Petrelis Files

Many of you will recall the legal troubles I faced in 2001/2002 over phone calls I made to San Francisco Chronicle reporters and editors.

The paper brought felony charges against me, all of which were dropped by the former San Francisco district attorney, and falsely alleged in print that I made a telephone bomb threat to the newsroom. Thankfully, no charges involving that supposed phone threat were filed, and the Chronicle has yet to publish a correction to the phone allegation.

In the summer of 2002, as my court-appointed attorney negotiated a plea bargain, the Chronicle's gay AIDS reporter, Christopher Heredia, twice phoned me looking for a quote regarding my complaints to Centers for Disease Control that led to an investigation of the Stop AIDS Project. Needless to say, since it would have violated the temporary restraining orders in place back then, I didn't return Heredia's calls, and he reported such in his article about CDC auditors coming to San Francisco for a look at Stop AIDS Project's books and HIV prevention programs.

Around this same time, another Chronicle reporter, Lance Williams, left several voice mail messages, wanting to chat with me about Willie Brown's AIDS summit in 1998 because I had forced the former Mayor to divulge who had paid for the meeting. After much wrangling between my lawyer and the paper's attorney, I was allowed to have a phone conversation with Williams, without returning to the county jail.

That was the extent of my contacts with the Chronicle, initiated by its reporters, up until two weeks ago when the chief political correspondent, Carla Marinucci, left a detailed message for me. She was preparing a piece on Ralph Nader's run for president, and since I was listed as the San Francisco volunteer coordinator on votenader.org, she wanted my opinion. (She must not be aware of what a "threat" I am to her and her colleagues.)

Not wanting to don jailhouse orange sweats again, I didn't call Marinucci back. I simply reveled in the irony of a Chronicle reporter calling me about anything, after the legal wringer they put me through, and saved the message.

Now, I read in today's Chronicle a column by the paper's Readers' Representative, Dick Rogers, about the issue of reporters donating to politicians.

Rogers references my research on this matter, and provides readers with my blog address. Not one word from him about my troubles with the paper. My boyfriend and I shared a hearty laugh about this omission. I've gone from an alleged associated of Osama bin Laden's to AIDS activist, in the eyes of the Chronicle. This paper's flip-flopping on me is in the neighborhood of John Kerry's position on the Iraqi war.

All that aside, it's good to know the issue of media personalities contributing to politicians and causes has such beautiful strong legs that Marlene Dietrich would be envious.
^^^


August 1, 2004
The San Francisco Chronicle

Credibility on the line
by Dick Rogers
WOULD YOU CARE if the journalist who chooses letters for the editorial page had made campaign contributions to one of the presidential candidates?

If you saw a newspaper story about what good coverage some magazines were doing on a certain issue, would you be more skeptical of the story if you discovered the author had written the articles he praised?

Would you care if material in the paper had been taken from other sources without credit?

Taken together, would the three situations affect your willingness to believe what you read in the newspaper?

These aren't trick questions. They're real-world examples from The Chronicle.

On June 23, Chronicle Design Editor Zahid Sardar wrote about the absence of Bay Area designers and architects in national home-design magazines, and he lauded articles in Western Interiors and Design for bucking the pattern. What he didn't disclose, The Chronicle reported in a July 14 clarification, was that he had written those same articles he praised.

On the same week as the clarification ran, the paper placed the editor of the Letters to the Editor, Bill Pates, on paid leave after the Stanford University-based journalism Web site GradetheNews.org called for comment on a story it planned about his contributions to presidential hopeful John Kerry and to candidates in three local races. The paper has decided that Pates no longer may select which letters will appear in print. He now works as a copy editor for another department.

And on July 22, the paper reported to readers that KPIX meteorologist Samantha Mohr would no longer provide her daily Chronicle weather feature because it was determined that some of them contained "verbatim unattributed material" from Internet sites.

Most readers, I think, would agree that slyly self-congratulatory coverage and use of uncredited material are impermissible and a threat to a newspaper's credibility. But what about journalists who engage in politics on their free time? Why shouldn't reporters or editors contribute to the candidates of their choice? Why shouldn't they campaign for the candidates who reflect their own political views?

Isn't this the journalists' First Amendment right? If so, does it mean that newspapers have no First Amendment right to protect their reputation for fairness and honesty through conflict-of-interest rules that restrain political activism?

These questions are causing consternation and confusion inside and outside the newsroom because the answer is not clear. The subject is also gaining attention in these tense, divisive political times, when papers are put on the defensive by partisans of all stripes who lobby for what amounts to journalism of affirmation.

In addition to the Grade the News piece, a Page 1 story last January in the Washington Post reported that more than 100 journalists and executives at major news outlets had given money to politicians, sometimes in violation of their employers' own policies.

Michael Petrelis, an AIDS activist based in San Francisco, is getting a lot of attention for his blog (www.mpetrelis.blogspot.com) in which he discloses political contributions by news people.

What I wanted to write here was a resounding, bulletproof, no-two-ways- about-it argument for a conflict of interest policy that goes like this: "Here at The Chronicle, we don't take favors and we don't give to politicians. Period. End of subject."

That's the best way to tell readers that the paper operates without fear or favor; that it covers the news without trying to shape the news; that it makes its editorial and coverage decisions independently; that it holds no IOUs and grants no IOUs.

The paper's code stops well short of that. When it comes to political activities, it counsels newsroom staffers to avoid the appearance of conflict and it lists potential problem areas (campaign contributions; public endorsements; displays of banners, posters and signs). Then it says this:

"Use your best judgment. When there is a possible question, staff members should consult with the executive editor or his designee."

That's a hole big enough to drive a Hummer through. As a result, it doesn't give the journalists in the newsroom clear guidance and it doesn't give the paper solid protection.

It's no accident: The policy was written with one eye on California Labor Code Sections 1101 and 1102, decades-old statutory provisions intended to protect union organizing activity. The language is far more sweeping, though, saying plainly that employers can't impose rules restricting any employee's political activities or affiliations.

That's a bitter pill for any paper that, constantly attacked from the left and the right, seeks to say to the world that it calls the news as it sees it, with no allegiances and no alliances.

But it's not the final word. Seven years ago the Washington State Supreme Court upheld a Tacoma newspaper's First Amendment right to curtail political activism on the part of one of its reporters. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear it. So at this point, it's not a precedent in California, though it can be used for its persuasive value in court, should the issue come to legal blows here.

Meanwhile, management at The Chronicle is examining the ethics policy, intent on increasing clarity and eliminating ambiguities.

Ethics is a squishy business and there are plenty of gray areas. The paper should want staffers to engage in civic life, yet keep their distance from institutions and issues they might have to cover. Staffers should be able to use their creative talents outside of work, whether for personal satisfaction or monetary gain, yet they shouldn't do it at the expense of the paper.

But when it comes to news people and political entanglements, it's clear to me:

Don't take, don't give. Period. End of subject.