Chron-Ex Merger Hearing Draws Critics
By Janet Dang

Newspaper publishers, legal buffs and citizens of all backgrounds got the opportunity to voice their views Tuesday on the impact of a potential daily newspaper monopoly in the city.

Called by Supervisor Michael Yaki, the public hearing before Small Business, Economic Vitality and Consumer Services Commitee was held to explore the implications of a one-paper town as well as any legal options the city may have to stop the merger between the San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle.

Critics of media monopolies urged city leaders to emulate those in Hawaii who took legal action in order to prevent closure of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, which would left its JOA partner, the Gannett-owned Advertiser, as the only daily in town. A judge has since stalled the folding of the Star-Bulletin, which was scheduled to stop printing Oct. 30.

Although District Attorney Terence Hallinan attended the hearing and commended officals for conducting hearings, he couldn’t elaborate on his department’s nor the Attorney General Janet Reno’s investigations into the merger, though he acknowledged that, “there is an active, ongoing investigation by my office, by the Justice Department.”

Attorney Joe Alioto and UC Berkeley law professor Stephen Barnett also testified against the the idea of Hearsts Corp. buying the morning Chronicle and shutting down its own Examiner.

“Who could bring a suit to stop this? Anybody can,” said Alioto. He argued that as long as citizens can prove public injury that would result from a potential anti-trust move, they can file suit to stop it.

“The city can file a lawsuit. The state can file a lawsuit. Customers can file a lawsuit; workers can file a lawsuit,” he said. “I think it’s plain and beyond doubt that this is a violation of the law.”

Allioto added: “The city should take an aggressive stance on this. It doesn’t have to wait for the Justice Department.”

Executives of both papers failed to attend the hearing -- the second one they’ve skipped. In July when the Chronicle was still up for sale, Supervisor Mark Leno called a hearing to discuss concerns. The next month Hearst announced it would buy the Chronicle and close the Examiner if a buyer couldn’t be found.

“Why the hell aren’t they here? They are assassinating the daily newspapers. Then they are merging into some God-awful morning paper,” exclaimed Bruce Brugmann, publisher of the Bay Guardian. He assailed city leaders, including members of the committee, for being too soft on the dailies.

He screamed: “You don’t ask them nicely to come down here. You subpoena them. You subpoena every goddamn document there ever was at fifth and Mission.”

James Fang, publisher of AsianWeek, also testified before the committee. Fang said his main fear was that a newspaper giant would ultimately imperil smaller ethnic publications like AsianWeek by producing smaller copy cats as a way to compete for ads and readership.

Nam Nguyen, editor of Cali-Today, a Vietnamese publication in San Jose, testified that in communist Vietnam, he had only one newspaper to read every morning. For years, he longed to read more than one, believing that he would do so once he arrived in the United States. But to his dismay, Nguyen, who now lives in San Jose, said he finds his options largely limited to the Mercury, owned media giant Knight-Ridder. It has recently launched its first Vietnamese publication, Viet Mercury, targeting a county heavily populated by Vietnamese Americans. In an aggressive marketing strategy, the Viet Mercuty undercut its competors advertising prices by more than 50 percent. Cali-Today, along with dozens of family owned Vietnamese publications, cried foul and have since boycotted Viet Mercury as well as the Mercury News.

“In the long term, the Viet Mercury and the Mercury will wipe us out,” Nguyen said. “There would be no more Vietnamese papers, no more ethnic newspapers.”