Sound Off for Sept. 7, 2008
Reader: When it comes to scrutinizing candidates, Editorial Page Editor Dianne Hardisty's "Sarah Barracuda" column misses the point. The charge that the left-wing media made, even before Palin had a chance to stand before the American people, is that she should not be running for VP because she is a mother of children. Yet this very media has never challenged Obama on the same issue even though he is a father. This is a double standard and pure sexism.
Even before Palin had the opportunity to say a word, the mainstream media was digging into her past, even as they have conveniently ignored much of Obama's history such as his relationship with his unrepented terrorist friend, William Ayers, and his years under the leadership of his racist and anti-American mentor/pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And even as the mainstream media bloviates about Todd Palin's DUI over two decades ago, it fails to mention that at the same time Obama was doing cocaine.
The liberal media cried "foul" when Michelle Obama was taken to task regarding her public political statements while proclaiming that family is off limits. Yet they tore into Palin's personal affairs because her 17-year-old daughter was blessed with a baby that will be given life in a home with a father and mother rather than being aborted in true liberal fashion. I suppose what is being said is that while it is OK to tear into the past of a conservative Republican woman, we need to leave secular progressive Democrats alone.
-- Don Wigton
Jenner: I can't speak for other media, and I'll let Dianne Hardisty speak for herself, but first I'll clarify what we have and haven't done.
We have not taken Palin to task because she's a mother running for vice president. Nor did we "tear into" her personal affairs when her daughter's pregnancy came to light. We ran a short story on an inside page when Palin announced her daughter's pregnancy. I didn't think the story was worth the front page. But I do believe it is not only appropriate for us to report on Palin's record and her past, it's our job and even our duty. Until John McCain announced her as his running mate, she was a complete unknown to many of our readers.
We've written about the dirty laundry of Obama, McCain and even Biden. Why should Palin be exempt from scrutiny?
Here's Dianne Hardisty's response: "As to my column, its basic messages were that Gov. Sarah Palin is a tough, smart elected official who isn't afraid of a fight and has shown she can both dish it out and take it. I also noted that scrutinizing Palin's qualification and claims are legitimate -- as did Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who I cited in the column.
"Over the past year and a half, all the candidates -- Obama, McCain, Biden, Huckabee, you name them, have been scrutinized. Some of the very things you refer to regarding Obama you learned from the "mainstream media." How can you say the media has ignored Obama's ties to Ayers? And the Rev. Wright controversy was the central topic of news stories, columns, editorials, cartoon and nighttime comics for weeks. As to Obama's drug use, he writes about it in his own book. Palin has admitted to smoking marijuana. But is that relevant now? I suppose voters will decide that.
"The difference now is that Palin has just landed in the public spotlight. She is a relative unknown to folks outside her state. There's a lot of catching up to do regarding her experience as it relates to her potentially becoming president. As to the "liberal media" dredging up the stories about Palin -- some of the reports surfaced first on the Internet. The McCain/Palin camp called press conferences and issued news releases to rebut false stories. The media covered and reported these events.
"I'm not sure what you would want to happen. Allow the rumors to just swirl out of control on the Internet, without allowing Palin to respond?
"The next several weeks leading up to the election will be an intense test for all candidates. That's how our elections are conducted. That's the way our system works."
•••
Reader: I would like to know how much money the Democratic National Committee paid to The Californianto run the Sept. 3 hit piece on Sarah Palin. This Page One article is "masked" as being from The Associated Press but could have easily been written by the Obama campaign.
The headline reads "more questions arise on Palin's past." The article then talks about a "burst of new revelations." But in total violation of Journalism 101 no source for these attacks or revelations is ever quoted.
Now let me think. Who would bring up such "questions?" Who has a vested interest in seeing Palin defeated? Why the Democratic Party, that is who.
This is in no way, shape or form a news article. It is an opinion hit piece masked as news.
-- Gary Julian
Jenner: The story was not a "hit piece," nor is the past of a candidate who may someday be our president out of bounds or off-limits.
I don't buy your argument that the story was a "total violation of Journalism 101."
The details from Palin's past itemized in the story are not in dispute; they simply hadn't been reported at a national level.
The two questions you ask have different answers. Yes, Democrats would have a vested interest in seeing Palin defeated. But every voter and every citizen has a vested interest in knowing about who is running.
•••
Reader: Watched Gov. Palin's speech Wednesday evening. Enjoyed it. Got Thursday's paper. Front "A" section full of negative stories about Sarah Palin from the discredited New York Times and from the leftist Los Angeles Times -- newspapers that do the bidding of the Democratic party. One heading stated that the "next" audience is going to be harder to please and Gov. Palin has "no" ideas. Doesn't surprise me.
What disappoints me is that The Californianuses these widely known liberal papers. Why? Seems to me I've asked this question before and have not yet gotten an intelligent answer, only the runaround. The Californiancannot call itself a fair and balanced paper when it's full of liberal propaganda. Please, Jenner, someone answer my question why The Californianuses all these liberal papers to get us information when that's not what we really get? Any honest libs there?
-- Phil Patrick
Jenner: First, let's get the facts straight. We ran two stories on Sarah Palin and her speech. The L.A. Timesstory quoted from her speech at length and was nowhere close to "negative."
TheNew York Timesstory looked at the campaign Palin and McCain will conduct going forward. It indeed said Palin's future audiences might not be as supportive as the convention's audience, which former Sen. John Danforth referred to as the "choir." The headline on the continuation of that story absolutely did not say Palin has no ideas. It simply said "Speech: Palin hasn't offered ideas for her role as VP."
As for the sources of our news report, we rely not just on The Associated Press, but on other news organizations whose staffers cover national events and topics.
We subscribe to services that provide the reporting of a number of newspapers. If you look back at our convention coverage from the last two weeks, you'll see stories not just from The New York Timesand Los Angeles Times , but also from the Washington Post , Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News and the Gannett News Service.
The stories we publish are chosen because they're well reported, well written, and relevant, wherever they come from.
Over the years, we've tried to further diversify our base of national sources. I've talked to editors from The Wall Street Journal and other newspapers considered to be "conservative"-- but they're not presently offering their news reports for syndication.
•••
Reader: I was extremely disappointed with this headline above the article in last Sunday's Californian: "Democrats digging for dirt as GOP prepares her defense."
It implies an effort on the part of the Democrats to find some mud to sling at Mrs. Palin. We have unfortunately a sad history during political campaigns of too much such negative activity. It benefits no one of either party to believe that there are active efforts by the respective parties to find some "dirt."
Looking for something in the experience or public life of the several candidates that may raise questions regarding the individual's ability to fulfill the needs of the office. The use of the pejorative "dirt" is not the same as "background," which would have been appropriate.
The responsible editor should carefully consider the words used in the headlines, unless the intent is to slant the headlines. I sincerely hope this is not true, especially where politics is involved.
-- Albert Abrams
Jenner: There was no intent to slant the headline to bash the Democrats.
And I'd like to be as high-minded as you, but when political operatives engage in what's called "oppositional research," there's a thin line between "dirt" and "background."
•••
Reader: I understand your decision to reduce the size of your paper, however I am very disappointed in reducing the size of the Weather page. I have many relatives and friends in Alabama, Georgia and North Dakota and was disappointed in your dropping such cities as Mobile, Montgomery, Augusta and Fargo.
Why not take a lesson from USA Todayand expand weather to a full page? This would attract much more reader interest not only from locals but visitors as well, showing Bakersfield as a nationally minded community.
-- Kathryn Lee
Jenner: When we reformatted the Weather Page, we had to trim some of the cities we listed so it would fit into a half-page format.
For several years we did devote a full page to the weather, but we ultimately didn't feel the benefits the larger page offered outweighed the newsprint costs, which were significant.
We have no plans to return to the full-page presentation.
