The Fisher brothers -- with all of their political connections and millions in advertising dollars as the largest specialty retailer in the United States from the Gap Inc., Old Navy, Banana Republic – maintained a significant sway in the local San Francisco media.
For years San Francisco reporters and editors had been provided with scientific data and been made aware of the problems associated with City Field Foundation's, (CFF), styrene butadiene (SBR) projects.
For years San Francisco reporters and editors had been provided with scientific data and been made aware of the problems associated with City Field Foundation's, (CFF), styrene butadiene (SBR) projects.
A few neighborhood newspapers and web sites questioned the CFF “Team”'s propaganda -- but the major San Francisco media outlets were overwhelmingly on-board and supportive. News anchor Pam Moore of KRON-4 narrated a promotional video for CFF. Ken Garcia at the "San Francisco Examiner" wrote multiple columns enthusiastically promoting the CFF agenda.
In 2009 the SF Chronicle’s Marisa Lagos cynically dismissed CFF critics by writing, “And we can’t help but wonder if there are politics (gasp!) at play as well: ... You know how San Franciscans love to hate the Fishers.”
In 2009 the SF Chronicle’s Marisa Lagos cynically dismissed CFF critics by writing, “And we can’t help but wonder if there are politics (gasp!) at play as well: ... You know how San Franciscans love to hate the Fishers.”
The cancer risk issue was being obscured by the media. In accordance with the media, CFF fomented the paradigm of a "Turf War". Greta Kaul of the SF Chronicle promoted "turf wars - raging” and a “fight”. CFF launched an offensive with their supporters and their media allies. CFF “Team” members were regularly given platforms to pump up their talking points to readers, politicians, and audiences all over the City -- while glossing over, or completely ignoring, the health and cancer risks.
Short sightedness and narrow thinking were encouraged. John Wildermuth of the SF Chronicle portrayed the issue as “kids versus birds”.
C. W. Nevius sarcastically wrote in his SF Chronicle newspaper column, “The toxins in the artificial turf may poison children, kill and maim wildlife, and leach terrible chemicals into the ocean. That's a good argument - from 1984.” he continued, “Hundreds of thousands of children - including my daughter - have played on artificial turf without any physical problem.” Many of the online comments from CFF supporters inspired by the Nevius column had to be removed for being overly aggressive in tone toward dissenters.
C. W. Nevius sarcastically wrote in his SF Chronicle newspaper column, “The toxins in the artificial turf may poison children, kill and maim wildlife, and leach terrible chemicals into the ocean. That's a good argument - from 1984.” he continued, “Hundreds of thousands of children - including my daughter - have played on artificial turf without any physical problem.” Many of the online comments from CFF supporters inspired by the Nevius column had to be removed for being overly aggressive in tone toward dissenters.
As a nod toward giving the appearance of balance to their news stories, the media would often quote local protesting NIMBY groups. Meanwhile national activist groups leading the way in providing research on SBR’s human health and toxicity issues were skipped over by local journalists -- groups like SynTurf.org, or Environment & Human Health, Inc., or the Washington D.C. based Safe Healthy Playing Fields Coalition.
A notable exception were Bay Area reporter Jeffrey Schaub’s exposés for CBS-5. Over the span of three reports, Schaubs’ stories evolved from curiosity about synthetic turf to "jaw dropping" amazement over cover-ups by California State officials in a news report regarding styrene butadiene and synthetic turf testing.
Bay Area environmental groups and health care advocacy organizations were made aware of the misinformation being promulgated by the CFF “Team”. This was a very lean period for financial donations for publicly supported environmental, health care, and park advocacy groups in San Francisco.
The only groups that took a proactive stand were the Bay Area chapters of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society.
In Oakland, an Environmental Health organization originally strongly criticized the toxicity of SBR synthetic turf toxicity in an early news report by Schaub -- then perhaps coincidentally, they became less outspoken on the topic after one of their testing programs became indirectly partially funded by Patrick Hannan of CFF.
The only groups that took a proactive stand were the Bay Area chapters of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society.
In Oakland, an Environmental Health organization originally strongly criticized the toxicity of SBR synthetic turf toxicity in an early news report by Schaub -- then perhaps coincidentally, they became less outspoken on the topic after one of their testing programs became indirectly partially funded by Patrick Hannan of CFF.