RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
Sound Off for Aug. 10, 2008
| Saturday, Aug 9 2008 4:37 PM
Last Updated: Saturday, Aug 9 2008 4:41 PM
Reader: I guess I just don't quite get it, but it never occurred to me that any article written by one of your column writers was anything but his or her opinion, and not the opinion of the newspaper.
I just couldn't believe when I saw it that you actually had to put what amounts to a disclaimer stating that the opinion is not that of the newspaper, but of the writer.
You are essentially covering yourself from any liability associated with that article, but it is just so disturbing that you have to go to that degree at all.
Your column writers are so very good and mostly very humorous. I love them all and look forward to their next column.
I also would never get the idea that they were writing from the newspaper's objective or stance, whatever that may be. I only wish you could cut the disclaimer out --PLEASE!! It is such a put down to the writer's freedom of expression, which should be understood by all no matter how ignorant the reader may be.
-- LaVonne Hilario
Jenner: Thanks for your comments.
The disclaimers have nothing to do with trying to protect ourselves from liability. We're responsible for everything we publish, disclaimer or not -- although the First Amendment offers broad protections for comment and criticism.
The disclaimers are simply to keep readers from confusing the columnist's position from the newspaper's editorial positions.
Our columnists at times take strong positions on local issues that differ from those taken in our editorials, and we're simply trying to remind readers that our columnists' views are theirs, not the paper's.
Like you, I wish we didn't have to do it. But I don't see it as a putdown to the columnist's freedom of expression. We've always supported their taking strong positions, and will continue to do so.
Reader: Regarding the photo with the caption of Shauna and Pamela, saying Pamela with her new wife, Shauna. "Wife" in the dictionary is a woman married to a man. And there hasn't been one printed yet that says otherwise.
I just wonder, does the paper know that or not? If the paper does, it reeks of a subtle indoctrination of accepting same-sex marriage.
-- John Caprarelli
Jenner: Not to burst your bubble, but I found several dictionary definitions of a "wife" as "a married woman" that made absolutely no references to a man.
But that's really beside the point. We're not trying to make a political statement.
And I'm willing to admit that the use of "husband" and "wife" in such an instance may not make sense, and we may be better off simply using "spouse" or some other term.
As for "accepting" same-sex marriages, they are now legal here. Voters will have a chance to change that legality in November's general election, but as long as they are legal, we'll cover them as though they exist.
Reader: I'm glad that some attention has been brought to the plight of one of our national refuges. Columnist Lois Henry may not have a problem with aesthetics, but I for one do.
If you drove into Yosemite and saw overgrazed and manure covered lands, you'd call it ugly and be very angry with the federal government for letting it happen. Our national parks, refuges and other public lands are just that, belonging to the public. We expect the federal government to take care of them, not let one or two private individuals use them exclusively for their own financial gain. Do you really think this is the purpose of our protected lands, to provide income for the very few?
The point that the Board of Supervisors and Ms. Henry have missed is that Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge is not a ranch.
I read the environmental assessment and the prescribed burns as described in the document are much different than is being touted by the board and Ms. Henry. For those who have not read it and those who claim to have read it; the purpose of the document is how to best MANAGE the refuge for the wildlife (not for those two ranchers). Don't be fooled, their problem isn't the burning, it's that they want to use the refuge like it was their own land not ours. They don't want ANY restrictions on their grazing. The fire is being used to scare people and it's despicable.
-- Denise Stockton
Jenner: Thanks for your comments. Henry's column took issue with the fact that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reached its decision with no public input.
And I think she's as concerned with aesthetics as she is with the way ranchers are being treated. In this case, as in so many others, beauty's in the eye of the beholder.
Reader: On the front page of last Sunday's paper I find my favorite example of current grammatical ILliteracy in "To Our Readers:"
"... the Mini Page will move from it's old home, ..."
A contraction is a shortened, often one-word form, of more than one word, in this case, "it is."
You know you should have used "its," the possessive, sans apostrophe, as in "his" or "hers" or "theirs." And when is the last time you saw "hers" written as "her's"?
Use of "it's" where "its" should be is endemic. We need to put "its"on the endangered word list.
Mistakes like this push me ever closer to the edge. When I go off it and wind up in 3B, I'm instructing KMC to send the bill to the paper, because YOU will have put me there.
Your friend,
-- Liz Keogh, sergeant in the Grammar Police Department
Jenner: Believe me, the abuse of the apostrophe is as troubling to us as it is to you in the Grammar P.D.
I hate it when we make such mistakes. Unfortunately, when we do, we do it in front of more than a hundred thousand readers.
We take the criticism to heart. We'll redouble our efforts to keep these errors from creeping into print. Our expenses are bad enough without taking on your hospital bill.
Reader: Please put the Mini Page back in the same format that it has always been until last Sunday and back in the Comic Pages. This is for children, it does NOT belong inside the Sunday newspaper.
You have changed the fonts and the font sizes are small and you really expect children to be able to read it? Or adults either?
Thank you.
Regards,
-- Alice Manalo
Reader: I don't expect you are going to go back and fix it, but it's really too bad you decided to change The Mini Page. It wasn't broken. It was good as it was.
For many years teachers have collected the Mini pages, laminated them and saved them for their classroom libraries. They were used year after year. Experienced teachers always told new teachers about The Mini Page as a resource. I've been saving them over the summer for a new teacher.
You might as well just delete it from the newspaper now. The format of a child's own folded little paper is spoiled. The full-sized page is too large for little hands to handle.
The print is too small for children to easily read. The games are printed too small to be used.
I suppose the idea was to save space or paper, but instead you ruined the whole thing, what a shame.
-- Leslie Gail Oblinger, retired teacher
Jenner: The costs of printing our comics section had become prohibitive.
Moving the Mini Page out of the comics and into the Sunday Eye Street section made it possible for us to continue to provide this content, although we had to change the shape and size.
Another alternative was to eliminate it altogether.
I believe it still is of value to the children who use it.
Reader: I attended the Founders' Day Celebration at Allensworth State Historic Park on Saturday, August 2. It was one of a series of events honoring the centennial of that community's beginning.
I became aware of the celebration upon reading your article about it. I met a number of people from Taft and Bakersfield who said they were there, also, because of the fine piece which appeared July 30 on The Californian's front page.
I thank you for the excellent coverage, complete with fine photography. It afforded those who read it and attended a great experience in learning about and supporting the efforts toward restoration of that historic place.
There will be a final big celebration of the Centennial in October, and I would hope to see more coverage given prior that occasion. Thanks for your good work.
Sincerely,
-- Dolly Hei
Jenner: Thanks for your kind note.
Reader: The Californian is to be congratulated on your "Tails of Bakersfield" feature. Because of your featuring pictures of the adorable animals that have been rescued, I am sure adoptions have increased. Keep up the good work!
-- Sandee Morris
Jenner: I'm glad you like the feature -- more adorable pets appear in today's Eye Street section.
For those unfamiliar with this feature, we're publishing pictures of pets submitted by readers, along with a donation of $10. Every penny goes to a local animal shelter or rescue operation.
We've now raised more than $6,400 in just a few weeks for this worthy cause, and we plan to continue until we surpass the $10,000 mark.
Turn to Page D4 to see today's photos and learn more.
Reader: As I sit here reading Dianne Hardisty's column on the Fairfax detour, I have only a couple questions: 1) How would you master-plan the building of this bridge? 2) Where would you designate detours to your convenience? 3) What about Rosedale Highway and the inconvenience of daily traffic for the past 15 or more years to people who also work downtown?
I have lived in East Bakersfield my entire life. It's about time that we have a little inconvenience (18 months) to have our roads restructured for decades. Too bad you see this temporary inconvenience as a burden.
Here's an idea: leave for work a little earlier and enjoy what you usually don't see, or plan for the next road improvement.
Dianne, how about commending Jeff Payne, Security Paving, Caltrans and those who are inconveniencing you and work so hard to do that with a "thank you" for the many years ahead of better driving conditions?
-- Denise Woodin Earhart, east Bakersfield resident (44 years)
Dianne Hardisty responds: Hey, I'm with you. In fact, I said that in my column.
I was not complaining of an "inconvenience." What I was noting in the column was the need to knock down the dirt berms that block the view in all directions, warn traffic on Morning Drive that an intersection is ahead and slow the traffic on Morning Drive.
As someone who has endured the Fairfax and 178 signal light for as long as it has been there (and no signal light before that) I am anxiously awaiting the interchange.
The column was written only to draw attention to a problem that needs fixing now -- while work is under way. And the fixes I suggested have minimal costs.
Thanks for reading, neighbor.