Sound Off for Nov. 16, 2008
Reader: For many months I have stood on the sidelines and read Valerie Schultz's column without a word. I was pleased when the opinion disclaimer was added to the column. I don't know if management or her editor has asked for columns regarding Catholic life and the faith or if she just feels the inspiration to speak on such matters. Whatever the case, you can no longer allow her column to be placed in the Eye Street (entertainment) pages of your paper.
Despite the disclaimer, her essays on the Catholic church are presented as though she is an expert on the church. Her ignorance however, is glaring.
Columns such as her Nov. 1 column (and several others) belong on the op-ed page. She is in fact stating an opinion. She is IN NO WAY speaking for the church, the diocese, local parishes, their pastors or the congregations. Her column, when speaking of matters of faith, should be placed elsewhere. You are passing off her opinions as a form of entertainment. This has serious consequences.
For one, it allows readers to take these opinions as afterthoughts to some very serious issues. Additionally, her opinions are published without any real fact checking or substantiation of the truth.
Finally, she is allowed to have these random thoughts published without consulting the reality of what the church teaches and why.
Your readers are being fed one woman's opinions as fact. This is insulting to me as a member of the community, a subscriber to this paper and a lifelong Catholic. You owe your subscribers an apology for printing these articles in this manner. In the future, please consider printing these articles on the op-ed page, where they belong. Also, you might consider sharing her column with a local pastor (there are now at least eight Catholic parishes in town) prior to publication, to fact check, contradict her opinions or write a rebuttal column.
I am left with only one alternative; to cancel my subscription to your paper. Ms. Schultz has been left unchecked for too long now. Her work on matters of the faith are misguided and contrary to what the church actually teaches. You cannot, in good conscience, continue to publish these columns as entertainment pieces. They must be placed in op-ed where they can be openly and correctly contradicted.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
— Matthew Deming
Jenner: First, Valerie Schultz is not an entertainment columnist. Although some of the material appearing in the Eye Street section is about entertainment, we also publish content there focusing on the home, family and the serious issues our readers face in their daily lives. Although her editors don't ask Valerie to write about the Catholic church or religion, she is free to offer her opinions as they relate to her life, values — and faith.
I should add I believe she is a gifted writer, and I respect her courage in sharing her beliefs and feelings with thousands of readers each week.
I also believe her opinions are clearly presented as opinions.
As for publishing rebuttals, we're happy to offer space to thoughtful views contradicting our columnists or editorials, no matter where the original piece appeared. And we have many appropriate places to do so — on the op-ed page, in the Faith section or in Sound Off.
If you wish to stop subscribing or reading The Californian,of course that's your choice. But I think a better alternative is to engage in the debate and share your objections, as you've done here.
I hate to lose any customer, but I especially hate to lose a thoughtful reader.
•••
Reader: In regard to the Nov. 5 article "Blacks celebrate Obama victory," I pose this question: I would like to know when it became OK again to call African-Americans "black?"
I am not saying that The Californian is being racist, as the past six months the local, national and international media have used that word in referring to Barack Obama. I have taught my young children to use the term African-American when talking about people of color. As a 40-year-old mother, my generation was also taught to use the term African-American. I would like clarification on this subject so my children can stop receiving mixed messages.
Sincerely,
— Liz Haskell
Jenner: We've followed the AP Stylebook for many years, and for at least the past five years, the stylebook has stated that the preferred term is "black."
On June 26 of this year, the AP changed its style to say that either "African-American" or "black" is acceptable. Here's the exact wording of the entry for African-American:
"Acceptable for an American black person of African descent. Black is also acceptable. The terms are not necessarily interchangeable. People from Caribbean nations, for example, generally refer to themselves as Caribbean-American. Follow a person's preference."
The only problem with the "follow a person's preference" line is that we often don't know what term the subject of a story prefers, especially when we're publishing a wire story.
I'm inclined to stay with "black" unless we know the person involved prefers "African American."
I'm not sure that provides the clarification you were looking for.
•••
Reader: Why would you perpetuate a LIE with the ABSURD cartoon on Thursday's Editorial page. In the name of free press?
— Larry Radanovich
Editorial Page Editor Dianne Hardisty responds: Well, first, the cartoon was pretty funny and a powerful statement. That is why it was selected for publication.
In addition, reports regarding Palin's wardrobe have been conflicting — McCain campaign insiders say one thing and Gov. Palin says other things. In fact, sometimes even Palin's explanations have changed.
Cartoons are "syndicated columns" of sorts. They represent the "columnist's" point of view. We'll continue to present other points of view on this and other topics. Some you may agree with. Others you won't. We greatly appreciate your interest and feedback.
