I believe I did make that point in the penultimate paragraph of my screed. Norr was one of hundreds of people arrested over the course of those few days, and he is now probably the only individual among these hundreds widely known by name in this connection. And why is this? Because the Chronicle publicized the fact of his arrest as the basis for his suspension and then termination. The "Readers' Representative" (and what a piece of Newspeak is that title right there) piously avers that reporters "should be passionate about the idea that readers deserve coverage that doesn't reflect or appear to reflect a writer's personal causes." Well, I've followed Norr's reporting since the Chron took him on: he writes almost entirely about personal computing fer chrissake, not a particularly fertile venue for geopolitical commentary--and as I pointed out, there's always the editor and his electronic blue pencil in that event. As to the "appearance" of a possible political taint...hello? The goddamn appearance wouldn't exist for more than two dozen people in the entire Bay Area if the Chronicle hadn't trumpeted it from the rooftops. Incidentally, the paper's policy on employee participation in demonstrations was significantly looser at the time of Norr's arrest--his participation would have fallen, at the very least, in a grey area--so they're hanging his firing on the offense of claiming a sick day when he wasn't actually sick, something no human being with a shred of decency would ever dream of doing.

It appears that Norr's real sin was to have visited the Occupied Territories a couple of months back and then to have given an informal presentation to several other employees, recounting his experiences and making rather acerbic observations about Israeli policy. Several attendees took exception to his remarks, which were duly reported up the food chain to Editor Phil Bronstein, who reportedly waxed very wroth indeed at the news.

In the 30+ years I've been reading it the Chron has never been a particularly distinguished newspaper, but it used to have a certain raffish, idiosyncratic charm, personified by a stable of legendary reporters, columnists and editors (Scott Newhall's immortal headline on the quality of SF coffee: "A Great City Forced to Drink Swill"). In latter years it has put me in mind of a man who, having got through his youth and prime largely on the strength of a certain boyish insouciance, finds this act decreasingly effective with advancing age. The paper has been thinner and thinner gruel over the past decade, and its decline has sharply accelerated since its acquisition a couple of years ago by the odious Hearst clan. Geez, I would have let the matter go with my original nasty email, but the cited response puts my hackles up. I do so resent it when I'm handed a sugar cone packed with shit and then smilingly assured that it's really ice cream.

raving wildly,