Sound Off for Nov. 2, 2008
Reader: Well, Lois Henry again is proving that she's lost her way from San Franfreako. Instead of commending Ken Mettler for standing up for his rights to be on any corner in Bakersfield, she used the argument that if one of the high school students from Kern County had done this the student would be at least suspended. Well, Lois, what if the student was not on campus?
Ken was there as the leader of the "Yes on 8" group, not as a school board member, who had the right to retrieve his property and should have had the freedom to do so without being swung at. But when swung at, he had every right to defend himself.
I wonder how you would react, Lois, if someone told you you were not allowed access to a public area and then swung at you. Would you defend yourself? Oh, wait! You're no different than those "peace-loving," sincere folks in front of McDonald's on Stockdale Highway who are vulgar, disrespectable and unpatriotic. They sometimes remind me of you. You would pull out your video cam and quickly read the editing directions.
I'm very thankful we have citizens like Ken Mettler in our community!
— Steve Perry
Reader: An editorial and Lois Henry's column both appear in The Californianto condemn Ken Mettler for standing up to the group of "No on 8" protesters amid their cries to "whoop his ass" while he was attempting to retrieve the defaced and possibly stolen "Yes on 8" signs.
It is deplorable to think a man is supposed to stand idly by and allow property to be commandeered and defaced. I applaud his courage.
I denounce The Bakersfield Californianfor neglecting to mention in these articles that they support Mettler's opposition and anyone doubting it can refer to the "we recommend" article where the editorial board recommended a no vote on Prop 8. It is also remarkable that the paper was so up in arms over Scott Cox taking signs but have no problem with a group they support doing it.
Any claim by The Californianthat they are fair, unbiased, or even honest in their reporting and editorializing is laughable at best.
I wonder what would happen if The Californianpaid for advertising space and a competitor defaced it in order to endorse the opposition? I am certain they would not concede the battle to win the war, whatever that means.
I sincerely hope that the district attorney's office does not decide to file charges for political reasons in a case they would otherwise never file.
— Glen Davis
Reader: Typical of the tripe that passes for journalism today, the staff of The Californianhas again launched a sneering attack on Ken Mettler, while ignoring the antics of determined rabble-rousers among Proposition 8 demonstrators at a local intersection.
Exactly as the mean-minded media which roots around in the backgrounds of Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin, while ignoring the damning history of Barack Obama, The Californianis twisting this episode to besmirch Mettler, no matter what the facts are.
The holier-than-thou editorial page, which was nowhere near the scene, slyly says that Mettler was "inviting trouble." Really? For picking up defaced "Yes on Proposition 8" signs? Amid a shouting, shoving group of anti-8 miscreants? For no relevant reason, it dredges up a prior incident, then — against the evidence — calls Mettler "childish."
And li'l old Lois Henry, seemingly never willing to let facts enter the lonely latitudes of her mind, quotes then ridicules Mettler's perfectly frank explanation of the events.
For authority, she drags out the pseudo-ethicist Christopher Meyers from CSUB who puffed himself up and predictably pronounced: "A morally mature person does not hit others over a sign; rather he walks away, winning the war by losing the battle."
Self-defense against a roundhouse-throwing, studded-face, sign-grabbing, cursing twerp is what I call winning the battle!
— Hank Londean
Reader: How can you be so two-faced and admonish Scott Cox for stealing signs as part of a prank, and then completely reverse stances when another group you support not only steals signs, but vandalizes the signs and then gets physically confrontational and threatening when the rightful overseer of the signs tries to get them back?
I find it sad and disrespectful that your newspaper is so blatantly biased. I don't read the newspaper to get the newspaper's opinion. I read the newspaper to get the news and then form my own opinion; that's why it originally was called a "news"paper instead of an "opinion"paper. You should report both sides of the story; anything less is deplorable.
— Michael Reeves
Jenner: In every news story and column, we've reported Mettler's claim that he was reacting to an attack, not initiating one.
As for the question of who owned the signs, there's no way of proving whether the signs were stolen or obtained legally.
Our columnists are expressing their opinions, not writing news stories. Lois Henry's column represents her opinion (that Mettler exercised poor judgment), just as Marylee Shrider's column (decrying a rush to judgment against Mettler) represents her opinion.
•••
Reader: I'm a subscriber to The Californian. Last week, I gave a comment about how I felt that your Sports section, particularly college football, was limited. A hearty thank you for this week. You got two full pages — a lot of information. I appreciate the change. I'll continue to get The Californian.
— Larry Bush
Jenner: Thanks for your comments and your readership.
•••
Reader: This is in regard to your coverage of the political nominees McCain and Obama. I've been a subscriber since 1979, and I'm just looking at your report on John McCain which everything positive about him you bring back something negative from Obama. Obama's little blip, everything that he says negative about McCain there's nothing that you allow him to answer back on. Everything on Sarah Palin is very negative. Joe Biden very positive. I've been noticing this for the past several months.
I've been talking to my husband and we're just normal people and we're thinking of canceling our paper. I'm just tired of this kind of rhetoric in your paper. It's just ridiculous.
I just had a complaint and thought I would verbalize it and let you know that I just think sometimes you have unfair coverage in your paper.
—Cindy Chapman
Jenner: We have bent over backwards to be fair to both candidates in our coverage, and have had many discussions along those lines internally as we plan the papers.
It's difficult to overcome such perceptions, because no matter how fair we try to be, we always have people on both sides who perceive us to be either leaning liberal or leaning conservative. Often over the same story!
•••
Reader: I just read your article on the Opinion page to vote for John McCain for president. You say you recommended him over Bush in 2000. But you left out that in 2004 you recommended Bush be re-elected. You've had nothing but editorial after editorial about how bad he was. You say in this one that he's brought scandal, soaring deficit and incompetence.
Democrats like me were screaming out in 2004 that that's exactly what would happen if Bush was re-elected, but you endorsed him anyway. Now more of the same.
It's real likely that Mccain is going to die in a couple of years and you want Palin to be president over Obama? Think she's smarter than he is? I just can't believe you guys would do that.
Boy, I'm really disappointed in The Californian .
— Clive Oldfield
•••
Reader: I was VERY disappointed to find Click and Clack was not in your Oct. 25 Wheels section. Have you decided to cut them from your paper or was it just one of those days you felt it was not needed?
We have taken The Californianfor years and have always enjoyed Click and Clack for humor and information.
In the last few months, you have done some changing on your format, but to remove Click and Clack, which only comes out on Saturday, is really sad.
We read nothing but BAD news any more and to read some good humor is really refreshing in these times our country is in, the election, murders, etc. I will only hope you will continue to keep Click and Clack for my Saturday enjoyment.
— Bret Thompson
Jenner: The absence of the Click and Clack column from our edition of Oct. 25 was a one-time event. We haven't canceled the column and it has returned to its position in Wheels.
