Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Deplorable censorship at the San Francisco Chronicle
The San Francisco Chronicle does not want my comment to appear following a story about a family's grief after losing a son in Iraq.
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.
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.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
So, I've been censored on this site for being critical of Code Pink's Medea Benjamin. Besides, Cindy Sheehan would never be a household name without the media that gave her the longest 15 minutes of fame in history. Whats your point?
...that its editors don't agree with...NOT!
Indybay has an About Us and Editorial Policy, which although not perfect, is at least posted... Indybay is honest about being an anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, pro-peace resource for an unbordered world.
While I realize you are upset about your comment being removed, it's removal is not "censorship"--at least not in the traditional sense of the word which refers to government repression of individuals' freedom of expression.
The Chronicle is a private company. It's website is private property. When you post on the Chronicle's website, you agree to their terms and conditions for posting. The Chronicle reserves the right to remove at any time comments it deems in its discretion unacceptable. Apparently, the Chronicle felt that your comments; however, well-intentioned could be perceived as an insult to the family of the soldier who died in Iraq. I haven't read your comments, so I don't know if that characterization is fair or not, but I do know the Chronicle is entirely within its rights to make that judgment call. That is NOT censorship; rather, it is merely the Chronicle exercises its rights over its own private property.
Here is an example: Imagine you invited the public, subject to your discretion, to post messages on your door about various topics. Now, imagine, someone posted a message saying they hated blacks and gays and thought they should be killed. You decide to remove the message because you do not feel like having your door used to spread hate mongering. The person who had his/her message removed would be in no position to complain about "censorship"--your door, your rules. While I am NOT saying your particular posting was hateful or defamatory, just as you would have a right to remove a comment you found objectionable from your private property, so does the Chronicle have a right to remove the message you posted which it finds objectionable--whatever the reason.
You have freedom of expression: You can post what you want on in your web blog on this site for everyone on the Internet to read and comment on. You can also hold a "teach-in" at a city park, shout into a bull horn on a public corner, or hold a protest on the steps of the Capitol. You just don't have a right to demand the Chronicle keep your message posted on its website.
The Chronicle is a private company. It's website is private property. When you post on the Chronicle's website, you agree to their terms and conditions for posting. The Chronicle reserves the right to remove at any time comments it deems in its discretion unacceptable. Apparently, the Chronicle felt that your comments; however, well-intentioned could be perceived as an insult to the family of the soldier who died in Iraq. I haven't read your comments, so I don't know if that characterization is fair or not, but I do know the Chronicle is entirely within its rights to make that judgment call. That is NOT censorship; rather, it is merely the Chronicle exercises its rights over its own private property.
Here is an example: Imagine you invited the public, subject to your discretion, to post messages on your door about various topics. Now, imagine, someone posted a message saying they hated blacks and gays and thought they should be killed. You decide to remove the message because you do not feel like having your door used to spread hate mongering. The person who had his/her message removed would be in no position to complain about "censorship"--your door, your rules. While I am NOT saying your particular posting was hateful or defamatory, just as you would have a right to remove a comment you found objectionable from your private property, so does the Chronicle have a right to remove the message you posted which it finds objectionable--whatever the reason.
You have freedom of expression: You can post what you want on in your web blog on this site for everyone on the Internet to read and comment on. You can also hold a "teach-in" at a city park, shout into a bull horn on a public corner, or hold a protest on the steps of the Capitol. You just don't have a right to demand the Chronicle keep your message posted on its website.
There are so many means of participation in various activities that now involve giving up our rights. A typical investment or contractor agreement now has an arbitration clause, where you give up your right to a jury trial. Or if you do still have a dispute resolution process available in the courts, you have to travel all the way to Timbuktu or Delaware to have your case heard.
Some places that look like public sidewalks are actually privately owned spaces patrolled by rent-a-cops. In San Jose, the places that are legal to stand in to hand out flyers have 1/10 as much traffic as the other off limits places, such as the light rail station, which coincidentally directly abuts the privatized sidewalk. ie there is nowhere to go really to catch the people coming out of the privatized sidewalk/mall area without getting hassled either by the rent-a-cop or by the city police.
If you want to make money on the Internet, try signing up for an affiliate program of your favorite company. But don't be surprised if your contract is not approved or it is arbitrarily terminated halfway through your campaign for violating one or more anal points in the contract, such as "no MLM programs allowed on your web site" which could occur when you decide to post that great idea for renting solar power on your web site. Even some fair trade affiliate programs do this, as they often are simply an add-on to a large corporately owned affiliate program distributor with its own corporately anal policies.
Sure you can still function while exercising your "rights" that are available in "public spaces". But since almost no one visits truly public spaces anymore, almost no one will hear you or see you. The tide is beginning to shift in the courts, as a recent ruling has upheld the idea that shopping malls are public forums where you can exercise free speech rights. We still have a long way to go to weed out all the tall corporate crab grass that is growing in our otherwise "level playing field" (which of course is surrounded by corporately owned fencing, and has corporately regulated park hours and so on.) But at least it's a start.
Some places that look like public sidewalks are actually privately owned spaces patrolled by rent-a-cops. In San Jose, the places that are legal to stand in to hand out flyers have 1/10 as much traffic as the other off limits places, such as the light rail station, which coincidentally directly abuts the privatized sidewalk. ie there is nowhere to go really to catch the people coming out of the privatized sidewalk/mall area without getting hassled either by the rent-a-cop or by the city police.
If you want to make money on the Internet, try signing up for an affiliate program of your favorite company. But don't be surprised if your contract is not approved or it is arbitrarily terminated halfway through your campaign for violating one or more anal points in the contract, such as "no MLM programs allowed on your web site" which could occur when you decide to post that great idea for renting solar power on your web site. Even some fair trade affiliate programs do this, as they often are simply an add-on to a large corporately owned affiliate program distributor with its own corporately anal policies.
Sure you can still function while exercising your "rights" that are available in "public spaces". But since almost no one visits truly public spaces anymore, almost no one will hear you or see you. The tide is beginning to shift in the courts, as a recent ruling has upheld the idea that shopping malls are public forums where you can exercise free speech rights. We still have a long way to go to weed out all the tall corporate crab grass that is growing in our otherwise "level playing field" (which of course is surrounded by corporately owned fencing, and has corporately regulated park hours and so on.) But at least it's a start.
For more information:
http://www.pagesincolor.com
Can you imagine how frustrating it is in the land of open-publishing- Indymedia- to get comments deleted because they don't tow the line of political correctness. I expect it from the Chron- but not from Indymedia.
i have things removed all the time.. when i initially post something, i cut and paste it into a word document and repost it as soon as it is removed.. sure, i beleive that sfgate itself had it removed, yet to this day the 20+ repostin gs i have done in in sfgate has not yet resulted in any threats of suspension of my account or anything else.. as a matter of fact people have threatened me and i just simply tell them to put a cork in it and they leave me alone; sometimes people are hot-winded airbags looking for other airbags to puncture without thinking that anyone would have the nerve to defend themselves.. i'm a persian gulf vet with some severe opinions about the right and use their own vitriolic language to express my discontent for them; think about it, you hold up a mirror and sometimes thier shit gets scared when they simply look at themselves as being the hatemongeriings they project onto the world..
The San Francisco Chronicle's web portal SFGate apologizes that they are having a "technical system glitch" processing comments.
Here is the link to this newest story:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/29/18482632.php
I am putting this link here because Google News recognized this linked story... but dropped it after a few hours. Google News is, however, linking to this story (for now).
Here is the link to this newest story:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/29/18482632.php
I am putting this link here because Google News recognized this linked story... but dropped it after a few hours. Google News is, however, linking to this story (for now).
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network