RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
Sound Off for May 25, 2008
| Tuesday, May 27 2008 2:24 PM
Last Updated: Tuesday, May 27 2008 2:30 PM
Sound off is a feedback forum designed to give readers a way to voice criticisms, compliments or questions about news coverage. Questions are answered by Executive Editor Mike Jenner. "Sound Off" appears on Sundays.
To offer your input by phone, please call 395-7649 and leave your comments in a voice mail message or send an e-mail to soundoff@bakersfield.com. Please include your phone number so we can call you if we need to get more information.
Jenner: When we cover controversial issues with emotional arguments on both sides, we’re often accused of allowing ourselves to be manipulated by one side or the other.
The proposed expansion of the Big West refinery is a typical example.
Last Sunday we published a story by reporter Stacey Shepard analyzing the dangers of modified hydrofluoric acid, which the refinery would like to introduce into its processes. The story compared those dangers to those associated with the use of sulfuric acid, which some observers have proposed as an alternative.
I was copied in on the following complaint directed to Shepard from a member of the citizens’ coalition opposing modified HF.
I’m sharing this letter, along with Shepard’s response, because I think it shows the kind of assumptions readers sometimes make about how we are manipulated by one side or the other — when the truth is we’re doing our best to be steered by neither.
Stacey,
I found your article in yesterday’s (May 18) paper incredibly disappointing. I noticed you completely ignored the Texaco study I provided and the Wilmington study that Fred Millar provided and only quoted the study that Big West provided. That seems one-sided on your part.
I have included the Texaco study where on page 42 it clearly shows modified HF being able to travel downwind 4000 meters (that’s two miles).
In the Wilmington study (also included), another California refinery, using modified hydrofluoric acid only reduced the worst case release by 7.9% over pure hydrofluoric acid! But I guess Big West didn’t want us to know that!
Big West is always quick to bring up the number of truck trips sulfuric acid use would require but fail to mention the 35,000 trucks they will be adding to the roads and highways to take their increased production to market (as stated in their previous EIR).
The media keeps referring to this “advertising war” like it is a fair fight involving two equal sides. Are the same number of television and newspaper ads appearing from both sides? This is more like David fighting Goliath.
I can only hope that your sense of fairness will lead you to tell the other side of the story.
Sincerely,
— Betsy Ramsey
Stacey Shepard responds:
Betsy,
The goal of the article Sunday was to let the public know about the few cases where modified HF and sulfuric acid were compared side-by-side for risks. I found all this information on my own. It was not supplied to me by Big West or anyone else. I know it doesn’t help your side, but the facts were that the apples-to-apples comparisons done by the city of Torrance and the South Coast Air Quality Management District found modified HF was as safe, if not safer than sulfuric acid.
Even the Needless Risk Study you referred me to stated that both acids — having their own risks — were better alternatives to pure HF.
I appreciate that you provided me with those two studies, however, they didn’t really fit with the focus of the article because they looked at modified HF only and didn’t consider the risks of sulfuric acid. I did contact Fred Millar twice about those studies and both times he couldn’t provide a firm assessment of what either was concluding. In fact, Friday (May 16) he said he’s in the process of consulting his own experts to find out what they mean. We did, however, post (links to) both of those studies with the story on our Web site. And I’ve told Fred to contact me once he knows more. If there’s another side to the story, I will gladly print it.
Reader: If you’re going to talk to a reporter, keep your foot out of your mouth.
I owe an apology to the Rotary Club for a statement I made to a reporter covering the recent appointments to the bench. My father was a past president of Bakersfield North Rotary Club and I have been proud to serve as a guest speaker many, many times since 1963.
In the (May 17) article, describing how a judge must be independent, my statement, “the Rotary Club version,” implies a choice to favor the local business community even if it means looking past or around the true meaning of the law. I know many laws are burdensome and frustrating to local businesses, I certainly meant no disrespect. — Frank Hoover, retired Superior Court judge
Reader: In looking through your great magazine, Bakersfield Life’s “Best of” edition, I was appalled to come across the Karpe Real Estate ad.
The ad itself is in very bad taste with the Viagra pill and four-hour suggestion. I’m just sorry to see a company that has been apart of Bakersfield for nearly 100 years stoop to such a low.
I’m also disappointed in The Californian for allow this ad to be a part of the Best of Bakersfield.
— Kat Snow
Jenner: I put your complaint to John Wells, our vice president for sales, marketing, circulation and operations. His response?
“By no means do I want to question Kat’s opinion of what is good or poor taste. Everyone has their own standards.
“With that said, the Karpe Real Estate ad was creative and probably did what the client was looking for — garner reader attention.
“In fact, I would say this ad is in much better taste than the actual ads for the ‘little blue pill’ that we see all over the airways.”