SF may have crime but its nowhere near the danger level of oakland. IIRC, SF isnt even on the "top 100 most dangerous cities" list, but oakland usually is in the top 5.
So, yes- Big difference. 10x higher chance to get murdered in oakland than SF.
As others have said, painting an entire city with a single brush is doing nothing but tormenting you with a false sense of fear of Oakland and tricking you with a false sense of security in San Francisco.
How is that danger distributed through Oakland? Baltimore and Philly are both typically in the top 25 of those lists, but from personal experience I can say the actual danger presented to any particular person depends very heavily on which neighborhood in the city you choose (compared to Seattle, where as far as I can tell there are no genuinely dangerous neighborhoods). I have even heard similar claims about Detroit from Detroit natives, though I must admit I am a little skeptical in that case.
I guess my point is that a city having a high crime rate does not necessarily put it off limits; it may just mean that particular neighborhoods are off limits.
Once you get used to the nuances of a place then you start to internalize its dangers in this way. I heard and experienced the same logic about threats while in the West Bank. The danger is really overblown, as long you don't drive that road over there...
Isn't it true? "Oakland is fine, just don't go to [bad neighborhood in Oakland]" is just a more localized form of "The Bay Area is safe, just don't go to Oakland" (a premise that most people here seem to accept).
"PA is safe, just don't go to Philly", "Philly is safe, just don't go to North Philly", "North Philly is safe, just don't leave Temple's campus"... etc. It's all just a matter of scale. You could break it down by block if you wanted to.
Well, at some point you're down to the addresses of known murderers, at which point I don't think you'd want to sub-divide any further. "Franky's house is fine, just don't go in the basement".
