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.