Baker fails to tell readers that the issue at hand is one of supply/demand, and that liberal policies are largely responsible for the imbalance that causes the high oil and gasoline prices.  It’s much easier, if you are a Chron writer, to join in the liberal chorus loudly blaming anything “corporate” for our problems. 

       But, Baker is not through with his bash-Chevron effort.  Baker also plays P.R. rep for any activist group that comes down the pike.  For example, he dutifully writes an item, “Killing alleged at Chevron’s Burma pipeline.”  The article is based on a report by EarthRights International.  Baker’s writing is typical of the Chronicle’s corruption of the profession of journalism.  He cannot add any facts of his own.  He simply quotes the activist report which, of course, Chevron denies.  As a result, the Baker article gives the reader no basis for deciding if there is merit in the report or not.  But, what passes for Chron journalism these days does not demand such clarification.  If the report is from an activist group and if it is anti-corporate, that’s good enough for the Chron editors.  The editors seem totally satisfied with leaving the reader with the impression that Chevron is a bad, bad corporation, very bad in fact.  Chevron’s recent Annual Meeting gives Baker another chance to toss grenades into Chevron’s San Ramon headquarters.  He writes:

But even as Chevron’s fortunes soar, the company faces fierce criticism at home and abroad over fuel prices, environmental issues and alleged human rights abuses.  And many of those critics plan to be at Chevron’s front gate this morning, greeting the shareholders with a protest.

Indeed, several groups battling Chevron in different corners of the world have joined forces to present a united front at the shareholders meeting.  Disparate groups that have criticized the company’s actions in Richmond, Burma, Ecuador and Nigeria held a joint press conference in San Francisco Tuesday to argue that the oil giant, America’s second largest, has fundamental problems in the way it deals with the environment and human rights.

       Again, Baker plays P.R. rep for the activists without adding any new information to the issue.   He seems content to be sure you know that Chevron is reportedly “just as bad” as he told you earlier.  Chevron denies the charges, of course.  “Any truth to all this” the reader asks?  You won’t get the answer from Baker’s reporting.  But, he does work hard to plant the seed of a thought in the reader’s mind, “Chevron must be evil.”