Rooting Too Hard for the Home Team?   

In early August, on the Friday evening that investors from Tampa announced they wanted to buy the San Francisco Giants and move the team, the Chronicle newsroom jumped on the story. But some items written that night that were critical of the team's owner didn't make it into the next day's paper.

Staffers say that the questionable editing included spiking a Bruce Jenkins column that called Giants owner Bob Lurie "weaker than damp, one-ply toilet paper," among other things. And the headline on Political Editor Jerry Roberts' column, which questioned whether Mayor Frank Jordan's political future would be marred by the team's exit, was changed from "Jordan Will Get the Blame" to the more upbeat "A Late Rally Could Still Save Jordan."

The Chronicle has been accused of boosterism before. In June, Sports Editor John Curley wrote a front-page note to readers saying the paper had fallen "victim to a statistical trap" after a story reported only one in three San Francisco residents said they considered it "very important" that the team stay. And shortly after the Friday incident, the paper launched a "Save the Giants" postcard drive.

"Civic boosting is a slippery slope," says Chronicle reporter Carl Hall, who detailed the incident in the paper's union newsletter. Chronicle reporter Marc Sandalow, who has been covering the Giants' possible sale, says management's attitude can be summed up by the first game story to appear after the Friday incident. "While there were 35,000 empty seats at the ballpark, our lead was that a small but vocal crowd of 14,700 was on hand and clearly moved by the team's possible departure," he says.

Sandalow and other reporters say the message was clear that they should be cautious about stories that might jeopardize the Giants' chances of remaining in town. But Sandalow notes that the situation has since changed.

"To single out this newspaper for boosterism, although we've been guilty of it, is unfair," he says. "The Examiner is flying a 'Save the Giants' banner outside their building, and other papers do the same thing [boosterism]. What the Chronicle did that first night when they savaged the columnists was the worst [of it], but no one has suppressed any of the facts I've uncovered or changed my copy."

Political writer Susan Yoachum was concerned enough that evening to send a memo to City Editor Dan Rosenheim. "Friday night's effort to slant our coverage is unconscionable," she wrote. "While I suppose I could lose my job, it seems to me the Chronicle and those of us who work here stand to lose a lot more if this censoring of our coverage is not stopped."

Executive Editor William German says the editing done that night was just that – editing. He says the body of the paper's coverage of the Giants is evidence of its balanced reporting. As an example, he cites a September column by C.W. Nevius that revealed damaging information about investors who hoped to keep the team in the city.

Chronicle managers that evening believed they were doing a public service by presenting a unified front, says Sports Editor Curley. "It was a decision made in a tumultuous situation," he says. The team's potential move was considered "a great civic disaster. I think management wanted to do what they could to assuage it."

But Yoachum points out that what's deemed acceptable in covering sports would be unthinkable in such areas as political reporting. The newspaper wouldn't dream of running a Bill Clinton coupon campaign or editing out criticism of presidential candidates, she says.

"There's a sense that.. we're just supposed to be asking questions about plays," concurs Tampa Tribune baseball writer Joe Henderson, who would cover the Giants if they make the move (baseball's team owners still must approve the sale). "That's baloney. The teams play in publicly financed stadiums and they're getting tax breaks."