RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
Sound Off for July 20, 2008
| Saturday, Jul 19 2008 3:43 PM
Last Updated: Saturday, Jul 19 2008 3:45 PM
Reader: Love the paper. Read it every morning. Thanks to a great delivery person who has it in my driveway early. That said, pet peeve. I realize the line dividing "sports" from games and exhibitions has been blurred, but come on, poker is a card game! Are the results of the World Series of Poker featured in the sports section because World Series is in the title? Riveting action here, right there with the infomercials airing on television at 2 a.m.
-- Mark Wagner
Mullen: Mark, I'm glad you love the paper and we're hitting your driveway. This "sport vs. game" argument has raged since the beginning of time. I can see it both ways, but my gut feeling is the Sports section is still the best place for poker tournament coverage.
Reader: Whatever happened to the informative articles that used to be in the Sunday Real Estate section? My husband and I used to really enjoy reading the excellent tips on home improvement, investing and other useful info. It seems even David Myers' column has been shortened. He offers great advice and deserves a longer column if anything! Please consider bringing back some of these great articles of interest.
Thank you,
-- Diana Rutledge
Mullen: Diana, thanks for reading and I'm glad you found the old Real Estate section informative. Space in that section was reduced, and we have less room now for those features on Sundays. We do have a "Your Money" page on Saturdays, however, which will continue to showcase investing advice and other consumer-focused information, including how-to real estate advice.
Reader: I was very disappointed in (outdoors columnist Steve Merlo's) column of July 11, in which you claim to bring greater clarity to the new lead ammunition ban in California's Condor Zones. I was particularly disappointed in your lack of clarity on the use of .22 rimfire lead ammunition. For true clarity on this particular item, go to www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/condor.com and click on "Questions and Answers."
The Dept. of Fish and Game clearly states that .22 rimfire lead ammunition is legal to use in hunting small game mammals, such as Jack rabbits, cottontails, and tree squirrels, but not ground squirrels even in these same lead-free ammunition areas of the state. Therefore, contrary to your article, regular .22 rimfire ammunition is NOT banned altogether and can be used to hunt small game mammals in these new lead-free ammunition areas of California.
I commend your efforts in tackling such a touchy issue, especially with hunters, environmentalists and sport shooting enthusiasts, but a simple surf into the Dept. of Fish and Game Web site would have added true clarity to your article.
-- Carlos Esquivel
Columnist Steve Merlo responds: Actually, I did my research by telephone, and I got my information (actually a little misinformation) from a Department of Fish and Game employee in Fresno. I argued with her, but she seemed to know more than I. A warden finally set the issue straight:
You're right about .22 rimfires -- but you may not use these to hunt ground squirrels, bobcats or coyotes in the condor's no lead zone, because non-protected (bobcats must be tagged after taking), non-game animals do not have to be retrieved and/or utilized and therefore provide food for our largest carrion eaters.
A .22 rimfire can only be used when hunting for resident small game in the condor zone, which includes cottontails, tree squirrels and Jack rabbits, all of which must be retrieved and utilized by the hunter.
Thanks for pointing that out for our readers.
Reader: I am prompted to write this letter in response to your Tell Us What You Think column on Tuesday, July 15th. You had invited comments regarding the cover of the New Yorker featuring caricatures of Senator Obama and his wife. The comments you posted by Bakersfield Superman on page B1 and by TSM on page B3 both read in part, taking the Lord's name in vain, and I quote: "...I mean for *** sakes is satire, everyone knows it." I used asterisks where they and you did not.
I was stunned when I read this, TWICE no less, and frankly could not believe you actually published these writer's exact words. This strikes me as nothing less than an intentional and blatant disregard for Christians in our community, like me, who find this profaning of Jesus Christ very offensive. I have to question the judgment of your staff in publishing this part of these two comments. I know from personal experience that your staff cuts things from letters to the editor, even things that are not profane, but rather, factual. Why would you not cut this vulgar and offensive language from the column? Why would you not use an asterisk to indicate profanity, as is frequently done in other publications?
I dare say that if something had been sent for publication which insulted or offended some group, other than Christians, you would have likely cut the offensive portion. Sadly, it seems, Christians in this instance were open game for insult and offense. I for one would like to see an apology for what you have done and an assurance that you will more carefully remove profanity of this type in future columns.
-- Cynthia Giumarra
Mullen: Cynthia, you have both my apology and my assurance. I can also assure you there was no scheme to attack all of Christendom by running those comments from our online readers. We have, on occasion, inadvertently offended people of all religions, races and creeds.
When we omit expletives from the paper, typically we don't use asterisks, but substitute in the word "expletive" in parentheses.
Reader: Got The New York Times west paper Tuesday, July 15, and on the B front section was the picture of Obama and his wife Michelle on the New Yorker. Loved it.
Of course, the un-American left was in an uproar. Had a cow. If I don't know anything I know that liberals can dish it out but can't take it. Kids in adult skin.
It continued, "readers split on Obama cartoon," and then I proceeded to read all eight or ten responses to the cartoon and guess what, there was no split. The Californian is a toilet propagandist paper. No news. Just embellishment and lies. Ninety percent or more of the paper is filled from corner to corner with the likes of The New York Times and other leftist papers.
Man, my one wish before I die is for Bakersfield to have a fair and balanced paper. But I must admit, I do get it from time to time. When I run out of toilet paper.
-- Phil Patrick
One more item. Kiss my conservative (expletive)!!!! Yea, nothing wrong with being conservative except when your a (expletive) lib!
Mullen: Thanks for reading, Phil. To your point about the balance of the Obama blog posts: I reread it and found varying opinions -- some believed the cartoon was fair, others didn't.
P.S. I'm glad you've found more uses for the paper beyond reading it. You might want to trade up to Charmin Ultra. It costs a little more, but there are more sheets per roll -- and it's sure to be a bit softer.
Reader: In an article in Wednesday's paper there was a sentence which read: "On Friday night, Wooten and his sister-in-law had WENT to a birthday party ..." Why must you hire people who do not know the fundamentals of the English language?
-- Anne Grogan
Mullen: Anne, I cringed when I saw that, too. We'll strive to be more careful in the future during our writing and editing.
Reader: After reading Sunday's feature article regarding the backgrounds of the parents of the five boys charged with beating a man to death, I was left with two questions I would have appreciated seeing addressed in the article:
The criminal records of the parents seemed to be (on the whole) of years over five years past. Were the parents still having problems with drugs or had they turned their lives around in the time since their last arrests?
How many of the boys were raised in single parent families or by their grandparents?
It is too bad that there wasn't enough space to allow this bit of information. I would hope that some of the parents found the strength to turn their lives around and tried to be good parents in the last few years.
Best regards,
-- Jon Crawford
Mullen: We tried to find the parents to ask them exactly those kinds of questions. Unfortunately we were not able to find any of them at the addresses we had obtained. Without talking to them it is hard to answer these kinds of questions. Of course, we want to continue to report this story as fully as possible, and we wish to talk to parents and other relatives of the accused children if we can locate them and they are willing.
Reader: I don't condone what the five young black boys (are accused of doing) to the elderly gentleman. This was a heinous crime. My concern is why did The Californian have to print their pictures not once but twice? The articles said they will probably be charged as adults, but so far they have not, yet you ran their pictures in two separate articles, even though they are juveniles. This is not the first time your paper has done this. I've noticed usually when the criminal is black your paper feels it necessary to have the picture appear with the article. Why is this? Posting their pictures again on the front page of the Sunday paper with the inflammatory article was wrong.
Thanks,
-- Donna Ward
Mullen: Thanks, Donna. We weigh carefully how we identify juvenile defendants. In most cases we don't print names or pictures, and in most cases, police and court officials don't release such information or allow us access to juvenile hearings.
In the case of serious crimes such as murder or rape, the court often grants public access to hearings and the identity of juvenile defendants, and this case falls into that realm.
That said, I must take issue with your assertion that we are running their photos because of their race. We re-run photos of criminal defendants in many cases. The seriousness of the crime they are charged with, and the public's interest in the story, is what influences our coverage, not the color of anyone's skin.
Reader: I'm sure Mullen and Jenner are both very nice people. I have to say that I felt no tension while reading "Sound Off" this morning.
Mr. Mullen, your responses were very positive. I hope all the readers that you responded to are also happy. Thanks for a relaxing start to the day. Have a great week.
-- Kelly Bishop
Reader: I usually read the Sound Off and get upset most of the time when Jenner doesn't listen, he simply defends. OK, we know who pays him, and we know he has his viewpoint, but when you ask a community to sound off, it isn't like they need a slap in the face verbally to remind them not to sound off again.
So, when reading Sunday, the 13th edition, I read the first reader's report, and saw the answer. I thought, "Wow, Jenner finally gets it." And then I read the others, and it was unbelievable; no harsh remarks, just a simple, "you are right" or a similar agreement that maybe there were some problems.
As any communication expert will tell you, when hearing a criticism, if there is a grain of truth in it, agree with the speaker. Someone once said "powerful people don't defend or justify. Every time you say more than two sentences in explanation of something you have taken a defensive position."
Thank you, Steve Mullen, for listening and not overreacting. I hope they see how you are able to listen and respond in a kindly fashion. You made my day, Steve, and probably my week. I'll look forward to more from you over the years. You have brought a way to voice a concern or criticism to us without our fearing a retaliatory comment.
-- Barbara Meuleman
Mullen: Barbara and Kelly, you both made my day too. Thanks for the kind words.
Not to sound defensive here, but Mike is indeed a nice person -- maybe the nicest I've worked for. The fact that he began this column speaks to his commitment to openness and accessibility.
And I'm not just saying that to head off one of his trademark blind rages when he gets back from vacation and reads this. Honest.