Independent Media, Billionaire Money, and City Politics: The Fight for SF’s Narrative

A lot can be misinterpreted through text. No matter how artfully you compose a message, you might inadvertently offend someone, play into a harmful stereotype, or feed a conspiracy theory. It’s part of why being a journalist is tricky (the other part being that no matter what, you can’t please everyone who reads your work) ((And the other, other part is figuring out how to feed yourself on journo money, a challenge rivaling how to use commas and capital letters without pissing anyone off)).

For sources without media training, speaking to members of the press can be intimidating for exactly that reason. Writing can be easily misinterpreted, and sources give up a bit of control when they agree to be on the record.

But the beauty of working with writers is that you lend them your voice. All you can do is hope they weave it into their article such that the colors still shine through. It means letting loose on the thread of control, but if you cultivate strong relationships with members of the press, it can be freeing.

Nina Negusse Controls the Narrative

So Mayor Lurie’s chosen communications director, the recently ousted Nina Negusse, struck the wrong chord with both members of the press and department heads. Rumors suggest she was overly controlling, which was astonishing to some. 

Journalist-turned-nonprofit leader Julie Pitta describes Negusse’s high handed approach as “inexperienced.” Within Lurie’s inner circle, he has a practiced chief of staff, Staci Slaughter. Slaughter is adept, having worked with other high profile players like the Giants, who also suffer from bad starts to the season and rookie mistakes. So Pitta says it’s a little surprising that Slaughter allowed this.

“He’s already made some mistakes,” Pitta says of the new mayor, but she notes that mistakes were expected given Lurie’s lack of experience. Still, Negusse broke a basic tenet of the relationship between the free press and government: the two would never deign to tell each other how to do their job, even if they disagree. And Slaughter’s primary function as Chief of Staff is to work quietly behind the scenes and keep this mess from floating up to the top. To use a crass metaphor, she’s there to make sure Lurie doesn’t have dog shit on his shoe. And the Negusse saga during his short tenure means he’s rapidly burning through the good will he’s received for not being London Breed.

Why So Defensive?

Pitta speculates that Lurie’s director of comms may have felt on the defense because he’s a moderate and some of our local press is more progressive. But it’s widely agreed that the press has been light-handed, generally giving Lurie’s administration the benefit of the doubt. 

Local Media’s Role

One of the most important things local journalists do is highlight what’s happening in the boundless, elephantine mechanism of local government. The big stories on the national level are a dime a dozen, but nobody else is going to shine a flashlight on the seedy shit that happens in a corrupt department or give voice to a victim of police brutality. Big media ain’t gonna report on how long it takes for a toxic cleanup in Hunters Point. Local journalism, like the very rag you’re reading here at BrokeAssStuart.com, is essential to democracy (If you like what we do please join the BAS Patreon right here).

So how exactly does The City and County of San Francisco work with (and around) media? Over the course of history, that relationship has been everything from overly cozy to downright toxic. But the best of us in both government and media want the same thing: What’s best for the public. Because of this, things stand a chance of improving.

The City vs. Media: Why Nina Negusse is Out

City officials usually have relationships they’ve cultivated with members of the press. For example, Supervisor Dorsey spent 14 years as the spokesperson for the Police Department. This relationship gives an official the opportunity to soft-pitch or even craft angles on breaking stories. Every once in a while, a politician might garner a reputation for being difficult, but for the most part they’re media-trained and savvy enough to form these friendly relationships.

But lately there’s been quite an adversarial relationship between certain pubs and politicians, and it doesn’t take a genius to see it. It’s difficult to present information without offering an interpretation, but look to the last two weeks of SF Standard coverage and movement in the Mayor’s communications department.

The Mayor’s office gets asked for comment and even discusses whether they think a piece might be negative publicity, according to this screenshot of an email between the Department of Public Health and Nina Negusse, the titular staffer. And this kind of exchange has been noticed by the press. On February 28, the SF Standard published Say less: Lurie’s office tightens grip on talking to press. On March 7, the Standard published Lurie’s top comms staffer is sacked after uproar in City Hall.

Billionaires and Media

Pitta’s had a hand in the Phoenix Project, which has done some excellent work on the connections between billionaires and politics, as well as how media interplays with the two. Phoenix Project papers have described dark money networks shaping the narrative and influencing (sometimes even paying) media to say what they want, how they want it. The relationship between billionaires and media is worth a second look. But it’s complicated, especially with a billionaire duly elected through ranked choice into Room 200! 

The SF Standard got their start through billionaire Michael Moritz’s money. And Moritz, as we all know, backed some failed propositions and candidates this past November. But people familiar with the matter say that Moritz has a gloves-off attitude with the talented journalists that The Standard has recruited (stolen? Glamoured off into Fairy Land? Paid so handsomely that — well, they can still hit hard when it counts). 

Of note: Moritz’s newspaper, whether intentionally or not, cut deeply into former Mayor Breed’s campaign with timely pieces around the Dreamkeeper Initiative. It’s gloves-off, but the punches hit right where they count. They’ve got the money to hire some of the best reporters in town, and these people know how to dig up a story, whether you’re connected to billionaires or not.

Is that why some say Mayor Lurie’s office feels like the Standard has it “out” for them? There’s got to be a line between accurate reporting that describes material reality of an administration’s (sometimes poor) choices and a journalist or publication being seen as a bully. Reporting on the truth isn’t unfair, mean, or vindictive, and the media should be wary of any attempt at the local level to mirror the federal administration’s antagonistic approach to news.

Let’s Complicate It Further

Local independent publications are struggling, in part because legacy media continues bringing home the big bucks. For example, when you go to change your name in California, you must legally advertise a notice in the news. Right now, the language (a leftover from the 1960s) is written in such a way that the only options in San Francisco are fivefold. This kind of antiquated policy means that local pubs (like BAS, 48 Hills, El Tecolote, and others) are left out. So if you’re working through a name change, your options are limited. You may not be able to place the required notice in a paper that actually writes fair stories about people who might need a name change, like abuse survivors or trans people.

In addition, departments within The City who have specific community engagement and outreach goals have neither mandates nor access to local publications to spend their ad money. That means taxpayer money goes off to bigass companies with little stake in the game in terms of what happens to San Francisco. According to a policy analysis report from last year, “Only seven outlets are designated as outreach periodicals for FY 2023-24 compared to the 98 media outlets identified in our inventory.”

Can This Situation Change?

Now, according to Stuart Schuffman, ”a whole bunch of local independent publications like BAS, 48Hills, Bay Area Reporter, El Tecolote, etc are working with Supervisors Dorsey, Mandelman, and Chan to get the city to support local pubs by making sure city/county agencies spend ad dollars with the pubs.”  

Local journalism is critical. According to California Common Cause, “People say they appreciate substantive local reporting and want more of it. Many people complain that it is difficult to find unbiased news about local government and politics, or coverage of the arts.” 

But local publications, especially those online without a paywall, rely heavily on ad revenue to fund basic operations. Other cities have invested in it; in New York, the mayor “issued an executive order, subsequently codified into City law, requiring that at least 50 percent of all City print and digital publication advertising spending, excluding legally required notices, be spent on community and ethnic media outlets.” We could do something like that here.

In fact, the Common Cause report says, “Unlocking city advertising dollars for local community and ethnic media will help ensure that city advertising campaigns not only reach their intended audience, but that an essential segment of the city’s media landscape would receive the income it sorely needs in order to keep those very audiences informed.” The same report also identifies our own Stuart Schuffman as “arguably the scrappiest independent publisher in the city when it comes to finding creative ways to survive in the media business.” 

What’s the Risk?

You might guess at the particular red flag here. Might registering as an approved city vendor and working closely with departments lead to censorship? Let’s say a department spends marketing money with a news source and then later a journalist identifies a scandal or even just an unflattering angle. An average tinfoil aficionado might wonder if that story will ever see the light. 

It depends on which rag you’re reading. This writer has been able to cover just about any topic I’ve pitched to Stu, from any angle; the boss gives advice and caution so that we don’t get sued or end up souring an important relationship, but like Moritz, Stu is gloves-off. And people working on the policy are aware of the risk of corrupting the free press. 

Side note: if you’re a journalist who hasn’t been able to publish something because of your institution’s connections with, say, a billionaire or a mega media conglomerate, you can always pitch us at BAS. We may not pay much but your words will at least be more likely to see the light of day.

Win-Win-Win

As for the potential to get the Board to pass a resolution promising that the City will do its best to spend ad dollars with local pubs? Schuffman says, “Getting ad contracts from SF departments would be amazing because it’s a win-win-win situation. Broke-Ass Stuart gets much needed funding, the City has a more direct way to get info to the people they’re trying to reach, and the public gets to find out about important SF related information they may have not learned otherwise. This would be a dream.”

As for which other publications might qualify for these kinds of programs, it remains to be seen. On the one hand, those with massive resources at their disposal shouldn’t hog any revenue that comes out of this so that the local media ecosystem is balanced. On the other, given the Mayoral administration’s recent apparent tension with certain pubs, it might smell funny if a paper critical of his administration ended up not qualifying.