Sound Off for Sept. 14, 2008
Reader:After reading last Sunday’s Californian, I could not help recalling a Shakespeare quote: “the (Californian) doth protest too much, methinks.” Clearly, neither the liberal press nor media can stand the heat (and public outing) now that a clear image has been demonstrated as to the media bias in this election year. It has become so obvious that even neutral polling has made the point. The Californian is no different and the Sunday paper further demonstrated this point.
Your Sound Off comments were The Californian’s attempt to justify its claimed neutral coverage, including the “broadening” of contributing sources. But the inclusion of specific articles is at the discretion of The Californian, and the “titles” are approved by staff. Then, Robert Price put in his op-ed piece defending the media. At least this piece was under the “Opinion” section.
Nevertheless, Page A8 was The Californian’s “Campaign 08” section. What was covered? There was an article describing the events of the previous day. Fine. There was an article marked “commentary,” but with a title suggesting something else. This third op-ed piece again defended the media and press. Finally, there was a “Fact Check of Obama’s Rhetoric vs. Reality.” Strange, Obama was not mentioned or quoted once. Why was this article about McCain missteps?
I know, Mr. Jenner, all simply oversights or improper editing. Still, I must wonder why so much defense. There must be something that needs defending. Possibly, Mr. Price and The Californian should conduct another investigation.
— Craig Beardsley
Jenner:Sorry if I sounded too defensive, but I believe there is indeed something that needs defending. I do take umbrage with generalized complaints that lump us in the same boat with NBC, CNN and the rest of the “liberal media elite.”
Our coverage has been different. Here’s just one example: When Sarah Palin gave a series of interviews with ABC’s Charlie Gibson last week, rather than publish endless analysis of what she did or didn’t say, we printed his questions and her answers, so readers could make up their own minds.
And when we learned that Gibson had misquoted Palin about whether or not the Iraq war was “God’s plan” — and our wire services failed to give us a story about that detail — we reported and wrote our own story pointing it out.
I’m not saying we’re perfect, or that no bias will make it onto our pages. But unlike our cable and broadcast counterparts, we’re trying to focus on issues and substance. That’s why we’re not blowing out “lipstick on a pig” or stories about children of candidates on the front page.
Reader:Thank you for running the “Fact Check” articles by Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn concerning the Republican National Convention.
I found it interesting that I do not recall having seen a similar “Fact Check” article appearing during the Democratic National Convention.
I can only conclude that The Californian either did not choose to run a similar Fact Check story during the Democratic National Convention, or the Associated Press did not think it necessary to “Fact Check” statements made during the DNC.
Am I wrong in my reasoning?
— Chris Padham
Jenner:The Associated Press did not offer a similar story on the acceptance speeches of Sens. Barack Obama and Joseph Biden.
For that reason we sought and obtained the “fact check” analysis from the Dallas Morning News comparing Obama’s campaign rhetoric to the facts. We published it last Sunday.
Reader:In last Sunday’s paper, the piece headlined “Obama’s Campaign rhetoric vs. reality” focuses on the claims made by Obama in his acceptance speech.
At www.Factcheck.org, the instances where McCain also distorts the truth in his acceptance speech are clearly documented.
Why only focus on Obama? This one-sided view is evidence of bias in The Californian.
— J. Armento
Jenner:We haven’t focused only on Obama. We ran similar pieces examining the claims and facts in speeches by Sarah Palin and John McCain.
Reader:Just finished Robert Price’s Sept. 7 column, that’s a classic. You did an exceptionally good job. I like your approach.
Hang in there, guys.
— Don Stewart
Reader:Regarding Monday’s front-page story on Down syndrome: I assume next you will be running a front page story on why abstinence doesn’t work?
If one child is hands off the other children should also be!
— Judy Grayson
Jenner:The story was about Down syndrome. It reflected the comments and feelings of local parents of children with Down syndrome, who believe Sarah Palin’s run for vice president will raise awareness of the syndrome.
That’s all we were trying to do. Beyond the Palin connection, the story was not political in any way, and did not delve into personal or private issues in the Palin family.
It was a fine story, and I’m glad we did it.
Reader:How could such a blatant error be overlooked? It is Down’s Syndrome, not Down syndrome, as Monday’s Page One headline stated. — Nancy Duncan
Jenner:At one point “Down’s Syndrome” was the most common usage, and is still widely used.
But in the past several years, The National Institutes of Health and the American Medical Association, as well as many medical dictionaries and encyclopedias, prefer “Down syndrome.” That is the style that is preferred by the Associated Press stylebook, which is our reference.
Reader:In typical slanted liberal voting standards you’ve come up with a way to poll readers and still keep or remove the comic strips you want while pretending that it is the will of your readers. Your misguided poll in no way gives a true measure of which comics should stay or go.
Example: Let’s say my top six favorite strips are Luann, Zits, For Better or for Worse, Blondie, Hagar the Horrible and Beetle Bailey. My six least favorite strips are Pickles, Family Circus, Baby Blues, Brewster Rocket Space Guy, Dilbert and Real Life adventures.
In your poll, I would only be able to vote for two of my favorite comics and two of my least favorite.
I suggest that you have readers list them in the order of their preference. If you don’t believe that there would be a remarkable difference I challenge The Californian to poll both ways and compare. I am sure that your reasons for trying to maintain control from your readers’ true preferences have to do with your cost for certain strips over others, but please don’t play us for fools by trying to make us think we have a choice.
— Christian Logan
Jenner:Here’s what Managing Editor Steve Mullen has to say:
“We’ve done comics polls many different ways over the years, and we have never been able to please everyone. We’re trying things this way in order to ‘spread out’ the votes a little among different types of strips. That way, all readers must choose different types.
“We thought that would be more fair to the newer strips, which have a disadvantage to the tried-and-true ones.
“I appreciate that you have given this a lot of thought, enough to even discover a masked liberal agenda. That obviously wasn’t the intent.”
Reader:I understand why gay marriage has occupied the news so frequently, and I agree that gay marriage is important to both supporters and opponents.
I am deeply disappointed with the recent content being displayed during the 5 and 6 o’clock news hour. As a mother of three, my family gathers around the table each night to enjoy the company of one another, the nourishment of our meal time, and insight to our wonderful city, state and world we live in.
I have been noticing more and more video of civil ceremonies capturing the physical affection shown between two men or two women.
I am troubled with segments featuring kissing between same sex couples during prime time when my children are at the dinner table with us.
I am not asking for a removal of same-sex ceremonies on local news stations, but am requesting that affection (kissing) of same sex couples not be shown during the earlier hours of the evening.
I feel it highly inappropriate for children to see something on local news during prime time that they may not be ready for at such vulnerable an age.
So, I am asking for the support of The Californian, KERO, KBAK and KGET to block out the kissing of gay couples when reporting on the issue of gay marriage.
— Melanie Stevenson
Jenner:I can’t and won’t speak for the TV stations, but will simply say that we have worked hard to cover this issue with respect for all — including the many readers like you who prefer to not witness public displays of affection.
We’ll continue to do so.
Reader:As a longtime subscriber to The Californian (60 years) I have often been impressed with pictures taken by your staff photographers. Casey Christie’s shots of Kern wildlife are unsurpassed.
On August 29th a photo by Harry Barrios titled “All About Safety” immediately brought to mind Dr. Chuck Wall’s “Random Acts of Kindness” movement.
It shows an older gentleman, crossing guard Richard Lavender, kneeling at the curb tying the shoelaces of a young boy so that he might safely cross Belle Terrace on his way to school.
This is the type of scene that Norman Rockwell portrayed so well in his paintings and were often on the covers of national magazines. I wish this one could find its way there too — it truly exemplifies the saying “one picture is worth a thousand words.”
— Pat Parsons
Jenner:I felt exactly the same way when I saw that picture. We’re truly fortunate to have such a talented staff. Thanks for writing.
Reader:On Page A7 of Thursday’s Californian, not the front page, near the bottom of the page this story, “Lawmaker admits mistakes.”
It’s about Charles Rangel, a liberal pit bull congressman always at the ready to jump on any Republican for sneezing too loud — just ask Trent Lott.
Here’s a congressman who’s committed a crime — tax fraud. The article is only five paragraphs and the story comes from the Associated Press and you can bet the farm this will be the end to this story.
In case you didn’t know, The Californian is chock-full of liberals of “low degree.” That’s why the story is at the bottom of Page Seven. It’s not coincidence.
— Phil Patrick
Jenner:Rangel is the head of the House Ways and Means Committee, and the story was certainly newsworthy.
But the New York congressman hasn’t been charged with a crime, and at this point, the story was played appropriately. It wasn’t worth the front page.
We’ll follow this story, and keep readers updated.
If Rangel is removed from his post or Congress, or sent to prison, you can be sure it won’t be “the end of the story” — and I’ll look forward to owning a farm at last.
Reader:I would just like to say I like the format of The Bakersfield Californian and especially the narrow size, but I do miss having the weather page across the top half of the page.
It seems more complete reading it crossways.
Thank you
— Jan Abbey
