Sound off for May 31
| Saturday, May 30 2009 08:34 PM
Last Updated Tuesday, Jun 23 2009 12:20 PM
Loading Stories
Advertisement
Editor Mike Jenner and The Californian staff welcome your comments and suggestions. To offer your input by phone, please call 395-7649 and leave your comments in a voice-mail message or send an e-mail message to soundoff@bakersfield.com. Please be sure to include your phone number so we can call you if we need more information.
Reader: This is in reference to the front page of Thursday's Californian. The headline is "Girl shoots baby brother" and then there is a picture of this precious little girl.
Why would you authorize putting a picture of this precious little girl on the front page and put "Girl shoots baby brother"?
What a horrible headline. It was a horrible incident, that's true, or an accident, but now then through the years when they see -- this little girl sees -- this picture it will be a constant reminder of the horrible accident that she shot and killed her baby brother. Also, the parents -- the suffering they will go through just looking at a picture like this -- putting them on the front page.
There was no good reason to put this little girl's picture in the newspaper so all of the neighbors, friends at school, everybody will see her picture. What a tragedy that you've chosen to do this.
I'm extremely disappointed that you would use such horrible judgment to take a picture just for a headline, especially "Girl shoots baby brother." It makes it look like it was a deliberate murder. How tragic! You owe that family an apology.
I've been taking this paper for years, but things like this cause me to re-evaluate if I should ever take out your paper or if I should just go ahead and cut my subscription. You deserve it when you do things like this.
-- Dr. John May
Jenner: Our decisions on how to present that story were the result of thoughtful deliberation and discussion.
First, the headline: The headline was factual and to the point. As you point out, this was a horrible event. But the headline did not sensationalize or exploit it, nor was it run in huge type.
I had extensive discussions about the photo with senior editors and the reporter.
I also was deeply concerned about the impact on the girl and her parents.
I felt the concerns you expressed about what classmates or neighbors might say were unfounded.
And while I didn't want to add insult to injury, the event, not the photo, is what will haunt the family.
Why would we run it? Why not just leave it out?
I approved the decision to publish the photo for several reasons. For one, it put a human element to this tragedy. It's easy to make a harsh judgment reading facts and faceless names on a page. It's much harder to do so when you see they look like friends, neighbors or family members. They are real people: stunned, scared, ordinary -- human.
In addition, this simple photo said a lot. You could tell by the way this woman held her child that she was a protective mother.
I hope all parents saw a bit of themselves in her and felt some sympathy for this family.
Finally, if this story and our reporting on it causes any parent to take greater precaution with a gun at home, I will gladly accept any criticism.
Reporting on events and issues in a community is a daunting responsibility.
We often encounter shocking facts and grisly scenes. Some information and some images we choose to withhold so we don't betray our readers' trust or inflict harm.
But we have an obligation to tell our readers about our community. It would be easy when we encounter a difficult choice to simply "leave it out." Defaulting to that choice in every such instance would do our community a disservice.
I don't expect my comments will change your opinion. I knew I would hear criticism like yours when we decided to print the photo. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
n n n
Reader: I truly did a double take over the "Most local grads go to college" headline in last Sunday's Local section. Graphically displayed in red, blue and green were the many local graduates moving on to a college in the California system. Bravo!
But the "All others" column astounded me! Packaged not so neatly together were those going off to UNLV, Whittier and Harvard, those beginning careers in the oilfields or in skilled labor, those in "starter" jobs in ag, fast foods and grocery stocking, those still searching, and those staying at home living on their parents' wealth. Contrary to the headline, the graph really does not tell the full story of local high school students in higher education at all. It is really only about those going on to state-run colleges and universities.
When our children were in high school, they found it very difficult to get information on any college beyond the California system. Our search was not about some prejudice against California schools. It reflected instead our belief that guidance counseling should be about helping a student find the best match in higher education, wherever and whatever it might be. What we found instead was a system for feeding students forward into one system.
Faced with this insular approach at our local high school, we did our own homework.
Students attending UC, CSU and California community colleges are not the only ones going to college.
-- David Campbell
Jenner: Your criticisms about the labeling of the graphic are on the money.
While the chart contained no errors that I'm aware of, the headline would have been more precise if it had read: "Most local grads go to college close to home" -- or something to that effect.
I agree the graphic would've been more informative if we could have broken out the "no college" kids from the "private college" kids. Unbelievably, we could find no agency, including the Kern High School District, that kept statistics on that.
Even so, we felt the data as it was collected was informative and worth sharing.
n n n
Reader: It doesn't make sense to me for someone to write belittling remarks on Herb Benham's column when, for us worrywarts, it brings a sense of normalcy and a good chuckle now and then in this sick old world of ours.
Keep it up, Herb.
-- Betty Thompson
Jenner: Thanks for your note. I know Herb appreciates your support. I certainly do, too.
n n n
Reader: A few days ago, I called about a Dewar's story you put in the paper. You have Dewar's in the paper constantly. Unless they're paying for ads, there are other businesses in this town that could probably use the free support.
I see that you are starting a little campaign in the local section on restaurants. Everybody is buying those little ads. Why don't you give them away free like you are to Dewar's? You don't charge anything for Dewar's.
Every time you get a new person in the newsroom, it seems like they discover Dewar's. Oh, look, I found this little quaint ice cream parlor in this town that is so quaint. There are other ice cream parlors in town that could probably use the free advertising.
I don't think Dewar's needs any free advertising. You must think it's better that it adds credibility to your paper by dropping names. It's like, I belong to Seven Oaks Country Club. Oh, and I belong to Bakersfield Country Club. I'm sorry, pooh, pooh on you.
-- A. T. Grealsey
Jenner: When a local company has been in business for a century, it's a big deal and is worthy of attention.
But our coverage of Dewar's history and its centennial celebration earlier this month was a lot, and it no doubt seemed magnified because it trickled out over several days.
I do agree there are many other businesses that deserve our coverage. We do cover them, and will continue to do so.
Thanks for your comments.
This feedback forum is designed to give readers an easy way to voice criticisms and compliments or ask questions about news coverage. Your questions are answered by Editor Mike Jenner each Sunday.
