Oakland in the media and Real Estate values (San Jose, Alameda: rent, homes)

[ssmaster]

The sf chronicle underreports crime in san Francisco especially in tourist areas

Here is an example search "sfgate 5 year old girl shot in Chinatown" nothing
Then "sfexaminer 5 year old girl shot in Chinatown" the Chinatown child shooting appears
Case closed

The chronicle also neglects to report what neighborhoods homicides occur in if they occur in east and west oakland

[04kL4nD]

There are more murders in Oakland than in San Francisco even though its population is half the size. This is why you see Oakland on the news so much. It's alarming a city with only 400k people experience so much crime. No one believes San Francisco is crimeless either, but the two cities are very night and day.

I've already agreed with you and Doc about this. SF has half the murder rate of Oakland. SF has twice as many people as Oakland. Oakland has twice the murder rate as SF, despite having half as many people. Are there any other ways you'd like to state this astutely accurate observation?

Neither of you is willing to address what ssmaster and jade are talking about: why does the SF Chronicle selectively ignore murders in its own city, but choose to report murders across the bay? Why the concern about Oakland? Shouldn't SF residents be worried that children are being murdered in their own city? Wouldn't that sell newspapers? Of course it would, but it would scare away SF's precious tourists who fuel the backbone of the city's economy.

Doc and dragontales both said it would be dumb for the media to report on all of the murders that happen in Oakland since it would kill tourism, but Oakland isn't even a tourist destination! SF IS! How can you not see the double-standard?

Can somebody please just answer the question?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

How can you not see the double-standard?

Can somebody please just answer the question?

I'll answer that one from 2,000 miles away. They don't want to see it. The Chronicle doesn't want SF to look bad so it under-reports crime there. Over-reporting crime in Oakland makes SF look better in comparison. Keep them tourists comin' ya know. It ain't honest or responsible, but it works!

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I've already agreed with you and Doc about this. SF has half the murder rate of Oakland. SF has twice as many people as Oakland. Oakland has twice the murder rate as SF, despite having half as many people. Are there any other ways you'd like to state this astutely accurate observation?

Neither of you is willing to address what ssmaster and jade are talking about: why does the SF Chronicle selectively ignore murders in its own city, but choose to report murders across the bay? Why the concern about Oakland? Shouldn't SF residents be worried that children are being murdered in their own city? Wouldn't that sell newspapers? Of course it would, but it would scare away SF's precious tourists who fuel the backbone of the city's economy.

Doc and dragontales both said it would be dumb for the media to report on all of the murders that happen in Oakland since it would kill tourism, but Oakland isn't even a tourist destination! SF IS! How can you not see the double-standard?

Can somebody please just answer the question?

I don't see them ignoring murders in San Francisco. I see them report murders when they happen, even in tourist areas such as Fisherman's Wharf. The fact is there are a lot less murders in SF, that is why there are a lot less murder stories in SF.

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

I don't see them ignoring murders in San Francisco. I see them report murders when they happen, even in tourist areas such as Fisherman's Wharf. The fact is there are a lot less murders in SF, that is why there are a lot less murder stories in SF.

ssmaster, on this very page, JUST pointed out that SF Chronicle- the biggest/most widely read newspaper in the Bay Area- did not report a 5 year old child being murdered in Chinatown. Do you think this is an isolated incident that they some how didn't get around to reporting?

You can keep repeating the same line that more murders occur in Oakland all you want, but they are the ones who choose to run it as a headline when it happens in Oakland, and ignore it when it happens in SF.

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I'll answer that one from 2,000 miles away. They don't want to see it. The Chronicle doesn't want SF to look bad so it under-reports crime there. Over-reporting crime in Oakland makes SF look better in comparison. Keep them tourists comin' ya know. It ain't honest or responsible, but it works!

We hardly agree on anything, but even this is too obvious to ignore.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

We hardly agree on anything, but even this is too obvious to ignore.

Yup on both counts, but some will "choose" to ignore reality anyway. Pax!

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I'll answer that one from 2,000 miles away. They don't want to see it. The Chronicle doesn't want SF to look bad so it under-reports crime there. Over-reporting crime in Oakland makes SF look better in comparison. Keep them tourists comin' ya know. It ain't honest or responsible, but it works!

Did the Chronicle also make S.F only have HALF the murders that Oakland did in 2012? Did it also make S.F have less than half the violent crime rate? The Chronicle seems to have a lot of power in your eyes.

[04kL4nD]

Strawman alert! Answer the question: Why does the SF Chronicle selectively report the way they do? I thought murder was a serious offense- one that's so heinous that you bring it up constantly in this thread.

Shouldn't the people in SF hear about murder whenever it happens like people in Oakland do?

[Senno]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

The Chronicle seems to have a lot of power in your eyes.

Are you truly shocked that a newspaper would only report the stories that it wants to cover?