|
Was review of Nikki's Smoking BBQ off base? Shooting headline missed the mark Going to question new firefighter OT in Southern California, too? Famoso coverage great, but what about ... ? The wonders of Kern and casual bikini tops Changes at newspaper, can you try being better? Forget the weather, what's with that page? Did you have to detail dog's destruction? Ann Coulter, TV Guide and dead dogs Newspaper didn't put Ann Coulter in context, reader says June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 May 06 April 06 March 06 December 05 November 05 October 05 September 05 August 05 July 05 June 05 May 05 April 05 Blog RollAsk The Californian Editorials Entertainment Eye of Bakersfield Faith Forum Fired Up! Inside Sports Neighbors Right Thinking Sound Off Talk of the Town 
RSS 2.0    |
|
|
Is the newspaper biased against cops?
Sound Off| Saturday, Jun 9 2007 8:30 PMLast Updated: Saturday, Jun 9 2007 8:33 PM Reader: The Bakersfield Californian has been my hometown newspaper for more than 60 years. Sadly, I have noticed over the past quarter century that the headlines about matters involving law enforcement have changed. It has become almost routine to see bold print that casts a negative slant on the actions of not only the Bakersfield Police Department but most all of Kern County law enforcement. That would be especially true of the district attorney's office. I was reminded of this bias again on June 3. There it was at the bottom of Page B1: "Fleeing Driver Shot by Officers." At first glance the reader would infer that this was just another arbitrary shooting. Contrast that headline with March of 1970 when a BPD officer was involved in a shooting during an armed robbery arrest, and the bold print read "Officer nabs armed pair, shoots one." In both cases the suspect shot was armed and resisting arrest. What is significantly different is how The Californian chose to present the facts to the reading public. Shame on you. -- A. Riley Parker Jenner: Here are few other headlines that ran with stories published in the last 12 months. Somehow you omitted them from your complaint: "Police chase, arrest four suspects in home robbery" "Hours-long search through southeast Bakersfield area ends without bloodshed" "Agencies honor officers for work against vehicle theft" "Police bust large indoor pot operation" "SWAT team standoff at motel ends peacefully" "Officer won't let guard down" "Efforts in helping turn around lives of troubled students draw praise" Those are a few of them. I didn't bother to include the headlines from all the stories covering the promotions of officers. We publish every one. I also didn't mention the yearlong series on what it takes to survive the BPD's academy, nor did I include the many stories about PAL -- the Police Athletic League -- in which officers give young people recreational opportunities and the chance to get to know police officers as people. Yes, when an officer fires his weapon, it's a news story. And every story gets a headline. But your suggestion that we're slanting coverage to cast police in a negative light is not only unsupported, it's wrong. Reader: I was just calling to comment on your front page picture in The Californian. I had to wash my dog's mouth out with Listerine this morning after he brought it in. Bad choice of a picture for young kids at home from school that might be picking up the paper. It might as well have been Playboy or Hustler. Bad choice. -- Karen Hodges Reader: I want to protest that horrible picture that you put on the front page. Is this a family newspaper or is it pornographic? I have a 16-year-old grandson and I don't appreciate this kind of picture going before his eyes. What on Earth are you people thinking of? I don't think you are. -- June Engle Jenner: I spoke to a half-dozen readers Monday who were upset by the photo and headline that accompanied that day's Page One story about the pervasiveness of pornography in our society. The photo showed five members of the band known as the Pussycat Dolls performing at a concert. Although the women were wearing skimpy costumes, the photo was not pornographic in any way. But it ran with an overline that said "Prime time for porn?" and a headline that said: "SeXXX sells." Readers accused us of trying to use sex to sell papers. Many were so angry by the presentation they didn't bother to read the story. Ironically, the story was a strong indictment of the prevalence of porn in our culture. It talked about the negative effect the focus on sexuality has had on young people -- particularly on young girls. We localized the story with photos and quotes from local residents who shared their concerns about the trend. In hindsight, I wish we had simply run the story with no photo and a straightforward headline stating something like: "Porn permeating culture is especially damaging to young girls." I regret that we gave some readers the idea we were trying to use sex to sell the paper, and apologize to those who were offended. Reader: Thanks for answering my letter. Reading The Californian is the way I start my day -- with the front page. Readers viewpoints, Herb Benham (he answers letters, too), obituary notices. Wish you could write more about what is going on in Bakersfield with illegal immigrants. That's the second war in our country I believe. I like the Sports section, especially the pictures of the young athletes in all sports, not just the stars. Probably only time they will have their picture in paper. We need someone writing for senior citizens. I like to find very helpful articles. Don't care for the page of pictures. Would if it was Bakersfield, Kern County, California. I feel The Californian is a paper for local people. I don't want the L.A. paper. -- Norma Dorris Jenner: Thanks for the nice note, Norma. Our salute to the boys and girls who were outstanding athletes in the season that just ended will run June 22-24. Reader: I wished to express my delight with the addition of W. Bruce Cameron's column to the Opinion page. I had not seen Mr. Cameron's column before. I find it humorous, in a manner similar to Dave Barry, but with an additional splash of the ironies of life from which we all suffer. I have really enjoyed the past couple of columns, and look forward to reading more in the future. Thank you again for including this breath of fresh air in The Californian. -- Ryan Olson 23 comments from 14 users
1
posted by
AudreyB
on Jun 11, 2007 at 09:50 AM
The Californian is looking for news. Sometimes the stories they find are not that interesting or newsworthy so they stretch what little controversy they can out of an otherwise dull story.
posted by
anonymous
on Jun 11, 2007 at 11:58 AM
" I want to protest that horrible picture that you put on the front page. Is this a family newspaper or is it pornographic? I have a 16-year-old grandson and I don't appreciate this kind of picture going before his eyes", if your kid has never seen a picture like this or worse, you two don't communicate or he keeps them under the mattress at the monastery.
posted by
randomfactor
on Jun 11, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Speaking from experience, almost everyone in law enforcement tolerates the media only because they have to.
And vice versa, likely as not.
posted by
steveeswenson
on Jun 11, 2007 at 01:12 PM
Speaking from my experience — as a cops and courts reporter for more than 30 years — cops respect the truth and if it is fairly and objectively portrayed in news articles, they will respect the reporter.Same holds true with all others in the criminal justice system, including defendants. Using cops as an example, there is a difference between bad stories about good cops and good stories about bad cops. The best stories are when everyone talks to you. posted by
allRED
on Jun 11, 2007 at 01:24 PM
But Steve you didn't answer the question about the pornographic pic? Ron. posted by
anonymous
on Jun 11, 2007 at 01:45 PM
Having worked with cops and the media I always avoided at all costs common interviews. I was not fond of interviews and deferred to our press office unless I was specially ordered to participate.
The CHP on the other hand were real prim Donna's and there was never a reporter they did not want to impress. That made it easy for me and I deferred to them. Having said that , there was always reporters from the SacBee they preferred to speak with, some because they were fair and some because they were almost groupies that made negative events positive. The Californian from my point of view fall into the groupie category, as they just brush by any thing that might be construed as negative to law enforcement. They can be amusing though,I always enjoyed their coverage of the Sparks crying jags and their whimsical coverage such as the one a few years ago where they fired one hundred and one shots at suspects and some of the suspects survived. One of the other stories the Californian covers involves shooting, I can almost quote the story and the police investigators conclusions before they are ever printed, they are boiler plate journalism. posted by
steveeswenson
on Jun 11, 2007 at 03:02 PM
Allred,The picture wasn't close to being pornographic. posted by
randomfactor
on Jun 11, 2007 at 03:38 PM
Murphyslaw, you've gotta take the *NOSES* into account when judging pornography, remember? posted by
anonymous
on Jun 11, 2007 at 06:57 PM
Murph, DUCK!! Those darn gang bangers are shooting at us again!!!
posted by
anonymous
on Jun 11, 2007 at 07:28 PM
I saw the same picture on a Pizza slice on Ebay, it was being offered by Larry Flynt. Should I bid on it?
posted by
anonymous
on Jun 11, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Wow, the battle of the adult kindergartners.
posted by
NancyII
on Jun 12, 2007 at 06:43 AM
OH NO ! I missed the porn on the Californians front page? I could have saved myself the cost of shipment in the plain brown wrapper? RATS ! NOTE TO TBC FROM READER: Stop putting those Macy's, Penny's, Mervyns and Kohls lingerie ads in your paper. Showing skimpy clothing on well built models is pornographic you know. All those bikini panties and bras...disgusting I tell you..and I am offended. posted by
allRED
on Jun 12, 2007 at 06:53 AM
Steve I didnt see the Pic I was referring to a post a viewer made. Ron. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Jun 12, 2007 at 06:55 AM
From Mr. Jenner's reply, "Ironically, the story was a strong indictment of the prevalence of porn in our culture. It talked about the negative effect the focus on sexuality has had on young people -- particularly on young girls." This is an interesting topic unto itself, but as I see it, a society's porn is a reflection of a society's overall attitude toward sex, not a cause of it. I have seen beautiful "porn." I have seen video clips that -- far from degrading the woman -- made me want to hug her, hold her, protect her. This type of "porn" is more prevalent in European countries, where their attitudes toward sex are incomparably healthier. The more gross and stupid-looking stuff tends to be of American or Arab vintage.
posted by
anonymous
on Jun 14, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Anyone ever read 'Mean Justice'? Pretty good book about the "law" in Bakersfield. Anyone know whats with this sense of superiority about anyone working with the PD? Normally, when you exit your car you wait for traffic. I saw a Police Technician almost get hit for swinging her door open then hurrying to get to the middle of the street. If anything, they aren't being reported negatively enough. posted by
anonymous
on Jun 14, 2007 at 11:36 AM
I'm not familiar with the superiority you are referring to, but I am familiar with ignorant people.
posted by
anonymous
on Jun 14, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Edward Humes is the Author. Might be hard to find in town.
posted by
anonymous
on Jun 14, 2007 at 03:19 PM
"
I'm not familiar with the superiority you are referring to, but I am familiar with ignorant people." Thank God you are one of us!
posted by
gravy
on Aug 8, 2007 at 08:25 PM
if they are its with good reason!
do you have any idea how many MILLIONS of dollars this county/city has wasted on lawsuits ??? the kid who got beat up in jail =$20 million all the 6 or was it 9 people who like 10 years in jail due to the bogus child molestation ring= $20 million each. and a long list of other lawsuits that were the result of law enforcement messing up have all cost us millions of dollars DOLLARS THAT COULD HAVE GONE TO FIXING OUR ROADS. and they have done quite a few other thing that have cost any money yet (but probably will soon) like the ex mayor of Arvin he was a problem to them so the nite before the election they had him arrested on charges of child molestation and then let him go the next day saying there wasnt enough evidence ????????? come on how crooked can you get posted by
CurtDalton
on Feb 11, 2008 at 07:24 AM
February 11, 2008 (both print and on line version of TBC) the story line is:"Officers Slay Parolee"
|
