When I first lived in New York, I read the New York Times nearly every day. Then, as the paper changed hands and the political climate continued to shift, I watched the coverage in the Times become more and more conservative. There was also less hard news and more soft news.
Ideally newspapers are supposed to be objective and cover all sides of the story, but that simply is not happening. My frustration with this reality actually eventually forced me to stop consuming mainstream news. I turned to alternative publications for my news.
Then, particularly through my work as a harm reduction outreach worker with the St. James Infirmary, I have come in contact with parts of daily city life that rarely get covered in the mainstream media: people living and working in the streets and SRO’s. Countless observations of interactions with the police, in which rights weren’t being read, or people were being needlessly harassed, as well as being in touch of the harmful affects of police sweeps on this population motivated me to start this blog.
These things do not get reported in the news.
But then, of course, I found myself somewhat regularly reading the Chronicle, mostly because I was following C.W. Nevius’s problematic column, which largely took the side of homeowners who don’t find it to be their job to deal with the social problems that affect the place where they can afford to buy a home.
He focused on the poop on the sidewalks, and the incidents of violence coming from the homeless populations. These are all real problems, and yes something needs to be done.
However, he has failed to cover the more complicated side which would involve exploring the issues behind why people may be resistant to services, or the social issues which lead up to homelessness.
Nevius tends to take the easy way out on that one, claiming that there is a very strong advocacy group for the homeless, but there is an entire population without a voice….those poor homeowners.
In today’s column, ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/04/BASLTNJRG.DTL ) he congratulates himself for the effect of his columns in sparking a debate, and examines the effect of his columns.
Unfortunately, the Chronicle tends to represent the views of only a certain population. Many community organizers, including the folks from the Coalition on Homelessness are fed up with the inadequate coverage in the Chronicle and don’t read the paper. Many people, who disagree with the Chronicle’s coverage do not wish to support the newspaper by engaging in its online forums.
Therefore, the more complicated debate is actually happening in many arenas, and is no way contained in the online comments section of sfgate.
Who reads and supports the Chronicle? This is an important question to ask when looking at the validity of its coverage. Amongst many of the people who I know, the Chronicle is not the preferred periodical. Unfortunately, this means that many voices and views on an issue, in this case the homeless debate, are not present.