A word from the Fangs

As a family that has worked hard to succeed in the very competitive and closed world of newspaper publishing, we have always felt a kinship with the Bay Guardian, which itself has grown from humble and feisty beginnings to a major role in the San Francisco newspaper scene.

That is why we were stunned by your distorted article that portrayed the family in such a relentlessly negative light, and frankly added little to previously published bits of local folklore ["All in the Family," 4/30/03].

Like many small-business-owning immigrant families, we have spent a lifetime building something we could be proud of in a country, and a city, that we love.

And we are proud of our family's publications. We are proud that when the journalism establishment wanted to kill off The Examiner, we preserved a second daily newspaper voice in San Francisco. We had never run a daily newspaper before, and we had the unprecedented task of starting one, from scratch, in four months.

Over the last two-and-a-half years we have continued to refine our business model toward long-term sustainability, and though no one – quite literally – gave us a chance at survival after the Hearst Corp. subsidy ran out, that is exactly what we intend to do.

Nowhere does your piece acknowledge the truth that our family's newspapers have added to the public debate in San Francisco. Instead, you rely on the words of a few former employees who embarked with us on this start-up business presumably with the most ideal of intentions only to become disillusioned and disheartened when finally faced with the reality of tough economic times.

Hundreds of other businesses, and thousands of other employees, went through similar difficulties during this time period, and most of those companies have completely gone out of business. And newspapers, as the Bay Guardian well knows, have struggled mightily. The San Francisco Chronicle lost millions of dollars last year and has stated it could lay off as many as 500 employees, which would bring their total over the last two years to 700 layoffs.

Could we have handled some situations better? Of course. But to describe our family in broad strokes using the testimony of a few out-of-town former employees with dubious motivations is deeply troubling.

At every point in our family's history, we are painted by the Bay Guardian as malevolent and stereotypically sinister, even to the point of your story darkly mentioning, as an example of greediness, the "ivory silk dress" Florence Fang wore to a company Christmas party. We wonder if the dress would have rated a mention had it not been in a Chinese style.

It is not our purpose to offer a point-by-point rebuttal of the charges levied by your newspaper through a few unnamed sources and fired employees. We will leave that task to others who are versed in the law.

Our family embarked on a much-anticipated daily-newspaper start-up in which the scrutiny was so intense that every mistake was magnified. And that is fine. We knew what we were getting into and seek no sympathy.

But the double standard that we as minorities are held to and which we have long fought against is shameful. And that double standard is behind every line of your attack piece.

We don't expect the Bay Guardian or anyone else to ignore our missteps and approve of everything we do – that wouldn't be San Franciscan. But we don't believe it is too much to ask to be treated with balance and fairness for dedicating our lives to this city to the best of our ability for almost 40 years, spanning two generations.

While our newspapers have often taken opposite stances from the Bay Guardian on important issues, e.g., public power, we have always been glad that the Bay Guardian is fighting for its principles, and we have respected its publishers.

That basic respect remained, even when our family found the Bay Guardian's business and editorial practices hypocritical or personally objectionable. But it is difficult to overlook the hypocrisy of your story, which criticizes us as publishers for so-called editorial involvement while the Bay Guardian's own publisher incredibly writes a bylined story attacking us ["The 'Argonaut' Scam," 4/30/04]. Your publisher actually helps write an attack piece out of personal pique, and you have the audacity to criticize us for editorial interference?

It is sad that the Bay Guardian, which has provided a local, alternative voice in this town for so many years, has resorted to such cheap, dishonorable tactics in a desperate attempt to destroy the reputation of another local independent publisher.

Florence, James, and Douglas Fang
San Francisco

Who bought Hansen's ad?

The article entitled "The 'Argonaut' Scam" focuses appropriately on Argonaut publisher Warren Hinckle's outrageous and unethical political tactics. However, the article claims that the Eileen Hansen for Supervisor 8 campaign received the endorsement of the Argonaut by paying for an ad. It should be known that neither our campaign nor any individual in the campaign paid Hinckle for an ad or an endorsement. In fact, we were as surprised as anyone to have stacks of the Argonaut delivered to our office with the politically incomprehensible endorsement. We did not seek the endorsement, nor did we want the endorsement, and promptly removed the papers from our office. In fact, in the runoff, Hinckle changed his mind and became part of the attack campaign against us. Go figure. But don't blame us for funding Warren Hinckle.

Eileen Hansen
District Eight
San Francisco

Tim Redmond responds: According to campaign finance records on file with the San Francisco Ethics Commission, an independent expenditure committee supporting Hansen, funded by Health Care Workers International Union, Local 250, paid Hinckle $5,170 for the ad ($100 less than the listed rate-card price).

A.P.'s monopoly

Thanks for pointing out the power of the Associated Press in your April 30 editorial on the FCC hearings on deregulations. Far too little and far too late, however. I spent 40 years in journalism and, trust me, the deadliest blow to news diversity was the virtual death of UPI decades ago, which left the field to the A.P. Hardly anyone noticed. As to the hearing itself, there was no diversity of opinion there, which only proves my point. Not only that, but speaker after speaker went over the time limit and monopolized the mic while ranting against monopoly. It was sheer poetry!

James O. Clifford, Sr.
Redwood City

India versus Pakistan

It is ridiculous to say (as Paul Reidinger does) that India and Pakistan are "substantially of the same culture" ["Curry Village," 4/30/03]. Each country contains a diverse array of religions, languages, and ethnicities – imagine substituting "Europe" and "America" in the phrase – that no external comparisons are sensible. And India, though indeed predominantly Hindu, has a population of over 100 million Muslims who have produced (among other things) delicious and unique food. The only time that the culture of the subcontinent seems homogeneous is when it is seen on a menu detailing the tired clichés of "chana masala" and "chicken tikka masala." The latter item was invented in Birmingham, England, to placate an ill-educated white customer who expected all the dishes to come with sauce.

Gautam Borooah
Berkeley