Bakersfield.com: Kern County news, events, classifieds, shopping, & search

SOUND OFF: Catching up on concerns -- and a couple of kudos

The Bakersfield Californian | Monday, Jan 23 2012 02:00 PM

Last Updated Monday, Jan 23 2012 02:00 PM

Reader: I noticed in today's (Jan. 8) obituaries there were two people who died before they were born.

Caroline Reid

Bakersfield

Arthur: Someone here got the dates wrong in the headlines. Our goof. And our apologies.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Reader: I would like to thank the Circulation Department for 70 years of service to me. Hot, cold, foggy weather, holidays, I have always gotten my paper. Everyone takes the paper for granted.

We forget the people who get up early -- rain or cold weather -- to deliver the paper to our front yards.

Many thanks to them.

Harold R. Jaggers

Bakersfield

Arthur: Thanks for such a wonderful note. We agree. And we shared it with your carrier.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This letter was submitted last month:

Reader: Does the Californian have an agenda that is clearly in support of the California High Speed Rail Initiative?

Recently, the Californian published opinion pieces by Thomas Umberg and Bob Balgenorth (former chairperson of the HSR and Union Leader, respectively) both voicing their overwhelming support of the project. In addition, they make numerous, unsubstantiated claims of the benefits that will be provided by this project.

Then a report was issued by the Independent California Legislative Analyst's Office that contradicts all the claims made by those two gentlemen, but offers a scathing critique of the project.

In general, the analysis states that there is no prospect of federal funding, costs stated to build infrastructure in lieu of HSR is overstated, there has been no proof offered that traffic congestion will be reduced, and the HSR's cost and revenue projections continue to be questionable. Most telling, it also argues that HSR does not have the authority to build a partial segment because it goes specifically against the initiative's language.

This seemed like a very newsworthy story to me and to many other newspapers in California but, for some reason, the Californian is one of the very few that chose not to run it. I even sent a link of the story to one of the Californian's reporters.

Does the Californian have a problem with presenting both sides of the HSR story?

Tom J Dorlis

Bakersfield

We have two responses, one from me and one from Editorial Page Editor Robert Price.

Arthur : I've answered this question before. There is simply no doubt that we have covered both sides of the debate in the news pages. Lately, the news has been all bad for the high sped rail project: critical audits, resignations of key people (including Umberg), stories suggesting that costs were underestimated or benefits overestimated.

We do our own stories, get articles from the California Watch high speed rail consortium and often print articles from the Los Angeles Times, which recently has been examining the project's claims closely.

We plead guilty to one charge: for some reason unknown to me we missed the story of the LAO audit. However we caught up the next day with a detailed report.

Robert Price: When you wrote, we tabulated the number of letters, op-eds and guest columns on high-speed rail that we'd published since April and found they had been, in fact, quite one-sided -- the other way.

We had published 16 letters or Community Voices articles that clearly reflected opposition to the project, five that were clearly in favor (including the two you cited) and six that were neutral (give us more time to study it, modify the project significantly, etc.).

The Californian editorial board has consistently supported the project, as you state -- a position that has generated some of the "con" letters mentioned here. But, on the flip side, literally all of the editorial cartoons we've published on the subject have been anti-HSR.

The LAO has been looking closely at the project for several years now, and we've had many stories on that office's findings -- much of it negative. Over the past few months the paper has covered this issue comprehensively and with balance.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Reader: I call the NFB News Line in Baltimore, Maryland and they read the paper to me.

Lately it's been that there is a shortage of articles in Monday's paper. You should have more articles... I'd like to see more articles every Monday.

I know there's an Ask the Californian, but there are no community events in the local pages. There's no Get Out.

I like to listen to what's happening here in town and I'm totally blind. I listen to this NFB News Line ... where I just dial the number and they read me the paper.

I'd [also] like to see more obits. I like to read the obits.

Tell somebody to organize the paper a little bit more. I could read more local. I like Eye Street and the Local.

Walter

Arthur: Thanks for your note. The number of articles in the Monday paper is affected by the size of the paper, and the size is affected by the number of paid advertisements. Monday has fewer ads than most days of the week, so we don't get as many articles in the paper.

Your idea of Get Out listings is a good one and we'll take a look at that.

I think you are referring to the paid obituaries. They also are ads, and Monday tends to be a light day. We can't control when people buy advertised tributes to honor their loved ones. (Tuesday is a big day for obits.)

To spruce up the Monday paper we've added extra sports pages, and our Monday sports section is now among the most robust anywhere. We feature expanded coverage, extra features and a "Sports Monday" theme on the front page.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Reader: Not in all of my years (about 69) have I ever followed or have been interested in a particular columnist, until Lois Henry.

Michael Barenfeld

Glennville

Arthur: Now that's a compliment. This feedback forum is designed to give readers a way to voice criticisms

and compliments or ask questions about news coverage. Your questions --

which may be edited for space -- are answered each Sunday by Executive

Editor John Arthur. Sound Off