Part III: The Seal Opens

The angel spreads his wings...









The Gate's meltdown was unveiled for all to see on 2/23/08. You could have witnessed it for yourself had you been posting a comment at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/22/BAT6V6JF7.DTL&hw=zoo+grotto&sn=001&sc=1000

At that URL you would have found many pages of notations that a comment had been removed, interspersed with cautious speculations and random taunts by those who remained online. As events unfolded and the Gate's computer filled its own pages, one poster stated, "This comment has been removed by SFGate"! That's encourageing [sic] comments all right!" The effect was chilling, to say the least.

It began just after 2:18 p.m. PST and continued at intervals until after 10:30 p.m. As I watched in amazement the comment board began to remind me of "The Shining." Like Nicholson madly typing, "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy," the Gate's computer was numbing us all with page after electronic page filled with nothing but line upon line of, "This comment has been removed by SFGate." By 2/25/08, all traces of the chaos and purge had been removed. The comment page had shrunk back to about half its former size overnight and had dropped from 458 comments back to only 246. Of course some posters may also have been removed in the process.

I fear that still more of the same will follow and less transparent software will be developed. In the end the corporations may choose to silence all but those who tap their keyboards in rhythm to a familiar corporate anthem. Of course, speculation such as I have indulged in here is unwelcome commentary at the Gate, though it realistically violates no stated policy or Terms and Conditions [hereafter "T&C"] that I could determine. Some contributors now watch as their posts disappear, one by one, if they comment negatively about the Christmas day survivors or even the Gatekeepers themselves. Posts may vanish if they contain complaints about the disappearance of posts or mention that other contributors have been banished by the Gatekeepers. Paranoia and accusations of paranoia have crept under the Gate, and many who visited the comment pages feel uncomfortable.

Here's one contributor's view of the Gate who encountered "problems" early in the game: http://investigatethemedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/san-francisco-chronicle-deceives-its.html At yet another site (and in spite of the number of posters who agreed with the blogger's analysis), his 2007 blog is discussed and taken with a virtual grain of salt at: http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/es_crackberry_chronicles_071128.shtml

How weird has the Gate's world become since its beta version appeared in October 2007 and the blogs cited above were posted? Kafka would feel at home, but he might be deleted since famous quotations from scholars and philosophers can be routinely removed as "spam." Some posters awake to find that their passwords no longer work and all their comments for months have been removed. Some believe that this happens with commentary on articles about the zoo as a result of a few posters who work in concert to "eliminate" any contributor they do not like. (It may be done by "reporting abuse" repeatedly to the Gate when the disliked contributor comments.) At times, the entire comment section of an article is "blanked out" and inaccessible though comments previously existed.

Others believe that banishment results from the Chronicle's apparent bias against the zoo and offer the many negative articles that have been published recently as "evidence" of an agenda at the Gate. I have found evidence within the Gate that contributors are being removed from other stories, as well as those whose subject is the zoo. The blog cited above has no connection to the zoo, its director or the Zoological Society, but those who have been removed express the same bewilderment at their fate. The suspicions of some may be labeled "paranoia" by others, but to paraphrase Clairol, only the Gate knows for sure. It's not telling, but it is leaving evidence of its amputations behind.

A cursory Google search turned up this posters' experience with perceived censorship at the Gate, again on a topic completely unrelated to issues dear to my heart and discussed at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/16/18479632.php In a later update this author discusses the Gate's newer "techniques" that seem to control unwanted posting at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/29/18482632.php It's even mentioned in passing at Yelp! See http://www.yelp.com/biz/san-francisco-chronicle-san-francisco-3

One who commented on the Indybay article invoked the rights of a private corporation to control content on their website and even pointed to the dreaded T&C as justification for control (or suppression) of public debate. To me, the point is much simpler. Rightly or wrongly, most of us think of SFGate as the digital portal of The San Francisco Chronicle. After all, is is printed on their "front page." As public media representing the best known newspaper in the Bay Area, we expect it to comply with fair reporting standards as any "real" newspaper should. We have missed the point that it is not a "real newspaper" any longer, but apparently the law supports its right to masquerade as one while it functions as little more than a well publicized blog.

If the Gate is only a corporate blog and is not upholding journalistic standards, it should place that statement as a caveat to an unwary public on every digital page in bold type. Then, I would have no problem with its "moderating" comments or removing them entirely. Until it does that, I hold the Gate and its Gatekeepers responsible for meeting the standards of fair reporting and giving space to every voice with two exceptions, i.e., threats of violence and for obscenity as defined by prevailing community standards. No one (or group) of posters should be able to "ban" another simply because they dislike the point of view that contributor expressed. If the Gate participates on that basis, they are no better than McCarthy and his followers in my opinion.

If you thought the "bad old days" were gone and that there was free speech in cyberspace, please think again. T&C and other "stated policies" are always open to interpretation when you have a legal department on call. So far, it is the corporations' "virtual world," and we are only allowed to "play in it" at our own risk under current law, with some important exceptions made under California civil law. The penalty for even unwitting offense may be the forcible removal of your cyber tongue. The Gatekeepers call it a "public service," but what public does it really serve? If media is a guardian of the public interest, who guards this guardian?

I discovered today that individuals like myself, whose aim is to speak the truth as best they can determine it, are being targeted by "SLAPP Suits" (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) all over America for posting opinion online. The point of such a suit is to intimidate individuals into remaining silent about perceived corporate abuse. No legal merit or truthful basis is required of a corporation to file suit, but the victim can still be bankrupted without legal recourse in the process of mounting a defense. In other words, you may wind up being vindicated and find yourself homeless for daring to think and to express your thoughts. Orwell saw it coming, and it has been loose among us for some time without drawing much attention. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP I haven't been sued yet, but then I haven't been noticed out here in space yet either. I do believe that I am acting in the public interest, as I perceive it, so I must resist being silenced as best I can.

Is this personal? You bet! Something I valued was taken from me, and that was my identify, my voice, every word I ever wrote at the Gate, along with my hope to touch the public heart and raise public awareness. My offense? I posted what I believe are relevant and life affirming quotes by Gandhi, Sinclair Lewis, Kant and others in response to race baiting and/or hostile posts from a small group of regulars. I was praised by fellow contributors for doing so and asked to provide quotes from Leonardo da Vinci and Albert Schweitzer which I did. My family tried to make a positive contribution to a public forum, and our mouths were hermetically sealed by a woman who began as a blogger on the Internet. Orwell met Sinclair Lewis and was shown the Gate.

Ironically and perhaps poetically, when I called the Gate I was told by the Head Gatekeeper and former blogger [hereafter, "HG"] that a quotation from the author of, "It Can't Happen Here" had triggered my demise: “Pugnacity is a form of courage, but a very bad form.” I offered those words in response to the cyber bullying I felt was taking place at the Gate on a daily basis, but HG told me that my use of quotations was "irrelevant" and "unresponsive." HG couldn't spell my name or Gandhi's, but she was sure that his words and mine were "spam" and a violation of the Gate's legal T&C. (Pretty good for someone who is neither an attorney nor a journalist, as far as I can determine.) You can read what appears to be independent commentary about the Gate's view of complaints like mine at HG's former website -- the one that propelled her to her current position: See http://sfist.com/2007/11/27/crypto_deletion.php and you can read a complete rebuttal of her remarks at: http://investigatethemedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/sf-chronicle-admits-to-deceptive.html

I realized when I saw Sfist's article that the Gate might be just the tiniest bit worried about this topic being discussed and more people than I thought must be complaining or this story would never have hit the Internet. BTW, do serious journalists and their editors actually refer to contributors (and in my family's case, paid subscribers) as "trolls"? That's a blog term or internet slur, unless I'm mistaken. I found yet another view of the Gate's T&C policies at: http://www.straight.com/article-120137/media-outlets-censoring-user-comments

My family was removed, along with me, for sharing the same ISP address, though our identities and style of posting were separate and highly individual. We shared characteristics, as any family would. It did not occur to the Gate that a family would share the same computer and internet service provider or perhaps our well-intentioned posts offended in some mysterious (and unspecified) manner. We do not know. The Gatekeepers generally do not offer enlightenment, only banishment, as I was told.

And thereby hangs a tale, as they say. T&C may be the cyber refuge of scoundrels. No one but the Legal Department seems to read them or understand them, but we are all bound by them in the end. They demand, "Didn't you read the T&C?!" "Yes, but I bogged down on page 666," we say, but it's no excuse and will not save us. We agree to a T&C without understanding because that's how they're written by corporate attorneys. Then we find ourselves victimized by a nation that despises lawyers while it worships legalese at the expense of justice. It's the classic no-win scenario.

Do I love quotations? Oh, yes, I do, so I'll leave you with two "spam" favorites: "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." (I may have been silenced by the corporate minions at the ever narrowing Gate for "offenses" real or imagined, but I still hope to share my thoughts with you here. The Master of "Spam" himself, Gandhi, said: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Never let them grind you down, no matter what they do. The Samurai says, "Never say die!" but if you must, make it honorable. Make it count!

COMING SOON: Who was Tatiana and why should you care?

Part II: Players in the Shadows

"One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter.." -- St. John the Divine

While the media has caught the zoo in its headlights with blinding intensity, the young men who may have set this tragedy in motion remain in the shadows. After almost two months, we still know almost nothing about them. The survivors have never granted a public interview, and most of the information we have comes from police and court records of past arrests for anti-social behavior. We know that they are brothers. They are 19 and 23 years of age and live in San Jose, California. Their father is a postal employee, and their mother is a housewife. The older brother may have worked as a security guard in the past. Residents of their neighborhood have come forward to complain of the brothers' lack of respect and anti-social behavior at their Pipe Dream Court residence. How can we still know so little about the two men who are at the center of an event that has shaken our city like the San Andreas Fault? See http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7960021?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com&nclick_check=1

What does the police blotter provided by the media tell us? Among other things, we know that the youngest of the two survivors was on felony probation on Christmas day and had been previously arrested for driving under the influence at speeds up to 140 mph on public streets in his home town of San Jose. Included in the charges are battery on a police officer and resisting arrest. I have not heard that his probation has been revoked, and his next hearing is set for March 28, 2008. Related charges have been filed against his older brother. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/16/MN51UFVP4.DTL

On Christmas day, the survivors have now admitted that all three were under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana to a varying degree. The youngest of them had lied to his own family and left his mother to celebrate Christmas alone in order to join the two brothers on that hour-long drive to the zoo. When the youngest's father called and spoke to one of the brothers, he was told that his son was not with them. Only a few hours later, that young man lay dead in the dusk near Tatiana's grotto. His best "friends" refused to provide his name (or their own) to the police, so the seventeen year-old remained unidentified until the next day when the Coroner notified his family. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/31/BAB2U7625.DTL

From almost the beginning at the Gate, negative posts began to appear accusing anyone who criticized the survivors as "racists." If you are unaware, I doubt that there is a more feared or dreaded slur in the Bay Area. (You might be better off insulting someone's mother.) Any post that mentioned the survivors' past criminal actions was met by a small, but determined group of contributors who cyber chanted "racist," or "racist haters," ad nauseam. Even after all of the Gatekeepers' deletions over past days, 362 pages of comments with 3,613 entries still remain on just one article. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/19/MNKDUHQRQ.DTL&hw=mauling+investigation+winding+down&sn=001&sc=1000

The majority of the Gate's readers held the survivors responsible. In an informal and unscientific poll the Gate recorded 5,809 votes. 82% of voters held the brothers to be solely responsible. Some of that majority posted comments demanding vengeance, instead of justice and made crude suggestions as to how the two brothers might be punished for their alleged crimes. No picture had yet been released of the survivors, and their names had been withheld from the public by their own request. No one could know, unless they were a friend or acquaintance, what ethnicity they might or might not represent; yet the ugly accusations continued unabated and unchecked by the Gatekeepers. [Note: The role of the Gatekeepers will be examined in further detail in Part III which examines censorship issues. Even after recent deletions and removal of posts sympathetic to the zoo or to Tatiana, 362 pages of comments with 3,613 entries still remain on just one article. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/19/MNKDUHQRQ.DTL&hw=mauling+investigation+winding+down&sn=001&sc=1000

If the Gate's majority speculated in curiosity or anger, it wasn't as if there were many facts to contradict conjecture. Very few facts are available even now, but the circumstances alone would make any thinking person wonder about this unprecedented event. Tatiana's enclosure had stood since its construction by the WPA in the 1930's. No zoo visitor had ever been attacked outside her grotto in all those years, but these visitors brought with them anti-social backgrounds and a history of high-risk behaviors when they drove to the zoo and arrived near closing that day. They drove more than an hour on a damp and chilly holiday with a bottle of alcohol and a synthetic urine kit to keep them company. (Their hometown of San Jose has a fine zoo of its own.) One was then on felony probation and was forbidden liquor, but his blood alcohol at .16 measured twice the legal limit some time after the tragedy that was to come. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/01/05/MNVKU9L9L.DTL

In about an hour after their arrival, the youngest of the trio lay dead. In the cold darkness of that Christmas night, a beautiful and highly endangered Amur tiger also lay still. She had been shot and killed by the San Francisco Police. The two brothers were injured but would heal quickly and be released from the hospital within the week. Given just those facts, any sensible person would have to wonder what made Christmas Day 2007 so very different from every other day since the 1930's. Does it seem unreasonable that the survivors provide at least part of that answer? Tatiana cannot speak, nor can the young man who lost his life. The brothers still refuse to break their silence.

At the Gate, however, any speculation about the likelihood of the survivors' involvement brought (and still brings) a chorus of rude and disruptive chatter from a small but committed band of posters who support these men. They've ceaselessly argued that the brothers made no contribution to this tragedy, though an EMT at the scene reported that the eldest had said, "Don't tell anyone what we did." That pact of silence, if true, has never been explained though it appears to remain in effect to this day. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/05/MNVKU9L9L.DTL

Though the dead man's mother embraced one of the brothers at her son's funeral, two different stories were emerging. She initially reported that the younger brother told her that they "didn't do nothing," but the dead man's father told SFPD that the brother who was on felony probation had admitted that they'd stood on a 2-inch rounded rail while both drunk and stoned. They supposedly balanced on that slippery structure while they "yelled and waved their arms" at Tatiana. According to his account, Tatiana appeared out of the bushes "without warning" and attacked them; killing the young man. Even with the emergence of these conflicting (and to most readers, unbelievable) accounts, the same group of posters chanted on in defense of the brothers at the Gate. See http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_8007629 and http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/mn/news/tiger_searchwarrant_011808.pdf

Who wouldn't speculate on this incredible story and wonder what really happened? These conflicting accounts remain because neither survivor has ever publicly given his version of the deadly events of Christmas night. They maintained silence at the hospital. The police reported that they were "hostile" and "uncommunicative" when interviewed. They refused to give their names to SFPD and were sarcastic to the EMT taking them to the hospital. They were rude to the hospital staff. They even refused to name their "best friend" so that his parents could be told of his death. These are not the actions of normal young men in my experience. Even a samurai could be excused for babbling if he were attacked by a tiger in the darkness without warning. For two young men to remain silent under such a circumstance defies reason.

Common sense tell us that it took tremendous effort for Tatiana to scale the cement wall of her grotto. She weighed 243 lbs. at death; about 20 pounds more than the young man who died. Like him, too, she was young. Though she was an agile teenager in tiger years, her paws and claws were "shredded" according to her necropsy report. See http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/mn/news/tiger_tatiana_necropsy_report.pdf

In spite of those facts, we are asked to believe that her escape was noiseless until she "suddenly appeared" out of the bushes without warning. It staggers my imagination. There have been reports of wandering young men taunting the lions and other animals shortly before zoo closing at 5 p.m. PST. To my knowledge they have not been verified, but taunting seems to provide entertainment for some visitors. What can we do? "First and foremost, people need to be educated. We need to respect them accordingly," said Jonathan Kraft, who runs Keepers of the Wild in Arizona, which has more than 20 tigers. In the San Francisco escape, "I would bet my reputation that the animal was taunted." See http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080110-AP-tigers.html and http://www.mercurynews.com/petsheadlines/ci_8018515 for more informed opinions.

When interviewed, tiger experts seemed in agreement that something "extraordinary" happened that night. Something Tatiana had never experienced occured, and she had heard and seen "yelling and waving" on many occasions. The something "extraordinary" makes any thinking person wonder what that reported statement "Don't tell them what we did," meant to Tatiana.

Part I: Has the Seventh Seal Opened at SFGate.com?

"On the Seventh Day, the Seventh Seal was opened and there was silence in heaven..."

The events of Christmas day have left the Bay Area in shock, and its echoes have reached around the world through the internet and the media. Such attention was justified for many reasons. As far as can be determined, no zoo visitor had ever been killed outside an animal enclosure at an American zoo, and one of the last representatives of an almost extinct species was shot and killed by the San Francisco police. A nationally recognized attorney has been hired to represent the two survivors, and the deceased young man's family has also sought legal representation. Though a beautiful and rare tigress and a troubled teenager lost their lives on Christmas night, this story refuses to die with them.

San Francisco's local newspaper, the Chronicle, has covered the story each day at its web portal, SFGate.com. Each day many readers comment in cyberspace on the next article as it appears. At one point, there were more than 3,700 comments on just one article; probably a record for any story posted on that portal. Though the commentors' numbers have dwindled as we near the two-month anniversary, an article still makes the front page of SFGate.com (hereafter, "the Gate" since all must pass through its narrowing opening to post an opinion) on most days.

Many perceive these "stories" to be nothing more than "hit pieces" on our zoo and its management by the Zoological Society. Animal rights groups and their supporters have found a home at the Gate. Their quotes have been placed front and center though their stated objective has always been the zoo's closure. That agenda was "old news" for years before Tatiana was born or brought to our city. Recently, "experts" hired by In Defense of Animals (hereafter, "IDofA") walked through the zoo, called a press conference and gave the zoo a negative assessment which was trumpeted at the Gate as if it represented an objective report by unbiased authorities. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/02/BANEUQJGA.DTL

Had the Gate wished to appear balanced, they could have interviewed many other experts in the field. Prominent among them is Joel Parrott, Director of the Oakland Zoo and San Francisco's nearest neighbor. (One of their calmest contributors brought his past remarks to the Gate's attention.) "The quality of animal care has improved since the Zoological Society assumed management in 1993. An independent evaluation by Dr. Joel Parrott concluded that veterinary care at the SF Zoo is excellent and general care is good... There are a number of animal exhibits that are out-of-date & can only be considered minimal facilities. The most glaring deficiencies in housing & exhibit design are the chimpanzees, orangutans, elephants, bears, sea lions, hippopotamus, giraffe, & siamang. All of these are recognized as minimal facilities by current Zoo management. All, with the exception of the bears and sea lions, are scheduled for new facilities within Phase II ($73 million) of the Master Plan." See http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/budanalyst/zoo/1_1animalmanagement.pdf

Raising money has always been a challenge, but the Zoological Society has done a great deal for the animal population in their care and intend to do far more as funds become available. To learn more about their efforts, the animals they care for, or to offer your time, money or support, please take a moment to visit the San Francisco Zoological Society's homepage. See http://www.sfzoo.org/openrosters/view_homepage.asp?orgkey=1859

Though their numbers were always small, animal rights' contributors and those who dislike zoos found a home at the Gate. Some have repetitively posted personal attacks in apparent violation of the Gatekeepers' stated policy. Others have offered both misinformation and links to misleading videos purporting to expose "cruelty" and mismanagement at the zoo without repercussion. [Case in point: Clipping a flamingo's wing feathers to prevent escape and injury was termed "mutilation" though no pain is involved. It's standard practice among even domestic birdkeepers, and the birds couldn't be openly exhibited unless the tips of one wing's feathers are clipped. It allows them to be in the open air but prevents them from flying into harm's way. Harmless algae seen on a polar bear's coat was offered as an example of neglect and mistreatment. In truth, removing the discoloration could create added stress for the bear and its removal is only cosmetic.] The fringe element was joined by the Gate on February 15, 2008 in what I see as yet another "opinion piece" masquerading as fair reporting. That article again put IDofA's viewpoint on the front-page when the group presented one of their disingenuous videos to city government. See "Video shows zoo animals' dismal digs" at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/15/BAMDV39CA.DTL

Some members of city government have joined the attack. Almost from the moment the story broke, our mayor went on record to blame the zoo from his Hawaiian vacation spot. (Fact finding didn't concern him enough to prompt a return to the city.) Two San Francisco supervisors have now publicly castigated both the zoo and the Zoological Society who runs it. (Neither of them represent residents of the district in which the zoo lies or San Franciscans as a group.) The zoo has been investigated by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums though it had passed a previous inspection.

Manuel Mollinedo, the zoo's director, has been subjected to an Inquisition, and that may be more understandable in light of this unprecedented tragedy. As Director, he's both well-compensated and an easy target. What isn't so easily understood is why an article published by the Gate made it appear to the casual reader that Mr. Mollinedo was accountable for a published list of very disturbing incidents at the zoo. In reality, some of the worst examples the Gate cited took place years before he was hired. This continuing flow of articles might be better labeled "opinion," rather than "fact." See "S.F. Zoo's history of mismanagement; morale down under new director" at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/30/MNNQU63KP.DTL&hw=animals+molested&sn=002&sc=400

When I write as I do here, I express only my opinion, perception and beliefs, but I give my heart, as well. I bring my personality and life experience with me to the table for your delectation. Though I am only an individual I feel a moral responsibility to speak as honestly as I can. A newspaper also has a duty to the public it presumes to serve. To me, the highest responsibility of media is to present the public with the truth as it can best be determined and to be both accurate and fair at all times. Opinion must be clearly labeled as such, as I have labeled the words spoken here. If those elements are missing, then every article becomes nothing more than a corporate blog, doesn't it? We already have too many corporate stenographers in America, but we are painfully short of faithful watchdogs who act only in the public interest.

In Part II: Players in the Shadows, I plan to take a closer look at what is known of the survivors and how they are perceived on the comment pages, by the media and in public records.

Part III: The Seventh Seal Opens will examine how public opinion may be both shaped and controlled by the Gatekeepers, and dissent can be silenced by Terms and Conditions.