Sound Off

BY MIKE JENNER, Californian executive editor | Saturday, Aug 4 2007 9:45 PM

Last Updated: Saturday, Aug 4 2007 9:49 PM

Reader: Perhaps the people who selected your new format think "change" is important, and maybe they're correct. But shouldn't the change be an improvement?

Combining the Local and national news into one section on Mondays does nothing but create a mess. It's a channel-surfing format, and anyone who's ever watched TV with a channel-surfing addict knows how irritating that is!

On what you call the busiest day of the week, your readers have to figure out what is local and what is national (or elsewhere) news. Thanks for messing up our week.

Traditionally, my favorite part of The Californian was the Local section; it contained most of what I want to read first (after the headlines, of course). Under your new format, I have to deal with irritating "pop-ups" before being able to read the news. You've even moved and changed the weather report, which was perfect the way it was. Another change for the sake of change. Do you have a new CEO (Change Executive Officer)? You've taken a bold, clear, colorful, easy-to-read weather page and denigrated it.

It's been miniaturized so effectively that it is now hard to visualize and understand. Even the color has been taken away. And to add insult to injury, it is not even black and white; it's gray and white. What a lackluster way to report the weather.

I hope you have another "change" in store for your readers in the near future -- a change back to what was a very good newspaper.

-- Fred Mahanagrana

Jenner: Thanks for noticing our changes, Fred. We are planning at least one change you might like.

In a week we'll relaunch a weather package that will restore color to the page and improve several of the features, such as the national weather map. It won't be the same page we discontinued three weeks ago, but we'll address as many complaints as we can.

Our new Monday format (which combines the A section and Local section) is new, and I know it takes time to get used to change.

But I don't think the organization of the new section should be too confusing. After the front page and Page A2 comes local news, followed by state, national and finally world news.

We'll try to make sure we label these pages clearly, but I'd ask readers to give it more than just three issues before writing it off. And I do look forward to hearing reader comments on the weather changes we'll introduce next week.

One thing hasn't changed around here, and that's our commitment to quality local news coverage.

We're covering local issues, people and events with the same accuracy, energy and quantity as ever -- and you're getting many more stories and much more depth here than any other place.

For people who care about what's going on in their community, The Californian and bakersfield.com continue to be the sources that deliver.

Reader: Emily Hagedorn's article in the July 14 edition did a reasonably good job of reporting Bakersfield-area hospitals' above-average fatalities from heart bypass surgery in the 2003-2004 period. Three issues were either left un-quantified or unclear.

1. Memorial Hospital officials stated they upgraded their technology (hopefully reduced the number of fatalities) in the two-plus years since the survey. The survey indicated a risk-adjusted 5 percent fatality rate. I would have hoped Ms. Hagedorn might have reported their current rate.

2. She mentioned that Kern County surgeons didn't fare too well in the survey. For completeness sake, I think the article should have indicated the performance of the best and worst surgeons in Kern County.

3. In the last portion of her article, Ms. Hagedorn stated: Four hospitals in the state performed better than average; none were in the Kern County area, the report found. Four surgeons did better than the average, and 12 surgeons did worse. None of those were local either.

In some respect, these statements don't make sense. I believe more than four hospitals in California performing above average and there are more than 16 surgeons doing heart-bypass surgery in California. What was she attempting to say?

Best regards,

-- Jon Crawford

Jenner: The following is Emily Hagedorn's response:

I want to correct a couple of facts in Mr. Crawford's letter. Not all Bakersfield hospitals were above average in fatalities for coronary artery bypass graft surgery in the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development's recent report; only Bakersfield Memorial Hospital. And I did not write that the local surgeons evaluated in the report fared poorly. They received average ratings, like most of the surgeons in the state.

In regards to Mr. Crawford's first concern, the 5 percent fatality rate for bypass surgery at Bakersfield Memorial Hospital is the most current rate the state has, despite being from 2003-2004. Out-of-date information is a common drawback of many of the hospital and doctor studies that come out. As the story said, the state office hopes to have 2005 data for the hospitals published by the end of this year. That may give us a clearer picture of our local hospitals' performances.

The five local surgeons evaluated in the report garnered overall average ratings. The surgeons, bypass surgeries performed and risk-adjusted death rates are as follows:

* Dr. Reginald Abraham, 29 surgeries, zero percent.

* Dr. Marvin Derrick, 548 surgeries, 4.08 percent.

* Dr. Patrick Paw, 313 surgeries, 3.93 percent.

* Dr. Sarabjit Purewal, 367 surgeries, 5.09 percent.

* Dr. Jose Soto-Velasco, 43 surgeries, 8.5 percent.

While the state death rate was 3.08 percent, the surgeons' results weren't statistically significant enough to garner the low rating.

Regarding your last concern, 121 state-licensed hospitals and 302 surgeons were evaluated in this report, as the story said. The great majority of both groups were rated as average. Four hospitals in the state performed better than average, and six hospitals did worse, including Memorial. Four surgeons did better than the average, and 12 surgeons did worse. More than four hospitals in the state may be performing above average, as you said, but that's not what this study found.

I'm sorry you were confused by the article, and I hope this answers your questions. I encourage you or any reader interested in learning more about the study to go to www.oshpd.state.ca.us.

Reader: Californian -- that is how you spell hypocrisy.

I must have missed your editorials lambasting Clinton for lying under oath to the grand jury investigating the Lewinsky affair. Caught the one where you directed your outrage at "overzealous" Ken Starr without mentioning he asked the three-judge oversight panel to NOT appoint him to the Lewinsky case. Hmm, that's overzealous?

Hundreds of FBI screening reports on congressional members and politicians showed up in Clinton's White House. Mistakenly sent by the FBI, said Clinton. Yeah, right. Four philandering Republicans favoring Clinton's impeachment were outed. Their FBI reports were among those found in the White House. The only Democrat in the whole bunch was James Carville, Clinton's campaign manager. Ever wonder what Carville had on Clinton? Never saw a speculative editorial about that.

What about "vacuuming" the Rose law firm files in the midst of Whitewater, storing records in a friend's White House office? Chasing Washington police investigating his suicide from that office? Insisting the Parks Department handle the investigation? A White House security member telling a House committee he toted those records up to the living quarters? The Clintons denying they had a subpoenaed document from that stash, which later showed up in their living room. Where was your anger then?

Compare the above to the Valerie Plame case. Special prosecutor Fitzgerald started his investigation by talking to the CIA, Robert Novak and Richard Armitage. He discovered three things: Plame was not a covert agent; Armitage was Novak's source; and Armitage had no criminal intent, therefore no crime had been committed, though your phrasing hints otherwise. Why did Fitzgerald legally restrain Armitage from saying anything and continue the long investigation when he knew who outed Plame from the start? Sounds overzealous to me.

Compare the Clinton evidence above to replacing the U.S. attorneys, which always punches your Editorial Board's hot spasm button. I believe it was Maxine Waters who after one hearing said the House didn't have any evidence so they needed to subpoena Karl Rove. More than a hundred people grilled by Congress, 85,000 pages of documents -- and they have nothing?

They want more nothing?

How Kafkaesque is that?

-- Ray Stamper

Editorial Page Editor Dianne Hardisty responds:

I'm sorry you missed all of the editorials published in The Californian during Bill Clinton's tenure criticizing the president and his behavior, particularly during the Lewinsky scandal.

I'm especially sorry you missed our editorial demanding Clinton resign. The Californian was one of the first newspapers in the nation to demand Clinton's resignation in the wake of the scandal.