Reader: After reading last
Sunday’s Californian, I
could not help recalling a
Shakespeare quote: “the
(Californian) doth protest
too much, methinks.”
Clearly, neither the liberal
press nor media can stand
the heat (and public outing)
now that a clear image has
been demonstrated as to
the media bias in this election
year. It has become so
obvious that even neutral
polling has made the point.
The Californian is no different
and the Sunday paper
further demonstrated this
point.
Your Sound Off comments
were The Californian’s
attempt to justify its
claimed neutral coverage,
including the “broadening”
of contributing sources. But
the inclusion of specific
articles is at the discretion
of The Californian, and the
“titles” are approved by
staff. Then, Robert Price
put in his op-ed piece
defending the media. At
least this piece was under
the “Opinion” section.
Nevertheless, Page A8 was
The Californian’s “Campaign
08” section. What was
covered? There was an article
describing the events of
the previous day. Fine.
There was an article
marked “commentary,” but
with a title suggesting
something else. This third
op-ed piece again defended
the media and press. Finally,
there was a “Fact Check
of Obama’s Rhetoric vs.
Reality.” Strange, Obama
was not mentioned or quoted
once. Why was this article
about McCain missteps?
I know, Mr. Jenner, all
simply oversights or
improper editing. Still, I
must wonder why so much
defense. There must be
something that needs
defending. Possibly, Mr.
Price and The Californian
should conduct another
investigation.

—Craig Beardsley

Jenner: Sorry if I sounded
too defensive, but I believe
there is indeed something
that needs defending.
I do take umbrage with
generalized complaints that
lump us in the same boat
with NBC, CNN and the rest
of the “liberal media elite.”
Our coverage has been
different. Here’s just one
example: When Sarah Palin
gave a series of interviews
with ABC’s Charlie Gibson
last week, rather than publish
endless analysis of what
she did or didn’t say, we
printed his questions and
her answers, so readers
could make up their own
minds.
And when we learned that
Gibson had misquoted
Palin about whether or not
the Iraq war was “God’s
plan” — and our wire services
failed to give us a story
about that detail — we
reported and wrote our own
story pointing it out.
I’m not saying we’re perfect,
or that no bias will
make it onto our pages. But
unlike our cable and broadcast
counterparts, we’re trying
to focus on issues and
substance. That’s why we’re
not blowing out “lipstick on
a pig” or stories about children
of candidates on the
front page.

■ ■ ■
Reader: Thank you for
running the “Fact Check”
articles by Associated Press
writer Jim Kuhnhenn concerning
the Republican
National Convention.
I found it interesting that I
do not recall having seen a
similar “Fact Check” article
appearing during the
Democratic National Convention.
I can only conclude that
The Californian either did
not choose to run a similar
Fact Check story during the
Democratic National Convention,
or the Associated
Press did not think it necessary
to “Fact Check” statements
made during the
DNC.
Am I wrong in my reasoning?

—Chris Padham

Jenner: The Associated
Press did not offer a similar
story on the acceptance
speeches of Sens. Barack
Obama and Joseph Biden.
For that reason we sought
and obtained the “fact
check” analysis from the
Dallas Morning News comparing
Obama’s campaign
rhetoric to the facts. We
published it last Sunday.

■ ■ ■
Reader: In last Sunday’s
paper, the piece headlined
“Obama’s Campaign rhetoric
vs. reality” focuses on
the claims made by Obama
in his acceptance speech.
At www.Factcheck.org,
the instances where
McCain also distorts the
truth in his acceptance
speech are clearly documented.
Why only focus on Obama?
This one-sided view is
evidence of bias in The Californian.

—J.Armento

Jenner: We haven’t
focused only on Obama. We
ran similar pieces examining
the claims and facts in
speeches by Sarah Palin and
John McCain.

■ ■ ■
Reader: Just finished
Robert Price’s Sept. 7 column,
that’s a classic. You
did an exceptionally good
job. I like your approach.
Hang in there, guys.

— Don Stewart

■ ■ ■
Reader: Regarding Monday’s
front-page story on
Down syndrome: I assume
next you will be running a
front page story on why
abstinence doesn’t work?
If one child is hands off
the other children should
also be!

—Judy Grayson

Jenner: The story was
about Down syndrome. It
reflected the comments and
feelings of local parents of
children with Down syndrome,
who believe Sarah
Palin’s run for vice president
will raise awareness of the
syndrome.
That’s all we were trying
to do. Beyond the Palin connection,
the story was not
political in any way, and did
not delve into personal or
private issues in the Palin
family.
It was a fine story, and I’m
glad we did it.

Reader: How could such
a blatant error be overlooked?
It is Down’s Syndrome,
not Down
syndrome, as Monday’s
Page One headline stated.

—Nancy Duncan

Jenner: At one point
“Down’s Syndrome” was the
most common usage, and is
still widely used.
But in the past several
years, The National Institutes
of Health and the
American Medical Association,
as well as many medical
dictionaries and
encyclopedias, prefer
“Down syndrome.” That is
the style that is preferred by
the Associated Press stylebook,
which is our reference.

■ ■ ■
Reader: In typical slanted
liberal voting standards
you’ve come up with a way
to poll readers and still keep
or remove the comic strips
you want while pretending
that it is the will of your
readers. Your misguided
poll in no way gives a true
measure of which comics
should stay or go.
Example: Let’s say my top
six favorite strips are Luann,
Zits, For Better or for Worse,
Blondie, Hagar the Horrible
and Beetle Bailey. My six
least favorite strips are Pickles,
Family Circus, Baby
Blues, Brewster Rocket
Space Guy, Dilbert and Real
Life adventures.
In your poll, I would only
be able to vote for two of my
favorite comics and two of
my least favorite.
I suggest that you have
readers list them in the
order of their preference. If
you don’t believe that there
would be a remarkable difference
I challenge The Californian
to poll both ways
and compare. I am sure that
your reasons for trying to
maintain control from your
readers’ true preferences
have to do with your cost
for certain strips over others,
but please don’t play us
for fools by trying to make
us think we have a choice.

— Christian Logan

Jenner: Here’s whatManaging
Editor Steve Mullen
has to say:
“We’ve done comics polls
many different ways over
the years, and we have never
been able to please
everyone. We’re trying
things this way in order to
‘spread out’ the votes a little
among different types of
strips. That way, all readers
must choose different
types.
“We thought that would
be more fair to the newer
strips, which have a disadvantage
to the tried-andtrue
ones.
“I appreciate that you
have given this a lot of
thought, enough to even
discover a masked liberal
agenda. That obviously
wasn’t the intent.”

■ ■ ■
Reader: I understand
why gay marriage has occupied
the news so frequently,
and I agree that gay marriage
is important to both
supporters and opponents.
I am deeply disappointed
with the recent content
being displayed during the
5 and 6 o’clock news hour.
As a mother of three, my
family gathers around the
table each night to enjoy
the company of one another,
the nourishment of our
meal time, and insight to
our wonderful city, state
and world we live in.
I have been noticing more
and more video of civil ceremonies
capturing the
physical affection shown
between two men or two
women.
I am troubled with segments
featuring kissing
between same sex couples
during prime time when my
children are at the dinner
table with us.
I am not asking for a
removal of same-sex ceremonies
on local news stations,
but am requesting
that affection (kissing) of
same sex couples not be
shown during the earlier
hours of the evening.
I feel it highly inappropriate
for children to see
something on local news
during prime time that they
may not be ready for at
such vulnerable an age.
So, I am asking for the
support of The Californian,
KERO, KBAK and KGET to
block out the kissing of gay
couples when reporting on
the issue of gay marriage.

— Melanie Stevenson

Jenner: I can’t and won’t
speak for the TV stations,
but will simply say that we
have worked hard to cover
this issue with respect for all
— including the many readers
like you who prefer to
not witness public displays
of affection.
We’ll continue to do so.

■ ■ ■
Reader: As a longtime
subscriber to The Californian
(60 years) I have often
been impressed with pictures
taken by your staff
photographers. Casey
Christie’s shots of Kern
wildlife are unsurpassed.
On August 29th a photo
by Harry Barrios titled “All
About Safety” immediately
brought to mind Dr. Chuck
Wall’s “Random Acts of
Kindness” movement.
It shows an older gentleman,
crossing guard
Richard Lavender, kneeling
at the curb tying the
shoelaces of a young boy so
that he might safely cross
Belle Terrace on his way to
school.
This is the type of scene
that Norman Rockwell portrayed
so well in his paintings
and were often on the
covers of national magazines.
I wish this one could
find its way there too — it
truly exemplifies the saying
“one picture is worth a
thousand words.”

— Pat Parsons

Jenner: I felt exactly the
same way when I saw that
picture. We’re truly fortunate
to have such a talented
staff. Thanks for writing.

■ ■ ■
Reader: On Page A7 of
Thursday’s Californian, not
the front page, near the bottom
of the page this story,
“Lawmaker admits mistakes.”
It’s about Charles Rangel,
a liberal pit bull congressman
always at the ready to
jump on any Republican for
sneezing too loud — just
ask Trent Lott.
Here’s a congressman
who’s committed a crime —
tax fraud. The article is only
five paragraphs and the story
comes from the Associated
Press and you can bet
the farm this will be the end
to this story.
In case you didn’t know,
The Californian is chockfull
of liberals of “low
degree.” That’s why the story
is at the bottom of Page
Seven. It’s not coincidence.

—Phil Patrick

Jenner: Rangel is the
head of the House Ways and
Means Committee, and the
story was certainly newsworthy.
But the New York congressman
hasn’t been
charged with a crime, and
at this point, the story was
played appropriately. It
wasn’t worth the front page.
We’ll follow this story, and
keep readers updated.
If Rangel is removed from
his post or Congress, or sent
to prison, you can be sure it
won’t be “the end of the story”—
and I’ll look forward
to owning a farm at last.

■ ■ ■
Reader: I would just like
to say I like the format of
The Bakersfield Californian
and especially the narrow
size, but I do miss having
the weather page across the
top half of the page.
It seems more complete
reading it crossways.
Thank you

— Jan Abbey