Author: Willie Brown
Published: May 14, 2002
Last Updated: May 14, 2002
Printer-friendly version

KEYNOTE BREAKFAST

Wednesday morning, April 14

Bhatia: Thank you Matt.

Clearly, the video was the perfect lead up to our next speaker, a friend of Herb Caen and the elected leader of this great city. Willie Louis Brown Jr., the mayor of San Francisco, and the once self-described ayatollah of the California legislature, has had a long relationship with newspapers. He grew up in Mineola, Texas, in the rural segregated South of the 1930s and 1940s. It was there that his ability to capture the public eye began. Here is how. Mayor Brown was too small to play football at Mineola Colored High School, but he tried to play anyway. In his first scrimmage Brown was clobbered and knocked out cold. When he regained consciousness, the coach told him that was his first and last play as a football player. However, Brown being the relentless sort that he is did not give up on football. He accompanied the team to all of its games then return to school, where in a school assembly he would recount the play-by-play of the entire game for his schoolmates. His gift for gab earned him the teen-age nickname, "The Reporter." He also wrote non-byline stories for the Mineola Monitor newspaper about sports at the all-black high school that he attended. Indeed, Mayor Brown has always sought and been comfortable in the limelight. He kept a framed poster on the wall of his San Francisco law office for many years that quoted himself saying, "The only thing worse than being misquoted is not being quoted at all." He has been known for his flamboyance, his love of fast cars, fine food and expensive clothing. His sharp tongue has kept friends laughing and enemies infuriated, although sometimes, given the vagaries of politics and public life, it's hard to sort out who is who. Biographer James Richardson describes him as the last great political showman of the 20th century. But beneath the flashing urbane exterior is the story of a remarkable political and personal journey.

He was born in 1934 on the wrong side of the tracks in Mineola. His mother was a maid to white families in Dallas. His father was a restaurant waiter and later a railroad porter. He was reared by his grandmother. The principal source of income for his family back in those days was bootlegging and gambling. He came to San Francisco in 1951 to follow a flamboyant uncle who purportedly ran an illicit casino in the Western Addition, which was then seen as being the Harlem of the West. He came from that difficult world, but through remarkable hard work escaped it. A farsighted professor at what was then called San Francisco State College spotted him and smoothed the way for Brown to enter college. Once he graduated, he went to the Hastings College of the Law here in the city and became a black lawyer in a city with a legal establishment that was just as segregated as the schools he had left behind in Texas.

Willie Brown entered politics in 1964, unseating an entrenched Democratic assemblyman in a primary election. His passion and willingness to say what he thought needed to be said moved him in and out of the legislative doghouse for decades but also paved the way for him to become an extremely popular and effective legislator who had the ability to bring governors of either party to the table when it was necessary. He first gained national prominence at the 1972 Democratic National Convention in a fiery speech demanding that the convention seat his California delegates, who were pledged to George McGovern. And in 1980 he made a deal with both sides of the aisle and was elected the speaker of the California State Assembly. Willie Brown served as speaker of the assembly for nearly 15 years, longer than anyone in California history has ever held that position or is likely to do so again. Consider this. Willie Brown was speaker of the assembly through all or part of the gubernatorial terms of Jerry Brown, George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson.

With term limits catching up to him in 1995, Brown left the assembly and was elected mayor of the City by the Bay. He certainly has not been a quiet mayor nor one who has avoided controversy. Indeed, his activist style has endured. He has attempted to forge political consensus around many of the vexing issues of San Francisco, ranging from building new football stadiums to developing Treasure Island in San Francisco Bay. He has taken on a decrepit city bus system, public employees, and San Francisco's never ending problem and dilemma with homelessness. And you probably saw in the paper this morning that he is now taking on bad drivers and bad pedestrians, as well. Through it all he has remained one of California's and the nation's most intriguing political figures, most charismatic and controversial leaders, and the best quote the California press has ever had. And he isn't even close to being done yet.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's my great pleasure to introduce to you the man here in San Francisco they call The Mayor, Willie Brown.

Remarks by Willie Brown

Thank you very much for that very kind introduction. I hope my local newspaper people heard it and will reprint every word. I am delighted to join with Mr. Wilson of the Chronicle to welcome you to San Francisco and to share that great moment with you that we had with the video of our good friend, Herb Caen. He was indeed an amazing human being. He would have been absolutely ecstatic with each of your remarks and your recommendations for the standards that should be measured for journalists. Herb Caen was truly an extraordinary journalist. He was a man who, within 24 hours from any mistake in his column, would put the same amount of emphasis, the same cleverness, the same kinds of words, and the same attention in the same prominent display of his correction of the error that he had given to the error itself. He was extraordinarily proud of being totally and completely accurate, so much so that at 80 years of age he was still doing his own fact-checking in any story that he did. He never really wanted an assistant to do the kind of work that good reporters do. He wanted to do it himself. He was so proud and dedicated to being a journalist and a great journalist that he lived it, worked it and preached it every day. The recommendations that came from your leadership with reference to where you should be personifies the life of Herb Caen. And I'm happy to have been called his friend. He was, for me, an absolutely necessary voice. It was like the world of old newspapers. On the front page, the Chronicle and the Examiner would skew me. In Herb Caen's column I was resurrected. And believe me the resurrection was far greater than the skewing.

Today, Herb is gone. San Francisco is definitely the loser. But the journalistic profession is, in fact, the loser. I read yesterday where AP received two Pulitzers, The New York Times two Pulitzers, The Wall Street Journal one or two. I can remember the great pride we all had in San Francisco when that revered and respected and honored organization notified us that they had finally come to their senses and embraced a true professional journalist by extending that same honor to him. I'm just delighted that it happened while he could be the responder.

He would want me to welcome you. He would also want me to be extraordinarily candid in what I think about newspapers and newspaper editors. And I certainly intend to do just that in the period of time extended to me. I can assure you that we are going to go away friends, however, in the end. So sit back and be comfortable for just a few minutes.

The role of newspapers and the media is very, very important, in my view, to this democracy. It's so important in the eyes, apparently, of the Founding Fathers that there are only two business enterprises listed in the Constitution: one, the church and religion; and the second, the press. A democracy depends upon the people being able to give their consent to be governed. The people can't get the information to help them frame an intelligent response and expressions from politicians. We don't do that. We write glowingly about ourselves. We put the spin on in the most favorable way from our perspective. We write, inaccurately, about our opponents and those who criticize us, and we always seek to have it interpreted in the most negative fashion as it relates to them. Therefore, the democracy depends upon those who are in the world of the media. You must provide the information so that those who are to be governed can be informed enough, comprehensively, to make an intelligent decision. When you fail in that regard, you threaten this very democracy that we so richly enjoy and of which we are so proud.

Over the last three or four decades, you know better than I that you have seriously failed that challenge. Just roll backwards, if you will, and think of the '70s when Watergate was the big story. You were in full flower. It was almost as if it was the time of the Founding Fathers. You were careful, cautious, objective and in pursuit of accuracy. You understood the implications of your print and your utterances. And you carefully guarded, and you caused an administration to fall. Roll back to the time of the Founding Fathers. It was not necessary for anybody to give you the cautionary instructions that your leadership gave you this morning, and that I share their view on, because there were so many newspapers. They didn't pretend to be objective, necessarily. They were partisan. They were advocates, and they fought with each other. And somehow the public could glean the truth from the multiple assaults on their psyche, and from the great availability of information. But that's all changed. There are so few newspapers today that partisanship can't be one of the byproducts. You now are in that position. In the 1970s you clearly exhibited that. You carefully monitored each one of the stories that you received, you checked the sources, you double-checked the sources, you triple-checked before you printed. There was no rush to beat your competitor and therefore cautions to the wind. There was none of this nonsense of going with unconfirmed, unsubstantiated rumors and speculations. There was a distinction made between news analysis and advocacy and factual reporting. You did a magnificent job. Watergate was something very special to this nation in terms of your reporting.

But by 1980 the advent of the star status and the celebrity roles played by Woodward and Bernstein and the spinoffs and all of the kinds of things that had occurred, it apparently changed the nature of what happens in the schools of journalism. All of a sudden the reporters who were sleuths became more important than the simple reporters like Herb Caen, who got hard news. Yes, Herb did do hard news. It was not just a daily column with the number of items 24, some rumor, some social, some critics of movies and restaurants, but occasionally Herb Caen would actually write an essay. And when he would write an essay, it might be on the environment, it might be on the Vietnam War that was referred to in the film. Occasionally, it was on you, his fellow journalists. I think I first read about journalistic vendettas from Herb Caen. He took on his own newspaper and his own fellow journalists in San Francisco on that issue. He cited chapter and verse when that was in fact reality. From about 1974 or 1975 through about 1980 those persons who simply did investigation without fully understanding what they were about became the people whom you rewarded. The old news dog you didn't reward at all. You didn't pay good salaries too, so in effect some of the perspective of what happens with the news media was lost. So it shouldn't be shocking to you today that - if the deterioration started post-Watergate and this is now 1999 - the fact that you are rated in public opinion polls along with undertakers, lawyers and politicians. It ought to be very instructive.

You know it is kind of funny, we refer to lawyers and politicians. My mother, whom was referred to and long since passed on back in Texas, knew that lawyers and politicians were like debris. Her son came to California and became both a lawyer and a politician, and my mother was very God-fearing and would never lie, but when asked what is your son doing in California, she would simply say he works for the government. My guess is that if I had also been a part of the news media, she would have said essentially the same thing. She would never admit the bottom level I had sunk to, nor that her son had become a part of that group. In the world of journalism there is no place at the bottom for you in this democracy. Somehow you've got to come out of that and move beyond undertakers, politicians and lawyers. They are not charged with protecting this democracy and you are. And with that goes an enormous responsibility. Let me tell you where I think the first real evidence of how you had gotten off track became apparent to the public.

In 1980 a television show started: "The McLaughlin Group." Electronic media began to invade your turf. Somebody came forward with the most bizarre idea I have ever heard for public policy discussion, particularly in politics: They decided to treat politics as if it were a sport, and they covered it as sportscasters cover and do analysis, "SportsCenter" or whatever the name of the sports program may be. You know, they discuss inside activities in the clubhouse, they discuss and give perspectives on the ability to pitch or to throw or to catch, they talk about all kinds of things that relate thereto, and then they predict the outcome, and they have zero responsibility for any accuracy of anything they say during the course of that time period. The McLaughlin activities were essentially the same. Now, of course, there would be total and complete denial that they were doing an opinion program, and there isn't any reason why anybody should treat it as anything other than semi-entertainment. Journalism can't be treated as semi-entertainment, and it never should be. But "The McLaughlin Group" was so successful copies came very quickly and in great volume. The talk show, the political interpretations of the talk show, the projections. Hard news began to be played down, and then, suddenly, the newspapers started aping McLaughlin, started doing essentially the same thing. Hard news began to be shunted aside. So it shouldn't be surprising to you that people began to doubt seriously each time they would read what you had provided them with, whether or not it was for entertainment purpose or information for them to form an appropriate decision to determine what course of action their lives should take. You know better than I. You could cite story after story where the coverage was essentially that way. The trivia was on the front page, the substance was some other place, if it existed at all.

I remember most recently when Bill Clinton and the Republicans got together and talked about changing welfare as we know it. Clinton made the announcement. Many newspapers treated it as if it were a political gamble, and you reported it as a political gamble and that was all you talked about. You speculated on what effect it would have on his re-electability. You speculated on whether or not he had gotten to the right of the Republicans on the issue. At no point did you give prominence to the substance of what was contained therein. You did not address the effect that measure could very well have on poor and downtrodden and disadvantaged Americans. There were some exceptions, of course. The New York Times and one of its writers spent a considerable amount of time, and for those of us who had to make some judgment that's where we had to go in order to get the information, not from our own local newspapers, but we had to go to that one source. And it's a tragedy, because in effect the public should have had the benefit of informed discussion, detailed, accurate information, on the front page and not simply the pure assessment as the sportscasters will do, as "The McLaughlin Group" often did, with reference to the political implications. The same went for the devaluing of the peso in Mexico. The issue was: Can Bill Clinton survive or what will be his reaction in view of GATT and NAFTA and how does this play. Didn't talk about the substance of what it meant to the economy of Mexico. That was way on the back pages. So it shouldn't be surprising that the public is ceasing to look to you for information to help them form opinions.

It was just short of 17 months ago that you turned the word Monica into a verb. Eventually, you did get the story right, but let me tell you, almost 15 months passed before you were able to say that with any degree of accuracy. You started and you really hammered away, and for several weeks you hammered away. Almost instantly you predicted that this was what you had been waiting for all these years. The news organizations of this nation have always enjoyed one thing, even in their declining influence, they could still wreck careers with scandal, and that was a part of the turf that you literally owned exclusively until Monica. When Monica came along, anticipating the same course of action, you went into full gear. You fell all over each other trying to beat each other to the next report of any bit of evidence or any statement made by anybody. You didn't do what occurred in 1972 during the Watergate years.

Let me give you the distinction - share with me for a moment because my recollection is probably not as good as many of yours since you do it every day - but let's just take Carl Albert as Speaker of the House. Can you imagine if Carl Albert had stood up and said about Richard Nixon to his members, don't discuss the scandal, discuss Nixon's crimes. Carl Albert didn't do that. He had his members focused on the facts surrounding the scandal. Comment would be awaited if there was ever a crime. That was not the case with Monica. From day one, Newt Gingrich went in the other direction. The difference is in Carl Albert's days if he had done that, the press and everybody else in this country would have been outraged. Newt Gingrich did it, and you reported it on the front page and talked about whether or not it would have any effect on Newt's ability to become a nominee for the Republican party for the presidency.

Another example. You recall Peter Rodino, man from New Jersey, revered and respected Congressman, was the chair of the House Watergate Committee. What would have happened if Rodino had gone back to his congressional district and proceeded to say, "Richard Nixon is a scum bag. That's why I am out to get him."? You recall that did happen in the Monica situation, but there was nobody outraged about it. There was no demand that that congressperson disqualify himself from any further deliberations. The newspapers were so carried away with the prospect of wiping out this presidency and with making good on their projections early on - and more than 100 newspapers called for either impeachment or resignation without any serious factual support - that they totally ignored the conduct of the chair of that respective committee. Can you imagine if Sam Irwin had, in fact, issued a subpoena on his own, received the documentation back of the tapes, collectively and creatively modified those tapes, and then published them? You would have been outraged. That happened in the Monica scandal, yet, almost silence. The public recognized that. When you did your three- or four-month attack laying out the horror of Bill Clinton's private life, you were certain that the public would react favorably. You live by the public opinion polls as most politicians do. The results must have been stunning to you. The public didn't buy it. They didn't believe you or they didn't care, if not a combination of both. The results were Bill Clinton's numbers began to creep up. You were absolutely certain that was because you hadn't been forceful enough. You increased the volume, you increased the amount of space, you gave credence to almost anybody who would utter anything who had any semi-credentials on the issue.

In many cases, you began, frankly, to demonstrate what the congressional Republicans eventually totally and completely embraced and demonstrated, and that was without reference to fact, fiction, without reference to public opinion we're going to move full speed ahead and make this case, whether we have evidence to support it or not. When you measured the first time, the public first rejected your view of the issue, became exasperated quickly in their negative expression about Ken Starr, and then proceeded to also become hostile to the press and the press coverage of that scandal. I recall so clearly reading that when Newt Gingrich raised questions about an alleged attack upon the institution of the Independent Council because of criticism of Kenneth Starr, he was given great prominent play. Not one of you, or maybe some of you did and I just didn't read it, raised any questions about the appropriateness of his conduct in that regard. The criticism that we all must suffer in this nation must be protected. That's part of the democratic process. However, Newt Gingrich was allowed to get away free of any question about his conduct as he tried to silence those who would criticize Kenneth Starr.

Well, event after event began to unfold and each time one more new event you would increase the amount of coverage. It got to be 24 hours a day with the cable systems going. At any moment you could dial up MSNBC and get the latest update. The lead story on almost every one of the electronic news sources was a recounting of the most recent words printed by you or reported by you anywhere in this nation on that subject matter. And each time the public opinion polls would be accessed and determined, Clinton continued to go up. You couldn't believe it. Let me assure you we couldn't believe it, and I'm sure Clinton didn't believe. All of us were stunned. Something was going on out there in the public that we didn't understand and appreciate, and maybe we still don't understand it and appreciate it. I can speculate that this nation did not like McCarthyism. They didn't like it in the '50s and they hated it even more in the '90s, even when it was sexual McCarthyism. This nation didn't like the arrogance of the news organizations trying to tell them what they should believe and what they should consider serious. They didn't like the cynicism that they saw. They totally disliked the irresponsibility every time you had to apologize or issue a correction in this regard. It only said and underlined the attitude that was already forming and being framed by many persons in the public. It was a terrible time, frankly, for this nation and for all of us, and it was particularly a terrible time for the news media.

Now, newspapers have a chance, in my opinion, to reverse that. I'm not sure about the electronic media. They are so dedicated to the 20-and 30-second sound bite and out. They are so accustomed to simply reading what somebody else has written without fully understanding it. I'm not sure they can do it. I had high hopes at one time for the cable systems, but they apparently have a gene problem in that they can only do maybe two stories at a time. You did comprehensive coverage in the old days. You have got to begin to do that again. And as indicated by your leadership, you have really got to begin to think in terms of accuracy over everything else. You also have an even greater responsibility than you had at the outset of journalism and news organizations. Now that you are so few, you truly must be nonpartisan and objective. You must, even for those of us you dislike, report accurately on what we do and how we do it. You must, as your leadership indicated, cease including in your news stories commentary. Too often the public sees that and understands that that is exactly what you are doing.

The only people in this nation who are giving you passing marks - and I don't think any politician really gets passing marks - in the public opinion polls are fellow journalists. Columbia School of Journalism recently had 125 senior editors give opinions on the coverage of the Monica operation. What did they do? Half said it was overplayed. Half said it was underplayed. They were unanimous, however, virtually, 89 percent said it was perfectly appropriate to go into the minute detail of Bill Clinton's sexual life; 89 percent said that. I would guess if Herb Caen had been alive, he would have been one of the 11 percent, and his would have been the loudest voice of the 11 percent. Yes, he would love to poke fun and he would poke fun, but he would never move it to the serious level of front page consumption as was done and have it dominate.

My guess is that this nation, in terms of journalism, is in dire need of a real shot in the arm. I am an advocate of news organizations. No matter how much I criticize them I absolutely live and die with them. I still peruse several newspapers every day, magazines. I am a news junkie. The only thing I watch other than the news is business involving sports. But beyond that I'm dedicated and I want you to be equally as dedicated. We political types need the window that you afford for informational purposes, for public opinion, forming and framing. Believe me, I don't purport to give you any advice and counsel. No politician could presume to do that with editors and newspaper publishers, but I'm going to cross the line. I am going to tell you there is something wrong with your product. You've got to figure out exactly what that is. I can make some observations about it, but the public doubts you as much as they doubt me, and that's not a good sign. I come and go, but you stay forever. You have a protected position. Yours is a greater obligation than the oath that I frankly take, and you've got to begin to treat that greater obligation in a fashion that will restore you to the protector of this democracy.

And in the process one final recommendation and that is your sports page. I am an avid reader of your sports page. You are so old and out of the loop on what ought to be on your sports page. You are still doing baseball, football, basketball and a little bit of hockey. Do you understand that the world has changed dramatically? Those of us who are really sports fans go to Nascar, Winston Cup races, and we do so in greater numbers than we do any of the other sports. Do you understand that more kids now play soccer at every age than kids playing baseball, football, basketball anywhere? Yet your coverage in your sports section in those areas are only in the digest, and you just barely cover golf and only when David Duval wins every tournament in the world or Tiger breaks all the records. Then you go back to doing that traditional stuff. Get with it. Take a look at every aspect of your sports page, please, and do something about upgrading it. And believe me, if you do, those of us who read the sports page so avidly may begin to read the front page. Thank you.

Bhatia: Well the mayor said he would be frank and indeed he was. He has agreed to take some questions.

Questions from the floor

Tom Koenninger, The Columbian, Vancouver, Wash.: Mr. Mayor, when Stephen Covey addressed this organization a year ago, he stressed the importance of dialogue and building relationships. Against that backdrop and what you've said this morning, how would you categorize your relationship with the Chronicle and the Examiner? Is it love/hate? Is it love/love? Is it hate/hate? Or something else? And would you explain please?

Brown: Well, each of those newspapers opposed my candidacy for mayor and that opposition, which was 1995, has not changed in 1999, even though I won. I don't know whether you call it love/love or hate/hate. I do know that if you review the newspapers in San Francisco, particularly the Examiner, if you are the mayor, it would be a little annoying that they are running a box soliciting somebody to run against you with a 1-800 number. You would have to believe that the news stories are influenced by their solicitation of opposition to your candidacy, and they are actually doing that. That's how much they think, apparently, that I shouldn't be the mayor of the city. On the other hand, the Chronicle wishes not to be identified as being soft on Willie Brown, and the way they express it is by being aggressively anti-Willie Brown in about four-fifths of their activity. I am relegated, you know, to good newspapers like the Independent, the San Francisco Sun Reporter, The Chinese Times, or The Bay Times, all the papers that people read for accuracy.

Craig Klugman, The Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne, Ind.: Good morning, Mayor. All the editors in this room are on the front lines of some kind of urban policy issues, and I'd like you to put yourself in the editor's chair for just a minute and tell us, looking ahead for 10 years what are the three or four or five key urban issues that you think we ought to cover better than we are now.

Brown: Well, I'm not sure that I am that visionary. As a matter of fact, my newspapers say one of my problems is that I am not visionary.

Klugman: I'm inviting you to prove them wrong.

Brown: I'm not sure I can. So let's get that straight. I don't maintain that they are incorrect on their assessment of me. Believe me, I don't suggest that, but I would venture to say that the issue of diversity over the next several years will be an issue that requires serious, focused attention. Of late it has only gotten the attention of the public press when it evidences itself by some act of hatred, somebody doing something to Matthew Shepard in one of the middle western states or Jasper, Texas, or here in San Francisco over the last several weeks, just yesterday somebody being pushed aside, dumped, because they happen to be black. I believe that this nation is slowly but surely moving, as California has so dramatically moved, into a time period when there are a greater number of immigrants, a greater number of people of color than we have ever had to live with before, and over the next several years many states are going to begin to reflect that and so will the nation. And that's going to create additional tension, and, in many cases, those tensions come with a misunderstanding of culture and ethnicities. In that regard, sometimes hate reveals itself. I believe that issue is one that we must appropriately address.

Secondly - this is below the surface, we are discovering it in San Francisco - is the issue of dealing with poverty. We can talk about job training programs. We in San Francisco have a better list of programs, a more sensitive constituency than probably any other place in the nation. We have virtually hit the wall. Suddenly we find the educational system, in many cases, has been a total failure to a segment of our population. It has evidenced itself by the fact that people are not even ready to be trained. They are reading at a second-, third-, and fourth-grade level. And among those who are almost institutionally in poverty that is a reality. Their disabilities, whether by virtue of not being trainable or whether by virtue of all the other kinds of things that represent some form of a handicap, self-imposed in many cases, including the ingestion of mind-altering substances and booze and things of that nature, we as a system and as a government are not yet ready to deal with it. We have not really scraped the surface, so the issue of poverty in America and how we deal with it in the next few years is going to be upon us in a very handsome and traumatic way. Politicians at the national level, at the state level and a lot of times at the local level have not a clue, and the news media organizations are even less focused.

And then finally, finally, I would think the issue of rapid communications as it is today will continue to be a major urban issue. Rapid communication spanning all lines, all places, is something that is not yet harnessed, not yet understood, we are completely comfortable with, and over the next few years I think that, too, will be an issue.

Bhatia: We are out of time. I want to acknowledge the mayor's press secretary, Kandace Bender. She was instrumental in arranging the mayor's appearance today, and she used to work for the Examiner. Mr. Mayor, thank you so much for being here. It has been a pleasure to have you here this morning at ASNE.