RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
Sound Off for July 6, 2008
| Saturday, Jul 5 2008 5:29 PM
Last Updated: Saturday, Jul 5 2008 6:08 PM
Reader: I cannot tell you how upset and disappointed I was to hear that Leonel Martinez will no longer have a column in your paper. I can't imagine the paper's reason to discontinue his smart, witty, insightful column. Certainly it cannot be because the paper feels that his commentaries are not relevant to our population?
By making the move to discontinue his column, it is clear that the paper does not understand the importance of his words to the Hispanic/Mexican/Chicano community and, equally important, his presence as a role model to all young Hispanic writers.
Was a focus group performed on his column telling you that the column was no longer what the community needs and/or wants? Will a new column appear in his place? Who will take his place?
Please reconsider your actions to discontinue his column. In the final analysis, it is truly not a smart or savvy business decision to alienate such a large segment of Bakersfield's population -- unless of course, that was what the paper intended to do in the first place.
Thank you for your time,
-- Isabel C. Sumaya, Ph.D.
Jenner: I can assure you that alienating a large part of our community was not our intent.
Leonel Martinez was a contributing columnist -- a freelancer -- who wrote a column for us every two weeks. It ran on the Local cover.
We ask our local columnists to present local content.
When Leo wrote columns that were local, they could be very good. But in my view, too many of his columns didn't contain local reporting. They were about national issues.
Although our readers certainly have an interest in national issues, we have a steady stream of columns on our opinion pages by syndicated Latino writers such as Ruben Navarette and Mary Sanchez, to name just two.
Too many of Leo's columns contained no local voices and no local angle. I felt some of these columns seemed repetitive.
This decision was not driven by reader criticism of his positions or ideas, and was not an attempt to stifle a Latino voice.
I hope to add a new column, but the author hasn't been selected.
Reader: The Californian's decision to discontinue Leonel Martinez's column has undoubtedly ignited the passions of many of Leonel's faithful. The tremendous public outcry denouncing his unexpected dismissal was certainly anticipated by the decision-makers at The Californian.
Regardless of the motive to drop Leonel's column, from a business perspective, the decision-makers agreed that this action, despite inevitable controversy, said controversy would ultimately subside and business will resume normally.
Let us assume, for the moment, that the above is true. If so, then Leonel will not return to The Californian.
It is true that Leonel's columns were insightful and at times provocative. It is true that on many occasions, his words evoked passion and truth, and caused each of us to question our commitment to our community, whether white, black or Latino. It is true, that his words inspired all of us to grasp our roots and walk with pride. It is true that his words challenged Kern County residents to set aside the remnants of racial prejudice, and open its eyes to the glory of a world devoid of walls constructed of pigmentation.
If Leonel does not return, then the burden and continuation of the story he began to tell years ago shifts to those who are now disgruntled. It is now your obligation to submit letters to the editor to voice your opinion and express your ideas, concerns and comments regarding events which occur around us each day and which affect our lives and the livelihood of others.
Over the years, Leonel's message to our community was to get involved and voice your opinion. If you choose to turn your back on this message, Leonel was a failure. If you choose to continue to be heard, then he is an obvious success.
-- David A. Torres
Jenner: This newspaper, more than even much larger dailies, routinely opens its pages to readers, their opinions and stories.
The greater engagement of our readership will surely result in a better community -- and a better Californian.
Reader: Recently I answered an ad in your newspaper. It involved coins being given away for free. To my dismay these coins are anything but free. Here is how this possible scam works:
First, you call the number given in the ad. You're told there is a $28 charge for the display frame and there is a limit of two frames per person. This part was communicated in the advertisement. I was charged for two displays that would hold 40 coins each. Within a week I received my frames. I wondered why I didn't get the coins. About a month later I saw another charge on my credit card for $36. I hadn't any idea what this was for so I looked it up. It was from the World Reserve Monetary Exchange.
I soon received an envelope in the mail that had two coins in it and a letter that asked me to send them the order for the first 20 coins. The cost was about $32. I immediately tried to call them but couldn't get through. Eventually after doing some research I came across a Web site www.coinclub.com and found numerous people complaining of the same thing.
I found out that I had inadvertently joined a club and World Reserve was charging me $36 a month. They never said anything about that in the advertisement. It takes about three months for all the coins to be sent so they are assured of at least collecting $108 plus the $56 for the frames and $32 for the first 20 coins to be shipped. If they split this order up into four shipments, a total of 80 coins, I will have to pay $32 for each or $128 total for shipping. The grand total is $292 and that's if you are successful in getting them to stop charging the monthly fee. This amount is far more than the coins are worth.
I've reported this to my bank and the fraud division is going to look into it. I also canceled my credit card. I think it would be best if you stopped allowing them to advertise unless they spell out all the hidden charges.
I believe The Bakersfield Californian is a reputable news organization and would never knowingly be part of any scam. You may want to think twice about continuing to print this ad.
Sincerely,
-- Jim Scrudato
Jenner: Our director of display advertising, Bryan Fahsbender, had this to say:
"After much consideration and research we've decided to cease running any of the World Reserve Monetary Exchange ads dealing with the 'free' coin offer.
"If the company is willing to better describe the purchase process along with an accurate description of any monthly costs, we'll then reconsider running their ad.
"Thank you for bringing this to our attention; hopefully other readers will not need to go through what you have."
Bryan didn't mention this, but I will: The ad in question would have brought in thousands of dollars of revenue in a difficult year. Rest assured, you can find this ad running in many other newspapers in this country.
I applaud our sales managers who put the integrity of the paper and respect for our readers ahead of making money at any "cost."
Reader: This is regarding the June 25 article, "Report: Crash victims on meth."
I feel it is entirely unnecessary to print the results of the lab reports and the article. Their families have suffered enough. Not only are you putting the knife in, but you are also twisting it. That was tacky, tasteless and inconsiderate on your part.
I know this town is not that hard up for news. This town may be growing and maturing, but the paper isn't. Let those two gentlemen rest in peace. They will be missed.
I feel like I was reading the National Enquirer!
-- Paul Aguirre
Jenner: We're going to have to disagree on this point, Paul.
The loss of these two men was a tragic event, and no one wishes their families any more pain.
But the accident that killed them was a public event, and other lives were put at risk by it.
Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is a huge problem in our community and when this leads to death or an accident like this, we're obliged to tell our readers.
We did so in a very straightforward manner. The story was short and to the point, and ran at the bottom of Page B1. We did not sensationalize it in any way.
Reader: I was appalled this morning when I opened up the newspaper. The main story on the front page by reporter Joe Boesen, "Gas thieves targeting farms" begins with the sentence, "Gas thieves have jacked more than $280,000 worth of diesel fuel ..."
I cannot believe that Boesen thought a slang word such as "jacked" was more appropriate than "stolen." What is going on at The Californian that this is acceptable? Is this a bigger issue which points to the change in our society that thugs, and gangs and slang have become so common place that it is acceptable?
I am embarrassed by The Californian and for the poor people of Bakersfield who have to read it.
-- Jessica McDonel
Jenner: With all due respect, I don't think our use of slang or common parlance is connected to gangs, thugs or the decline of civilization.
English is a living language that changes with the times. Twenty years ago "ripped off" would be considered unacceptable.
We'll try not to fall so far into the use of street slang that we mystify our readers, but we're not trying to write encyclopedias here.
Reader: Your recent headline, "Presbyterians vote to drop gay clergy ban," misleads readers into the idea that Presbyterians in fact dropped its ban on the ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals. This is not the case.
The 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), though the largest of Presbyterian denominations, is only one of several groups properly called "Presbyterian." None of the others is even considering the question.
The action referred to by the coverage carries no effect or power whatsoever, but is a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the PCUSA -- one that must be voted through by a majority of the 173 presbyteries (governing bodies). It is no done deal.
This same (or a very similar) proposal has been sent from General Assembly to the presbyteries three times in the past 20 years. Each time it has been defeated by a larger margin.
Even if a majority of the presbyteries voted for the amendment to disregard sexual practice in regard to ordination, the soonest possible date your headline could be true is June of 2010, and until then, probability is against it.
The PCUSA Constitution clearly states that all who are ordained must adhere to a standard which includes: "fidelity within the covenant of marriage or chastity in singleness." That is still church law.
Please revise or retract your former story so your readers will not be subject to faulty or partial information.
-- The Rev. Noel K. Anderson, executive pastor, First Presbyterian Church
Jenner: Thanks for the detail. We've asked editors to look for a more complete story on the issue as the proposal moves through the process.