Most Popular
Recent Blog Posts
National Features >
MecklinBy John MecklinPublished on April 08, 1998Vanishing Acts I suppose, then, that I am about to violate my own news philosophy. I have decided to write about Warren Hinckle and Joe O'Donoghue, even though each of these "men" is as drearily trivial as anyone I've spoken to this decade. But bear with me. I'll spice things up as much as possible, given the limitations of the subjects, and I'll be no longer about the task than absolutely necessary. Last week, O'Donoghue, a trying blowhard who is president of a group called the Residential Builders Association of San Francisco, sent out a press release proclaiming his sudden discovery that the cover of an issue of SF Weekly -- an issue that had been on the streets for nearly a week -- was racist. The claim was stupid and wrong and, as I later told O'Donoghue directly, racist in its own right. Here's the story (style apologies to Matier and Ross): Although direct and powerful, the cover wasn't even racial, much less racist. It could have illustrated most any story about a strong political challenge to a sitting public official, regardless of the ethnicity of the people involved. It just so happened that the challengers involved in this particular story are Chinese-American, and the public official is an African-American. But that ethnic mix was dictated by physical reality, not journalistic whim. O'Donoghue, in a pompous, ungrammatical press release, tried -- and I mean really, viciously tried -- to create a racial incident out of thin air. His release claimed, with no logical supporting argument, that the cover was so ethnically offensive to Mayor Brown that the Residential Builders Association and "all its members, friends and allies" should boycott SF Weekly until the paper apologized for its terrible actions. Oh, the terror! Oh, the loneliness! The day after O'Donoghue's silly, untrue, and racist tract was distributed, a "man" named Warren Hinckle (who, it's rumored, was once a journalist) wrote a newspaper "column" based upon it. The "column," published in the Independent "newspaper," repeated O'Donoghue's malicious nonsense and added a fair amount of what might be mistaken for political analysis, if it weren't so crack-brained, conspiratorial, dull, and badly edited. The Hinckle piece -- and the garbage O'Donoghue press release it was based upon -- tried to falsely tag SF Weekly and the people who work here, and the SFNA and the people who lead it, as racists. Luckily, once unleashed, the "column" and the press release delivered a blow that showed the full, vast political influence Hinckle and O'Donoghue can bring to bear, when they combine forces. That is: Nothing happened. So why, you ask, bother writing a column about two uninteresting, impotent louts? Why waste ink and newsprint and precious time on such tiny irritants as these? Well, my friends, the answer to those questions is a little complicated, but stay with me; it's got a nice kick to it, at the end. I have nothing for or against Willie Brown or the San Francisco Neighbors' Association. Whether they feud or get along, annihilate or love one another, is all of a piece to me. SF Weekly doesn't do advocacy journalism. Any writer who tries to promote a particular political cause in the news sections of my paper won't be writing for me very long. I have no direct line of contact with the thought processes of Warren Hinckle and Joe O'Donoghue (thank the Lord). But these two longtime supporters of Willie Brown, who apparently believe the Weekly's head-on-a-platter cover was a political act meant to harm the mayor, did something strange and ugly last week. Under cover of liberal ideology, using the vocabulary of racial justice, claiming they were rushing to the rescue of a progressive agenda, these two people engaged in a particularly nasty form of race-baiting -- and betrayed the ideals of decency and fairness that real liberals and progressives believe in and try to live by.
write your comment
|