Sound Off for Oct. 12, 2008
Reader: I noticed your response to a writer in today's paper who complained that you removed two paragraphs from an article that were critical of Sarah Palin. I admire your decision not to print "anonymous" comments. I am concerned, however, about the following:
A New York Timesarticle, printed in the Sept. 21 Californianbore this headline: "Vice presidential debate gets more structure to satisfy Palin concerns." Hmm? Sounds like maybe the McCain/Palin "people" are trying to guide the content of the debate, doesn't it?
Further down in the article I read the following: "Both the McCain and Obama campaigns have similar concerns about the vice presidential matchup in St. Louis: that Palin, as a new player in national politics, or Biden, as a loquacious and gaffe-prone speaker, could commit a momentum-changing misstep."
I'm curious to know why the headline for that article only mentioned the supposed concerns the Palin camp had.
-- Caroline Reid
Jenner: Palin's campaign staff called for the stricter rules. The Biden camp was happy to go along with them, but the actual request came from Palin's people.
•••
Reader: We are very disappointed in the coverage, or lack thereof, in the 20th District congressional race between Jim Lopez and Jim Costa. Jim Costa has been representing the Central Valley for over 20 years and today we have over 350 square miles of fertile farm land lying dormant because his party, the Democrat Party, has restricted the development of new water sources.
Congressman Costa has been talking about the need of water for over 25 years with no results! Jim Lopez worked in the fields as a young man and we are convinced he will fight to get additional water for the Central Valley. We are convinced that Jim Lopez will work much harder than Jim Costa to improve this unacceptable situation.
We are personally sick and tired of Democrats portraying themselves as being concerned about the poor and working class when in fact nothing could be further from the truth!
-- John Dawson, director of Lincoln Pacheco Center, signed by 40 individuals
Jenner: We are giving this race attention, as evidenced by the story on today's Local cover. We were one of the only news organizations to attend Jim Lopez's press conference on Tuesday. Even though Jim Costa is heavily favored in this race, we are putting Jim Lopez's positions in front of readers.
We are not tagging along with the candidates as they campaign. But we will continue to cover this race as warranted.
•••
Reader: First, let me say how much I enjoy Sound Off. It is informative, entertaining, thought-provoking and at times very amusing to read what gets some people in Bakersfield charged up. I do love the finesse you have in handling this column. I feel feedback is vitally important to continue to offer a quality product.
As a customer of PG&E and a citizen of Bakersfield, I was very interested in the letter to the editor regarding the rate hike which our illustrious City Council voted on to improve our roads. (Of course, that is on top of the 6% rate hike which PG&E has mandated themselves!)
The letter writer mentioned that the proposal will be discussed again in three weeks, on Oct 8. Well, I checked the date on the paper I was ready and it was dated OCTOBER 9, 2008.
Rats, all hope was now dashed of attending this meeting or having any input at all!
Having said that, I have a couple of questions. It was obvious that the letter was written three weeks prior, why was it published so late? Since it obviously missed the date of said meeting, why was it published at all?
Thank you in advance for addressing this.
-- Kim Bean
Editorial Page Editor Dianne Hardisty responds: Kim, I am sorry we missed the date in the letter. As we near elections, the backlog of time-sensitive letters awaiting publication swells. Add to this the economic meltdown and the volume of letters to the editor has greatly increased.
We try to spot time-sensitive letters and place them at the head of the publication line. This one slipped through the cracks. •••
Reader: I find the new smaller-sized format and cleaner bolder print to be most satisfying. I thoroughly enjoy The Californianand read it every morning.
However, I have a concern about an article printed Oct. 4 about a government grant given to Cal State Bakersfield. The way it read to me was the grant concerning children's health issues from birth to age 21 was a mandatory study and not voluntary, meaning the parents have no decision on whether or not their child is in the study.
Surely I must be wrong and the parents would have to give written consent for this study. I hope the government isn't deciding what parents and their children have to be a part of without it being voluntary on their part.
Could you please clarify this issue for me.
Thank you for your consideration of my concern.
Sincerely,
-- Scott Tellermann
Jenner: According to the study's Web site, participation in the study is voluntary. I'm sorry we didn't make that clear.
•••
Reader: I'm calling in regard to the content or lack of in The Californian. I've been a subscriber for years. My father was military editor of the Los Angeles Times. I no longer can find any substance to your newspaper. In other words, none of my stocks are covered, except for once a week, the Sports has become extinct almost and there's nothing newsworthy even locally.
You are just absolutely falling apart and something needs to be done. I know you have changed with the color and the smaller size and you are trying to pinch as many pennies as you can, it looks like to stay in business. Even the Timeshas cut down their size but they have some substance left in their newspaper. It appears to me the Los Angeles Timesis going to cause an awful lot of us to discontinue The Californian. It's sad.
It's been a good newspaper over the years, but it just keeps getting worse and worse and worse. I believe this should go on to the owners, the board of directors and certainly to the managing editor. There is no substance whatsoever to this newspaper. Thank you.
-- Tony Art
Jenner: Tony, I'm sorry you've reached such a low opinion of our newspaper.
Yes, we're smaller than we were a couple of years ago. And if you want more national or world news, the Timesdoes have more. But if you care about local coverage, I maintain you still need to read The Californian .
We are committed to providing quality local coverage, and will continue that focus. We may be smaller, but I'd encourage you to stay the course.
I believe our community needs us now more than ever.
