Deplorable censorship at the San Francisco Chronicle

San Francisco
February 16, 2008

Last night, the San Francisco Chronicle's web presence SFGate published a story highlighting the grief of a father whose son was killed by a bomb in Iraq. Disregarding advice not to return, Sean Stokes had returned to Iraq on a third tour.

He was posthumously awarded a Silver Star for his bravery and heroism.

The story appeared as a front page article in the Sunday San Francisco Chronicle also.

In the article written by the Chronicle staff writer John Koopman, it is pointed out that Sean's father's initial reaction to hearing about the death of his son was to "pull a Cindy Sheehan."

Koopman quotes the father Gary Stokes:

"I was going to go after a lot of people, like someone else has," he said, referring to Sheehan. "From talking to people who actually know Sheehan, she went about it in a very angry, noninspirational, not really healing way. And from our perspective, she didn't really accomplish a lot."

It goes on to say that the father has begun a memorial in his son's name to "not forget the men and women who have died in Iraq." It is the Sean Andrew Stokes Memorial at http://www.sasmemorial.org/.

After reading the Chronicle story I was immediately angered. Rather than believe that this was an article written on behalf of Sean Stokes or his family: I saw the article in the context of the San Francisco Chronicle's ongoing effort to hide its complicity in promoting the war, to continue to besmirch Cindy Sheehan and her congressional campaign against Nancy Pelosi, and to flaunt the American flag on its sleeve.

In this context I saw the article as using Sean Stokes' heroism and the grief of his family for its own political purposes, not to show true respect for a brave soldier.

Thus, I immediately commented on the story following it where readers are invited to comment.

I do not have a screenshot or a copy of my comment, but writing in a civil way I criticized the story for using the Stoke's grief for political purposes. I wrote that the Chronicle should divulge that Hearst has corporate interests in the History Channel (A program of the History Channel is highlighted in the story). I wrote that the Chronicle has intentionally limited news about Cindy Sheehan and has ridiculed her in the past. I wrote that using Gary Stokes' comment about Sheehan was a gratuitous jab at Sheehan. I wrote that the San Francisco Chronicle, like many publications, cheerleaded the war. And I offered my (sincere) condolences to the Stoke's family and my respect for those who are killed in war and those who "look out for each other."

After publishing my comment written under my alias "alabamarasta" (which was the very first comment), I was curious this morning to see what reaction it was getting. Among the earliest comments I noticed this morning that it had received the most favorable responses (16 at that time).

Following my comment was a reader who commented at 8:51 AM:

"alabamarasta, go away....wrong forum....btw sheehan "smeared" herself and her son's legacy just fine on her own so your silly conspiracy theory is irrelevant"

Guess what?

By this evening my comment did go away!

It is no longer at the website, or is not viewable to me as my screenshots attest.

My comment has been censored.

While my comment has gone away, I am not going away-- because I deplore censorship of political opinion. The Fouth Estate, the press in America should be a guarantor of freedom of speech. That the Chronicle promotes itself as allowing sincere public comment can not be a competitive advantage when it censors such comments as mine-- which though uncomfortable, are contributed in the spirit of widening honest debate about the quality and integrity of the journalism that informs so many citizens.

I should mention that while I have worked for Cindy Sheehen and volunteer for her campaign, I wrote my comment without any input from her or her campaign staff. My comment was my own opinion based on my knowledge of the history of the San Francisco Chronicle's treatment of her and her campaign. Cindy Sheehan and her staff have never encouraged me or commented upon my conflicts with the San Francisco Chronicle. My guess as to why this is so is that I believe that they have always hoped that the Chronicle would give her and her campaign an honest airing in its pages (something I have hoped for, but as yet have little evidence for).

For the last word on this subject, I will defer to the words of Sean Stoke's father, Gary Stokes who said:

"If you know someone who's lost a family member, don't be afraid to say the wrong thing," he said. "People don't know what to say, so they don't say anything. Which is worse."

Links:

War hero awarded Silver Star after his death
John Koopman, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, February 16, 2008
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/16/MNMGV2JNT.DTL

Comment page for the above story:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2008/02/16/MNMGV2JNT.DTL

Previous problems with the Chronicle comment section:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/25/18463549.php?show_comments=1#18465851
http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/es_crackberry_chronicles_071207.shtml

Comment at Indybay about my research of San Francisco Chronicle articles about Cindy Sheehan:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/12/22/18468434.php?show_comments=1#18468625

Included with this story are screenshots of the Chronicle comments page taken this evening about 9 P.M.

Please address your comments or corrections below. As always, my goal is not to be right, but to be correct. The truth matters.