Do you remember the good ole days when newspapers told us “what was going on” with equal emphasis on opposing points of view?  You can be sure you are getting long in the tooth if you can remember when “news” reporting was kept separate from editorial opinions? And, believe it or not there was a time when journalists strived desperately to determine if there was “another side to the story” that wasn’t being reported.  All of the above are examples of days long gone for the San Francisco Chronicle.

A sad side effect is that liberal advocacy kills the healthy practice of continuous inquiry that was so typical of journalism of old.  Nowadays, the objective under the Chron’s advocacy policy is simple: promote the various liberal causes.  As a result, Chron writers do not seek counter arguments or the “other side of the story.” To them, it seems unnecessary since it is outside the advocacy mold.    

Here are a few recent examples from the Chronicle.

The Chron discovers people who do not approve of gay marriage

Do you remember the story about the recently discovered tribe in Brazil who had never encountered people outside their tribe?  It was a “wow, can you believe this” piece of journalism.  In that same vein Chron reporter, Cecilia Vega, ventured from the liberal confines of San Francisco to search for someone who disagreed with the concept of gay marriage.  She found a pocket of such thinking in Orland, in the central valley of California. Cecilia found a group of people who are totally disconnected from her San Francisco world. She reported on her findings as she would had the Orland locals been the tribe in Brazil.  In apparent disbelief she tells of person after person in Orland who disagreed with gay marriage. Cecilia notes that Orland “is only a three hour drive from San Francisco, but politically is as far away as Middle America.”  Cecelia’s message to her liberal readers: Beware of travel outside San Francisco. You just might find those whose mindset is different from the average leather-fetish attendee at the Folsum Street Fair.

It never occurred to Cecelia that the people in Orland, and Middle America for that matter, wish to keep as much distance as possible from the San Francisco liberal thought process. It also never occurred to her that there are a lot of people in the Bay Area who agree with the good citizens of Orland.  Only in the City of S.F., and in the newsroom of the S.F. Chronicle, is there an overwhelming majority who agree with the gay agenda.  

Cheerleading for Michelle Obama

Chron writer, Joe Garofoli, does it again!  He finds a new item to further the liberal cause. In a recent article Joe produces a Michelle Obama praise-piece. His article, "Getting to know Michelle Obama", dutifully recalls all the “misleading” attacks on Barack’s wife.  Clearly, Michelle has Joe’s sympathy.  He proudly notes that the Obama campaign has opened a new website Fightthesmears.com “dedicated to debunking rumors about the couple before they become stories in the mainstream media.”  Joe is the poster boy for the Chron’s liberal advocacy approach.

And the editors weigh in on global warming

There is no better example of the effects of advocacy journalism on investigative reporting than the issue of global warming.  Day after day we are deluged with hype posing as truth that promotes the threat to the planet from carbon dioxide.  The hype is always supported by the statement that the issue is one of “settled science.”  We are told over and over that the consequences are so horrendous that the potential cost of the proposed solutions is irrelevant.  According to these purveyors of the carbon risk we must do whatever it takes to preserve our world from disaster.

A recent S.F. Chronicle editorial puts it this way:

“But, time is not on our side with this issue.  Each year we wait will increase the damage to the planet and compound the complexity and cost of future efforts to slow climate change.”

There you have the liberal global warming pitch in a nutshell.  The Chron editors buy into the hype hook, line, and sinker.  Without quantifiable proof, the editors are willing to buy into the thought that our society needs serious, and punishing, correction. The issue is presented as a scientific consensus by the Chron and other media sources.  If one values proof over hype, however, it smells more like a liberal political consensus rather than a scientific one. 

The lack of proof backing up the carbon hypothesis and the proposed cure is alarming. Many scientists say here are a number of other causes that could cause global warming. There are many scientists who say it is a natural cyclical problem, if the phenomenon exists at all. Many other scientists note the difficulty of projecting future climate with computer models.  Many other scientists complain that any scientist who disagrees with the going scenario is cut off from research funding.  In summary, there is enough grist here for an old style journalist to go on a quest to determine who is right and who is wrong on such an important issue.  However, with the Chronicle’s advocacy journalism no such effort occurs.  Promoting the going liberal puffery becomes today’s objective, not the search for truth that prevailed in times of old.