Guest Commentary

Chronicle sidesteps ethical concerns in San Francisco prosecutor endorsement

Commentary by David Weir

From a journalistic perspective, it's fair to say that the Hearst-owned San Francisco Chronicle has been improving in quality lately, but it took one giant step backwards on Sunday, Oct. 19.

In an editorial endorsing Kamala Harris for district attorney, the newspaper launched a brutally inaccurate broadside against the incumbent DA, Terence Hallinan, focusing on what the paper claims are his general incompetence and his low conviction rates.

At the same time, the editorial dismissed as insignificant Harris' blatant violations of the campaign finance rules (she exceeded the legal spending limits she had pledged to respect, in the process drawing one of the largest fines ever in San Francisco politics -- $34,000). The Chronicle said this was not a sufficient reason to question her suitability to become the top prosecutor for San Francisco.

Meanwhile, elsewhere within the flimsy rubber band that held together my copy of the yellow-wrapped Chronicle that day was a thoughtful magazine piece by C. W. Nevius headlined, "A slippery slope: The new parental ethics teach all the wrong life lessons."

Citing examples of over-anxious parents who help their children cheat on SAT tests or in sports contests, Nevius raised the question of whether we, as a society, have lost our commitment to maintaining high ethical standards in favor of goals such as winning, for example, or getting rich.

The juxtaposition of this thoughtful ethics article and the aggressively defensive tone of the Harris endorsement created the perception that the Chronicle was speaking out of both sides of its figurative mouth, criticizing the rest of society for what it apparently reserves the right to do itself -- turning a blind eye to violations of inconvenient rules and regulations by its favored candidate in her drive to win.

But shouldn't the violation of campaign fund-raising regulations by Harris be a danger signal to the rest of us, since, if she is elected, she would be the very official charged with enforcing these types of laws against us? Isn't this exactly the kind of ethical slippery slope the Nevius article warns us about?

Don't hold your breath waiting for answers from the Chronicle. Instead, consider the oft-slandered Warren Hinckle, who long ago was dismissed from the Hearst family's inner circle for his questionable behavior on the job, and his rebuttal of the Chronicle's case for Harris and his shockingly eloquent endorsement of Hallinan on Oct. 28.

In his front-page column for The Independent, a free paper distributed throughout the city, Hinckle documented that the "low conviction rate" charge was a bum rap against Hallinan; that in fact the DA's innovative diversion programs for drug-related offenses have saved the city millions of dollars that otherwise would have been wasted on ineffective court cases; and that they've helped some drug addicts find new hope in the process.

He might have added that serious crime in San Francisco has fallen faster than in any other major metropolitan area in California during the Hallinan era.

The delicious irony of the moment -- Hinckle, no one's idea of a paragon of virtue, delivering a well-deserved lecture about ethics to the righteous folks at Fifth and Mission -- confirmed that the long strange trip that is San Francisco's brand of corrupt political journalism won't be ending anytime soon.

The author is a friend of many of the principals in this article, including Chronicle Editor Phil Bronstein and District Attorney Terence Hallinan, and some of the Chronicle's editorial page writers. He also is a Lokey Visiting Professor in Journalism at Stanford, and a Hewlett Fellow at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.

The Chronicle responds:

Note: The following is from a conversation with John Diaz, the Chronicle's editorial page editor.

"The violations of campaign finance are something that we take seriously. In evaluating Harris' candidacy, it was a negative mark on the ledger. For each of the candidates, we weighed their assets and liabilities. Our editorial speaks for itself, that we thought she was the best choice. It is something we asked her about, that we were concerned about, and ultimately we made that choice.

"Hallinan's conviction rate is something this newspaper has looked at both on the editorial page and news pages in great depth. Certainly the excuses that Hallinan uses, such as uncooperative juries or the effect of diversion programs, are taken into account, but overall I think our critique of his tenure is pretty clear."