RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
Sound Off for May 18, 2008
| Tuesday, May 27 2008 2:15 PM
Last Updated: Tuesday, May 27 2008 2:29 PM
Reader: The editorial board lost a great deal of credibility with its backhanded endorsement of Supervisor Ray Watson.
There (are) a number of reasons for The Californian not to like Supervisor Ray Watson. Most notable is the fact that most of his professional career was devoted to being a successful and aggressive competitor. Watson developed KGET-17 into a powerful force that effectively competed with The Californian for the role of being the community's journalism leader, and for the community's advertising dollar.
Politically, Supervisor Watson doesn't line up with The Californian. He doesn't call news conferences to tout his accomplishments, and he doesn't scour the headlines to second guess other government officials. His style doesn't sell newspapers for your advertisers. He's too conservative politically for The Californian, even though he does share the views and desires of most of Kern County.
It would make sense for the editorial board to question Mr. Watson's conservative political positions. You showed your extreme bias, though, when you latched onto an opponent's campaign tag line and questioned his work ethic and commitment.
While Mr. Watson could comfortably retire, he's chosen to dedicate his time to the county that has treated him and his family so well. He tirelessly travels the state to work with water and air quality issues. Locally, he spends countless hours working on our critical transportation problems. He has participated in parades, dedications, town hall meetings and other events in EVERY part of his district. Your board wouldn't want to compare your work week to his, and if you tried to compare your record of volunteer service, you'd be humiliated.
There are a number of reasons for The Californian to not like Supervisor Watson. There is no reason, though, for you to give him advice on how to serve his community. You're simply not qualified.
-- Ray W. Watson (Jr.)
Dianne Hardisty responds: Give us a break. It's commendable for you to defend your father. But contending The Californian's "backhanded" endorsement of Watson was motivated by some long-harbored jealousy of a former news competitor is hilariously lame.
The editorial was written in response to the disappointing and uninspired performance of Ray Watson Sr. on the Board of Supervisors. When we endorsed him in 2004, you didn't drag out your jealousy theory.
I guess you were satisfied that the newspaper in 2004 liked a "competitor" enough to make that endorsement.
As to being qualified to give Supervisor Watson advice, that's what's great about our representative form of government.
Everyone -- even newspapers or attentive sons -- are free to give elected officials advice. There's no "qualification" requirement.
We stand by our advice that Watson should get out of his office more and visit folks in the outlying communities of his district. Many people have written The Californian claiming they have been abandoned.
Reader: The story on the Local section cover on May 16 again contained inferences and assumptions for which there is no proof. You imply again that The Canyons project, Councilman Ken Weir, and his attempt to remove Mr. Johnson from the Planning Commission are all related, because the content of The Californian repeatedly attempts to assert that Mr. Weir is for the Canyons Project. Please give some facts to support this.
Can you quote something to this effect, which Mr. Weir has either said or put in writing? Otherwise the assumption must be that you are on purpose telling half-truths, which then are "partial" lies, if there can be such a thing.
Your credibility is on the line!
-- Gerhard H. Schmidt, M.D.
Jenner: The story you cite -- about a Planning Commission vote on The Canyons project being delayed -- did not assert that Ken Weir supports the project.
But yes, Weir's attempt to replace Russell Johnson on the Planning Commission is indeed related to the Hillside Ordinance and The Canyons project -- according to Ken Weir.
In the last council meeting, Weir specifically criticized Johnson for being "proud to have voted to take two-thirds of a man's land without compensating him for his loss." He also, earlier, criticized the Hillside Ordinance, and Johnson's vote, for "unfairly and possibly unlawfully taking an individual's land."
This is the only specific vote that Weir has cited in his criticism of Johnson. The reference to the taking of "two-thirds of a man's land" can only refer to Gordon Downs' land, part of The Canyons project.
We asked Weir directly in an e-mail to specify if he was referring to a different vote. He did not reply.
As for our credibility, it is on the line every day, with every story, every word.
Our reporting has been accurate in every aspect of this story. And the significant reader interest justifies the level of attention we're giving it.
Reader: I opened the newspaper on May 7 and saw a story about the man that killed Dorothy Anne Walter. I read the story in disbelief as it had little to do with the victim, Dorothy Anne Walter, but focused on Danny Espinoza, the man that injured himself the night he killed her.
I knew Dorothy Anne Walter for 46 years and she was an incredible person. Boots, as she was lovingly called by her family and friends, was very giving and kind. She was an accomplished athlete, writer, musician, and a well-rounded person. Boots always found time for others. She taught her children compassion and love, and to accept others, regardless of their faults. She also taught her children the difference between right and wrong, and that there are consequences for your actions.
Boots reared five successful children. Her children have become her voice since it was silenced on March 5, 2006. The night is fresh in the memory of those who loved her. The night is a memory that will never leave them. Those who loved her have suffered greatly. They cope with her loss on a daily basis. People say that time will heal; perhaps, but they did not know Boots. Boots was a terrific person, not yet ready to leave this earth. Her death has shattered a family; her family. Boots was the matriarch of the family. She was the thread that held their worlds together. Her loss is something that is difficult to put into words. How do you measure a life in just a few words?
I read the one-sided, biased story in The Californian and I was numb. The victim is and has always been Dorothy Anne Walter (Boots). She was killed while driving home with her two beloved dogs by Danny Espinoza, who was speeding at over 94 miles per hour. The man who killed Boots injured himself that night. Now, his family is seeking input from the court of public opinion on how cruel her family has been in pursuing justice. The family did not charge Danny Espinoza. The state of California charged him in the death of Dorothy Anne Walter. We live in a country with laws. When laws are broken, there are consequences. With consequences comes accountability, and Danny Espinoza should be held accountable for the death of Dorothy Anne Walter.
There are no winners from the night of March 5, 2006. Dorothy Anne Walter was killed, her family has been shattered, and a man must now face the consequences for his actions. I knew Dorothy Anne Walter for 46 years because she was my mom.
-- Nancy Walter-Frazier
Jenner: I'm sorry for your family's loss, and I'm sorry this case continues to drag on without resolution. I know that makes the tragic loss of your mother even more painful.
We felt this case deserved coverage. You and your family members certainly can speak to this great loss better yourselves, but because you wouldn't talk to us, we had to rely on court documents to present your side.
Reader: One of my favorite things in the morning is to see what pictures are going to be on your photo page. I enjoy about 98 percent of them.
But in the last year or so a picture keeps coming up that makes me physically ill. That is the picture of the "brave and daring" matador killing the "ferocious" bull! What a load of bull!
Before I get into this I do want to thank you for the great articles on animal control, animal abuse, death shelters that kill these great animals day after day. Reporter James Burger has been great in bringing this to light.
And then you show this picture, (more than one time), this killing of the bull, and call it sport! This is cruelty and animal abuse, and it is not a sport.
For one thing, the picadors half kill the bull before the "brave matador" gets into the ring. I see no sport in killing a half-dead bull that is bleeding and weak from blood loss.
I hate the picture of blood coming to my breakfast table in glorious color, not once, but a few times.
I have been taking the paper for more than 30 years and I love the paper most of the time (I said 98 percent of the time already). Keep coming up with these great articles on dogs, cats and horses being killed or abused. We need to educate those who think a dog or cat should be au natural.
But please, no more bullfighting pictures.
Thank you.
-- Mrs. Terry Hogan
Jenner: I shared your comment with Director of Photography Alex Horvath. Here are his thoughts:
"The killing of an animal for sport can be gruesome. In the past two years of the Day in Pictures we've used maybe a half-dozen bullfighting pictures. We've even run a picture of a bull goring a bullfighter.
"I chose the photo you're referring to for the emotion and feeling in the man's face as he slayed the bull and to share with readers that bullfighting (right or wrong) does exist. We didn't run it to glorify the sport.
"If I offended you, I'm sorry, but if I stirred any emotions or feelings and made people think about this, I have done my job."