Comedy is funnier when it hits you in the gut. That’s what made a famous skit by Lily Tomlin about the phone company’s abuse of customers so memorable, one tag line being “We are omnipotent.”

AT&T is still at it. As columnist James Temple writes in the San Francisco Chronicle Friday:

In August 2006, the California Public Utilities Commission voted unanimously to allow AT&T and other companies that provided local telephone service to raise prices at will.

Then-Commissioner Rachelle Chong, a Republican, credited as the driving force behind the deregulation plan, argued that growing competition from Internet phone service and cell phones would keep prices low.

“By the end of the 2010, these rate caps will no longer be necessary,” Chong said when the new rules were being phased in. “The market will be so competitive it will discipline prices.””Price discipline?” That should have ’em rolling in the aisles. Temple goes on to report that AT&T’s flat-rate plan for local calls is up 118 percent and services such as call waiting up nearly 180% since 2006. U.S. median household income is down 8.1% since 2007.

Tomlin’s original crack about omnipotence wasn’t much exaggerated. AT&T’s stranglehold on the California Legislature and the state Public Utilities Commission is near-legendary.

Chong, the AT&T cheerleader on the commission, took  a luxurious junket to Tokyo, funded and run by the telecom industry. Other commissioners and legislators went as well, as reported by Consumer Watchdog, without an ethical qualm.

Also on that 2007 Tokyo trip was the state Assembly’s Utilities and Commerce committee chair Lloyd Levine, who co-authored 2006 legislation sponsored by AT&T and Verizon in 2006 that allowed the telecom companies to to get into the cable and video business with one unregulated statewide franchise, while eliminating local control and consumer protection of all cable services.


Consumer Watchdog fought the legislation, predicting that prices would rise, not fall, customer service would degrade, companies would cherry-pick the richest markets for their much-touted new services and local public-access TV, previously funded by the cable companies, would disappear.

The other co-sponsor of the cable deregulation was then-Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez, who received the language of the proposed bill directly from a corporate/right-wing think tank called the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, described thusly by SourceWatch:

ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC’s operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy’s ALECexposed.org

After the cable deregulation passed, AT&T partner Verizon took out full-page ads to thank Nunez personally. Nunez kept on benefiting from telecom donations and sponsorships, even as our predictions about price, service and public access came true.

AT&T is also the sponsor of the legislative Democrats’ chief yearly fund-raising event, the Pebble Beach Speakers Cup, and was a major donor to former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Every penny of that lavish spending has gone to legislation and deregulation that boost AT&T’s bottom line at the expense of consumers. And neither the 2013 Legislature nor the governor’s office seems moved to undo the wreckage of AT&T’s deregulatory spree.

No wonder we’re not laughing.

_______________________________________________________________

Posted by Judy Dugan, former research director for Consumer Watchdog, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to providing an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government and politics. Visit us on Facebook and Twitter.

The New York Times is struggling. They had a war with the Boston Globe’s reporters and are hemorrhaging cash.  They have no really innovative new revenue model to boost their finances either.  However, they think they might be on to something: San Francisco!

Yes, both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are planning “San Francisco editions.”

Both The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times are planning to introduce San Francisco Bay Area editions, hoping to win new readers and advertisers there by offering more local news, in what could be the first glimpse at a new strategy by national newspapers to capitalize on the contraction of regional papers.

*** *** ***

The Journal expects to start its San Francisco edition in November or December, adding a page or two of general-interest news from California, probably once a week, produced by the large staff it already has in the Bay Area. This is different from previous efforts by The Journal to publish regional editions, which had focused on local business news. The paper, based in New York, is also looking into creating a New York edition, with emphasis on adding coverage of the arts, but that plan is not as fully developed. (NY Times 9/4/09)

San Francisco, and the Bay Area in general, have a relatively transient population. In SF in particular, you have a much higher percentage of people from outside the area with less loyalty to the local paper. I suppose this was somewhat inevitable.

So, who is looking forward to the re-creation of the New York newspaper rivalries on the West Coast? At this point all local coverage can’t be dismissed as it is so sorely lacking now. However, I’m not sure that having the national papers parachute in is really the best solution. A page or two a week isn’t really enough to address the myriad of crises (and the occasional good news) that we are dealing with out here.  And if these editions push the Chronicle and the other papers here further towards the grave, it is likely the net result of this coverage will be less local reportage.

The newspaper industry doesn’t really need more consolidation or more vulturing of each other’s business. It needs a connection with the community that will restore trust in local media establishments.

Less than 48 hours after “King of Mean” Garry South was left calling the shots in the Gavin Newsom campaign for Governor, the SF Chronicle had a front-page piece attacking Jerry Brown.  Apparently, Brown fundraising for his favorite charities carries all sorts of “conflict-of-interest” allegations that voters should be mindful about in next year’s election.  But this wasn’t the first time reporter Carla Marinucci went on the attack to help Garry South’s clients.  In the last gubernatorial race, Marinucci used her perch at the Chronicle to repeatedly go after rival Phil Angelides – who was locked in a nasty primary fight against South client Steve Westly.  On March 16, 2006, Marinucci wrote a story on Angelides that strangely resembled yesterday’s piece on Brown – attacking the state Treasurer for raising corporate donations to a non-profit.  South burned bridges in that race with his scorched-earth campaign against Angelides (and bad-mouthing the nominee after the primary was over), and it seems like he’s back to his old tricks.  But feeding stories to the Chronicle sounds like part of his modus operandi.

The 2006 Democratic primary fight between Steve Westly and Phil Angelides can best be described as a “murder-suicide pact” that accomplished nothing except re-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger.  But while Angelides spent his time criticizing Westly’s positions (he attacked him for being “too close” to the Governor), Westly ran a smear campaign on Angelides that involved his connection with developers, a Lake Tahoe dredging project and a history of corporate fundraising.  It was classic Garry South tactics: throw a ton of money behind attack ads that tear down your rival, leaving everyone bloodied in the end.

And right there to rev up the engines under the guise of media “objectivity” was Carla Marinucci.  Her front-page Chronicle story on May 31, 2006 – one week before the election – focused on Angelides’ ties with real estate developer Angelo Tsakopoulos, repeating the Westly campaign’s discredited charge about connections with illegal dumping in Lake Tahoe.  Marinucci wrote numerous op-eds masquerading as “news analysis” during the race that made Angelides look bad, such as her May 1st piece that said he faced an “uphill climb” at winning the nomination, right after getting the Democratic Party’s endorsement.

Garry South didn’t stop his attacks on Angelides after his candidate lost the primary, and neither did the Chronicle’s Marinucci.  Barely two days after the nomination fight was over, she had another front-page “news analysis” that said Angelides would have to sell his platform to a “reluctant electorate.”  It was in that article where she quoted South as saying: “it would be hard to single out [Angelides’] biggest liability because he’s a walking Achilles heel … Arnold and his Karl Rove-trained wrecking crew will tear the guy apart, atom by atom.”  That piece set the tone for the rest of the campaign season, and Angelides went on to lose badly to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Yesterday’s attack on Jerry Brown was odd, because it’s not unusual for high-profile career politicians like Brown to fundraise for various charities – with donations coming from corporations.  Gavin Newsom does the same – such as the party he threw in Denver at the Democratic National Convention, which was sponsored by AT&T and PG&E.  But the implication of Marinucci’s article was clear – corporations will influence Jerry Brown by giving money to his favorite charities (where there are no donation limits), rather than contributing directly to his campaign.

But what makes this interesting is that Marinucci made almost the same accusation about Phil Angelides, back in 2006.  In a story published on March 16 as he faced Garry South’s candidate, Marinucci dredged up an 17-year-old story about Angelides raising wads of cash from corporate donors to the California Legislative Forum.  Just like her latest attack on Brown, Marinucci alleged the state Treasurer had found an end-run around campaign contribution limits to help rich donors influence elected officials.

At the time, my colleague Randy Shaw panned the story as a “classic example” of political propaganda.  “Arnold [Schwarzenegger] has raised millions from special interests while serving as California’s Governor,” he wrote.  “Angelides did his fundraising as a private citizen … There’s quite a difference between a Governor raising money from the special interests whose operations he oversees, and a private fundraiser who has no authority or influence over potential donors.”

Garry South ran Steve Westly’s campaign against Phil Angelides, and with Eric Jaye’s exit is now the chief strategist in Gavin Newsom’s campaign against Jerry Brown.  One can expect a seasoned campaign operative to push a partisan story against an opponent, although few do it as brazenly as South.  If the stories against Angelides and Brown had come directly from South, everyone would know the messenger had his own agenda.

But when the top political reporter of a major newspaper takes such attacks and puts them on the front page as “news,” it creates a serious problem with the public trust.  Marinucci appears to have recycled the same line of attack against Brown she used for Angelides, which calls into question whether Garry South is feeding her these stories.  It also sheds light on the Newsom campaign’s new strategy, and the direction South is taking it.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

From today’s Beyond Chron.

In the final stretch of this election, Proposition 8 is dangerously close in the polls-after months of it being safely behind.  With massive out-of-state funding, including $8.4 million from the Mormon Church, the “Yes on 8” campaign has scared many swing voters into falsely believing that marriage equality will intrude on their religion and indoctrinate their children.  And while the San Francisco Chronicle took a formal position against it, the paper’s news coverage-which has a far greater impact than its editorial endorsements-has actively pushed a meme that helps Prop 8’s message.  Over the last two weeks, the paper has treated a first-grade teacher’s wedding as front-page news, repeated the line that Gavin Newsom is a liability and that San Francisco is “so different” from the rest of the state, and fomented divisions within liberal constituencies that give wavering voters an “out” in supporting Prop 8.  With the stakes in this election higher than virtually any other race, the Chronicle should not think that merely opposing Prop 8 can absolve them of responsibility should it pass on November 4th.

When the state Supreme Court ruled that all couples have the right to marry, I boldly predicted that Prop 8 would fail.  Once swing voters started seeing their friends, neighbors and relatives get married, I reasoned, attitudes would evolve and the measure would go down-as it has changed opinions in Massachusetts.  The “No on 8” campaign’s basic message is that regardless of how one may feel about same-sex marriage, no group should be singled out of a basic right-a position that swing voters can respect and relate to.

The “Yes on 8” campaign knew they could only win if they changed the subject, so with heavy financial backing from the Mormon Church have flooded the airwaves with blatant lies and scare tactics like “churches could lose their tax-exempt status” and “children in public schools will be taught gay marriage-even if parents object.”  Now some swing voters who say they have “no problem” with gay people are afraid that marriage equality will “indoctrinate” their children and interfere with religious practices.  And once voters are afraid and don’t trust you, it’s a lot harder to make them listen to facts that refute it.

So why did the San Francisco Chronicle make its front-page story on October 11th about a first-grade class attending their lesbian teacher’s wedding?  Going to see your teacher get married is nothing new, and certainly not front-page material.  When I was in second grade, a (straight) teacher at my school got married.  Not only did her students attend the wedding-they even sang at the wedding.  I don’t fault the school for bringing the first grade kids to the lesbian wedding-which, by the way, had the blessing of each child’s parents.  But putting it on the front page of the Chronicle gave the “Yes on 8” campaign what they needed: a visual that gays are “indoctrinating” young children.

According to Jill Tucker, who wrote the Chronicle story, the parents who organized the trip actively sought media coverage-and the paper decided on its own that it was “news” enough to deserve front-page treatment.  But the Chronicle didn’t have to accept their solicitation.  If this was 2004, when San Francisco conducted same-sex weddings in defiance of state law, it probably would have been newsworthy-despite resulting in the same right-wing backlash.  But now that gay and lesbian weddings are sanctioned by the Supreme Court, a wedding is really not noteworthy.  Prop 8 opponents can point out the kids had their parents’ consent to attend, but the damage was done to scare swing voters.

One might excuse the Chronicle for a temporary lapse in judgment.  But its coverage of Prop 8 over the past two weeks has consistently framed San Francisco Values as freakishly out-of-touch with the rest of California-just like they did before on other issues.

An October 14th story described Mayor Gavin Newsom as “everyone’s worst nightmare” because the “Yes on 8” side used his Supreme Court victory speech in one of their ads-as if now we should never applaud a court decision.  John Diaz even lectured Newsom that what draws cheers in San Francisco won’t “play well in Redlands or Redding”-as if those two Republican cities are more representative of California than San Francisco.  No Democratic statewide candidate, by the way, ever does well in Redding or Redlands-so don’t be surprise when Newsom fares poorly in those parts for his gubernatorial bid.

Newsom himself only reinforced the Chronicle’s meme by keeping a low profile during the Prop 8 campaign.  He did speak at the “No on 8” campaign office kick-off in the Castro, but (half-jokingly) described San Francisco as “forty-seven square miles surrounded by reality.”  So according to our own Mayor, San Francisco isn’t the “real” America?  As far as I’m concerned, that sounds too much like how Republicans are talking these days.

On October 22nd, the Chronicle had another front-page story about Prop 8.  Pursuing a narrative that only gives cover to swing voters for voting against marriage equality, John Wildermuth quoted a 29-year-old student who said she had gay friends-but argued she could “still love these persons and be for Prop 8.”

Why is that dangerous?  Because supporters of Prop 8 claim their measure is not about hate-but rather about preventing one group from “imposing” their lifestyle on the rest of us.  Swing voters like to think of themselves as tolerant (but they’re uncomfortable with anyone indoctrinating them), and such a line gives them the perfect “out” to say they can vote for Prop 8 without being bigots.  Wildermuth, however, never used his article to ask an obvious question: how can you “love” gay people while taking away their rights?

But that wasn’t even the worse Chronicle article that day.  A companion piece about each side in the Prop 8 fight targeting African-Americans only further legitimized the fearful aspects of that community.  The piece pictured a black woman wearing an Obama shirt and holding a “Yes on 8” sign-without mentioning the irony that Barack Obama strongly opposes Prop 8.  If the Chronicle asked her about that, her answer didn’t make it in the article.

The piece also uncritically quoted a black minister, who explained his position in favor of Prop 8 by saying: “you didn’t see very many blacks getting married in San Francisco.”  The Chronicle could have pointed out that (a) San Francisco has a relatively small black population, (b) gay couples can now get married anywhere in the state, and (c) there are about 7,400 African-American gay couples living in California.  As Harrison Chastang has written, the black community today is less riled up to oppose same-sex marriage than four years ago.

Under the auspices of “journalism,” the Chronicle painted a picture that implies black voters-who will be voting in droves for Barack Obama-will help pass Prop 8.  Never mind that this coverage only brings out the worst aspects of fear and ignorance, at a time when black marriage equality supporters are working hard to educate their community about this critical issue.

Proposition 8 isn’t your run-of-the-mill electoral fight where armchair pundits can reduce the coverage to “who’s up” and “who’s down” like they do for candidate campaigns.  The stakes are much higher here because it’s a constitutional amendment-and one that will have a far more lasting effect on the lives of ordinary people.  Politically, passing Prop 8 passage could be a disaster for marriage equality supporters-turning back the clock on this civil rights movement for many years.  That’s why the Chronicle needs to be very sensitive on how they analyze the issue, without fueling lies and misconceptions.

The Chronicle may have taken a formal “no” position on Prop 8-as have virtually every major newspaper in California.  But its news coverage will have a much greater effect on the outcome than the paper’s oft-ignored editorials.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Outside of work hours and on his own time, Paul Hogarth has phonebanked for “No on 8” at their campaign office in the Castro-and urges Beyond Chron readers to do the same.

A poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for Democracy Corps, surveying us folks in the 18-29 age group, show that 50-60% of us believe the Democrats are better on any given issue than the Republicans. It’s a portrait of a generation that grew up under conservative rule – and by witnessing its effects and costs firsthand, has utterly rejected it.

But in the first traditional media article on this quite significant poll, Carla Marinucci tells a rather odd story about this. To her, the only story here is that young voters dislike the Republican Party. Which we do, no doubt about it. But her article is filled with quotes from Republicans young and old about why we’ve abandoned them.

Nowhere does she ask the more obvious question: why are we so strongly identifying with Democrats? If it was just alienation from Republicans why don’t we become apathetic? Why aren’t we identifying as independents?

I’ve got more to say, but before the flip, I want to cut to the chase: we have a lot of people here age 18-29. In the comments, do what Marinucci refused to do: explain why you don’t just reject the Republicans, but also why you so strongly embrace the Democrats. Why are you a proud Democrat?

Some examples of Marinucci’s rather odd framing of these poll results:

Young Americans have become so profoundly alienated from Republican ideals…The startling collapse of GOP support among young voters…The anti-GOP shift for this generation…

The only Democrat quoted is our old buddy Garry South, who has this to say:

Schwarzenegger’s success at the polls won’t translate to other Republican candidates.

South pointed toward the recent state budget battle, which pitted Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislators against conservative GOP senators who delayed the $145 billion budget for almost two months to pressure for more cuts and protections for businesses against environmental lawsuits.

The demands of the state senators, South said, were so far to the right of the average voter that “the Republican brand in California now is so tainted and toxic that the only way you’re going to win is to buy yourself out of the brand.”

Here, South is absolutely right about the suicide pact that is the California Senate Republican caucus. But wouldn’t it have made sense to give readers some other sense of why we young folks are flocking to the Democrats? Couldn’t Marinucci have spoken to some young Democrats as well as young Republicans, young conservatives?

Consider it a kind of political migration. Demographers and historians have long understood that in any migration, there are two factors that must be explained if you are to understand that migration: push factors, and pull factors. Marinucci explains the push factor, but has nothing at all to say of the pull factor. In framing the story as she does, she misses a chance to educate her readers about what is actually behind this phenomenon.

The number of young voters is rising, both in raw numbers as well as our percentage turnout. And we’re voting for Democrats, in large numbers. If Marinucci really does believe this could have an effect on electoral politics for “generations to come” then shouldn’t she explain why we are embracing the Democrats?

I’m 28 years old, still in the age group this study showed had turned so far left. Why do I vote for Democrats? Why do I favor them on the issues? Why do I believe they are better for California and America than the Republicans?

I did not always support the Democrats. Although I abandoned my youthful, immature conservatism in high school, when I first registered to vote in 1997 I registered as a Green. I was an active campaigner for Ralph Nader in 2000, believing the Democrats to be too close to the Republicans on most major isuses.

When I moved to Washington State in 2001 I learned that one does not declare a party affiliation at registration. Which suited me fine, I considered myself a left-wing independent, still alienated from the Democrats, although I still rejected the Republicans utterly.

But when I returned to California in June, I did indeed register as a Democrat. What changed?

While I still find myself in passionate – and sometimes bitter – disagreement with the actions of elected Democrats, I believe they represent my own values far more than any Republican ever can or will.

Republicans have destroyed California, I’ve seen it happen over the course of my life. They call themselves a political party but are in truth little more than a protection racket for a minority of residents: white suburban homeowners over the age of 40. Although not all in that group are Republican – many in fact are Dems – it is that group that Republican policies and rhetoric are designed to aid. (Even if, in fact, those white suburban homeowners don’t benefit from Republican government – the only consistent beneficiaries are the wealthy, and large businesses).

Republicans have destroyed our infrastructure, our schools, our health care system, our public services. Their zealotry on tax cuts has saddled us young folks with huge loan debts and yet their tax cuts have also failed to create jobs or earning power for us, as a California Budget Project study revealed last week. And they insist on attacking us, or our friends. When we see attacks on gays or on Latinos or on African Americans, we see not scapegoating of outsiders, but vicious assaults on ourselves, or on people we have always been close to.

But we don’t just reject the policies that have screwed us younger folks. We actively embrace the Democrats. In stark contrast to the Republicans, the Dems offer actual solutions. These solutions aren’t always good enough – but it’s the promise that the Democrats can be convinced to embrace our agenda, the belief that the old Democratic Party of the mid-20th century – liberals of the New Deal – can be reborn.

Many of us young people lack health care, or find that what coverage we do have leaves our wallets empty. Democrats, led by Senator Sheila Kuehl, offer us a single-payer universal health care program. Dems fight for more funding for schools, so that we can get an affordable education. They fight for more infrastructure projects, especially mass transit, so we can get around safely, without having to rely on a car (thus saving us money). Led by Rep. Hilda Solis, they want to create green jobs, so that all of us can have a better economic future in the 21st century.

And Democrats embrace us. They aren’t a protection racket for well-off middle-aged white folks, the Dems instead welcome and support young voters, and their rich diversity.

It is because we believe the Democrats can offer us a better future that we embrace them. All the Republicans have to offer is a continuous extension of the 20th century, a model that has failed for most Californians. But as I’ve argued, it’s not just that we reject Republicanism. We embrace the Democrats. And as long as Carla Marinucci refuses to recognize that fact, the changing nature of California and American politics will escape her.

I am not joking, this is above the fold on today’s San Francisco Chronicle. You would think a bill could only be a “stealth” bill if the local paper was too busy laying people off to report on the legislature. But as always, the butt of the joke didn’t seem to get why the smart people who saw today’s front page were laughing.

Of course, they didn’t call it a stealth bill because of their lousy coverage, they called it that because there wasn’t much debate as everything was moving last week. Probably, for a reason (if you bothered to read through to the 10th paragraph):

Southern California Assemblyman Michael DuVall — the lone Republican to voice his opposition on the Assembly floor last week — said that, given many of his GOP colleagues’ vocal opposition last year to Prop. 87, he thinks many didn’t see a need to voice that opinion again.

I like Phil Bronstein going to SFist, it is a smart move. But when Matthew Yi manufactures a B.S. story reprinted from the fringe on the right who are out of line with reality, most Californians, and almost everyone in SF — and it is put above the fold, is it any surprise why people won’t subscribe?

It sucks the San Francisco Chronicle editors let John Wildermuth write:

For {Ed} Jew, who’s now in China on a long-planned vacation, one thought has to be gnawing at his mind: It wasn’t supposed to be like this.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha…

While the FBI investigation could send Jew to prison, it’s the questions about his San Francisco home that might strike deepest, because if ever there was a son of the city, it was Ed tJew.

The Chron pulls this BJ agaist a crappy supe who is crooked and they wonder why I don’t subscribe? WTF? After this story I’d ask to cancel my subscription but it is too late.