Public Comment

As the general election for Oakland mayor approaches, the San Francisco Chronicle is working hard to elect Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente and to defeat his chief rival, former Congressmember Ron Dellums.  

The Chronicle endorsed De La Fuente on April 30, nearly six weeks before the June 6 election. The paper argued that De La Fuente “had the best feel for the pulse of the city,” and better understood the limitations of government. 

In contrast, the Chronicle criticized Dellums for “pushing a utopian vision,” specifically his support for inclusionary housing and his commitment to “ bringing universal health care to his ‘model city.’” 

The Chronicle concluded that Dellums would be qualified to be a “college president, secretary of state, or Washington lobbyist” but that De La Fuente is the “type of fully engaged, roll-up-the sleeves, answer-your–calls, prod-the-bureaucracy, pitch-the-city” mayor that Oakland needs. 

Chronicle news stories that day and subsequently have been careful to mirror the identically (false) contrasts between De La Fuente and Dellums first announced by the paper’s editors. 

In Christopher Heredia’s April 30 story (“Oakland Mayor Rivals Each Woo Voters in Own Particular Ways”), the candidates’ strengths are contrasted between “Dellums’ ability to inspire a crowd” and “De La Fuente’s nuts-and-bolts municipal know-how.”  

The story then repeats the editorial’s view that Dellums is standoffish and utopian, saying “early on, Dellums recoiled at reporter’s questions, preferring to describe from podiums his vision of Oakland as a model city.” 

Here’s some other excerpts from the Chronicle’s “news” story: 

“While some have wondered whether Dellums really wants the job . . . there’s no doubt that De La Fuente wants to be mayor.” 

“That plays well with some voters who aren’t convinced that Dellums’ experience in Congress means he knows how to run a city.” 

“De La Fuente’s candor stands in contrast to Dellums . . .” 

Two weeks later, Chronicle columnists Matier & Ross joined the Dellums-bashing. Their May 1 column, “Brooks’ city funds helped spur Dellums run,” implied that Oakland taxpayer dollars had been illegally used to benefit the Dellums campaign. 

The truth is that Brooks funded a series of concerts in an Oakland Park, and at these public events members of the Oakland Black Caucus staffed a “Draft Ron Dellums” table. Brooks can be criticized for how she spends her office accounts, but Ron Dellums name has been injected into the story solely to taint his candidacy. 

Last week, the Chronicle and reporter Heredia further escalated their biased news coverage (“20 days left, mayor’s race still a close call, May 17”). The article again links Dellums to having a vision of a “model city,” and says that listeners “roar” when he speaks “because he often says what they want to hear.” 

While the Chronicle describes Dellums as pandering to crowds, it views De La Fuente’s follow-up to Dellums speech as “puny though heartfelt, underscoring his nuts-and–bolts style of governing.” The paper’s “objective” coverage then continues: “Whereas the former congressman offers sweeping visions of what could be, De La Fuente remains pragmatic and talks about what is.” 

If this is not bad enough, Heredia then uses the old trick of finding a seemingly objective authority figure to say what the reporter (and his Chronicle editors) want. In this case the Chronicle trots out little-known Cal State Sacramento government professor Michael Selmer, who uses his “expertise” to make the following unsubstantiated comments: “Dellums to some degree expected to be anointed without a fight. I suspect he is somewhat surprised that it hasn’t occurred that way . . . His (Dellums’) campaign is showing some cracks. Dellums has shown he lacks municipal government experience, but it’s clear De La Fuente and Nadel know how to get things done and have offered detailed plans for doing so . . . He (Dellums) has a belief that a lot of the issues in Oakland can be solved with more money, and he has no idea where that money is going to come from.” 

I tried to ask Michael Selmer what the basis was for his strong anti-Dellums conclusions, but he was unavailable at his campus number. Reporter Heredia told me via e-mail that he used Selmer as an expert on Oakland politics because he was a “poli sci professor who lives in Alameda and is watching the race.” 

And it’s just a coincidence that the professor chosen as the Chronicle’s political expert on the Oakland mayor’s race views Ron Dellums with the same hostility as the paper’s editorial Board.  

Right. 

It’s time the San Francisco Chronicle to stopped manipulating the news to elect its favored candidates.