If you want a contract with the City, then like City employees, there needs to be a set of incompatible activities in which you cannot engage if you expect to retain your contract.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 6:15 pm

I find it amusing that even the Chronicle noted that the Left doesn't like or trust the formerly Republican Santos while the formerly progressive Shaw offers only unqualified praise. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Poll-finds-most-in-S-F-want-sherif...

Posted by steven on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 3:39 pm

Between Tim and Steven, Steven is the more outspoken and seems to be getting more so, and I like that. There are too many stale, stagnant, mush-mouthed, timid people around afraid to tell it like it is because "I might hurt so and so's feelings" (well fuck them, they will get over it) writing articles. Thanks for the article. It was informative.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 4:03 pm

I'm not sure whether I'm getting more outspoken or bad guys more brazen, but I share your desire for more unapologetic truth-tellers in the local media.

Posted by steven on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 4:20 pm

You're welcome.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 5:04 pm

The increasingly brazen nature of the corrupt highlights the ethically compromised nonprofiteers, even Steven and Tim are starting to notice.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 7:04 pm

Looks like Lord Acton's timeless maxim continues to serve.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 7:38 pm

I think we learned that taxpayer dollars and corrupt conservative majorities on the CCB do not mix, oppose the parcel tax.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 5:30 am

Another Jew Hater from the left is allowed to post unapolagetically.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 10:38 am

Jew Hater? Not so! I hate fundamentalist Jews, Moslems, Christians and Mormons who wear funny religious clothes or seek to establish a theocracy equally, even more when they do it with my money and in my undeniably Hebraic name.

I can't wait to see the new Muni ad campaign that attempts to deride San Francisco for being anti semitic as it criticizes the "savages" bus campaign. That should be fun to watch.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 10:56 am