Sound Off

Reader:Wednesday's bakersfield.com article on the theft of the knife, stabbing and subsequent shooting at the Valley Plaza displayed a photograph depicting medical personnel administering first aid to the subject that had been shot by the police officer. The caption for the photo referred to the "victim of the shooting," inferring that the wounded individual was somehow an innocent party.

A more accurate caption would have been something to the effect of "medical personnel administer first aid to the suspect, shot after stabbing a police officer." In this case, the police officer was the victim, as well as the merchant that had the knife stolen. The "shooting victim" chose to become a suspect based on his actions.

I have been in law enforcement for more than 35 years, and I have seen many officers become victims of assaults and other crimes, yet the media rarely identifies the officers as victims. Police officers are not infallible, but the media should accurately describe the event, the "who, what, when, where, why, and how" of what happened.

-- Gregory Verbeck

Jenner: I agree.

The caption that appeared online missed the mark. It was written before all the details about the events that led to the shooting were known and confirmed.

The caption that appeared on the front page of The Californian did not refer to the man who was shot as a "victim."

Once we had all the information, an editor should have noticed the online caption and revised it to point out that the man was shot as he was attacking the police officer with a knife.

Editors and reporters are indeed sensitive to the issue you bring up. We need to describe the events leading to officer-involved shootings accurately and as completely as possible.

Reader: Thank you for bringing your coverage of the Condors to a place on the front burner. The front page of Wednesday's Sports page included a nice piece on our Condors team.

A few days ago, I sent a note to the paper regarding the lack of commitment the print media had to the Condors. The Condors' quest for a hockey championship rated a bit more attention from your sportswriters. I do not know if my previous letter had any effect on this, but I felt I had to recognize your effort and to say THANK YOU. Thank you for the Condors Team and thank you for all their fans.

Enthusiasm is contagious. Cheering on your hometown is wonderful. Thank you for cheering on our Condors.

-- Michelle Claxton

Jenner: Thanks for your note. I did see your earlier letter chiding us for not giving the Condors' playoff-clinching victory in Utah a position on last Saturday's Sports cover.

The placement of that story had more to do with deadlines than a lack of commitment. In that case, the lateness of the game caused us to put that story on the third page of the section. If we'd gotten the story earlier, we would've put it on the cover.

We recognize and respect the following the Condors have developed. And I do appreciate your note.

We have an obligation to cover the positive as well as the negative news in our community. Because the news isn't always happy, I'd probably stop short of calling our coverage "cheering."

That said, we're committed to celebrating the good news and the success stories in our community (see below).

Reader: On behalf of the hundreds of ladies and gentlemen who daily and nightly serve in our numerous hotels, restaurants and attractions may I stand up on their behalf and applaud The Bakersfield Californian for your insightful and comprehensive coverage of our city's tourism industry in last Friday's newspaper.

Further commendation is also warranted for the previous week's coverage welcoming visitors to the CIF state wrestling tournament.

Those of us who work in the hospitality and tourism industry each day realize the outstanding growth that Bakersfield has realized over the past few years in the convention and visitor business.

In fact, we recently surpassed the billion dollar mark in Kern County and anticipate a 28 percent increase in visitor spending in Bakersfield next year.

It is most encouraging for us to know that our hometown newspaper supports our marketing efforts to bring in more visitors and I can only hope that more businesses throughout Bakersfield and Kern County will follow the lead of The Californian and welcome our visitors and assist them with a positive experience while they are here.

As we all know, business goes where it is welcomed and returns where it is appreciated. Let us all make tourism in Bakersfield a team sport.

-- Bob Marx, PhD

President/CEO, Bakersfield

Convention and Visitors Bureau

Reader: Your editorial on the firing of U.S. attorneys was short on facts and long on hot-button words. Without bothering to present supporting facts, you claim President Bush fired prosecutors for "political" reasons and endangered "equal justice." You said Bush has the right to do this, but it's a "scandal" and "cronyism" for him to fire these "apolitical professionals." How do you know it's "cronyism?" Their replacements have not been named.

You say each administration "appoints" its own 93 district-based prosecutors, which implies they all start from scratch. They do not. So why use "appoints" instead of "nominates?" Maybe because after taking office in 1993, President Clinton ordered Attorney General Janet Reno to fire all 93 Republican appointees. Yeah, I know. Only 92 were fired. Sen. Bill Bradley intervened for Michael Chertoff, current Homeland Security boss. In August 2001, Bush "nominated" 6 new prosecutors, leaving 87 Clinton "appointees" in office. Does that mean Bush "appointed" them?

Which above episode sounds more like politics? Cronyism?

More importantly, why have we not seen these facts in the media?

You say the Bush administration inserted a sentence in last year's reauthorization of the Patriot Act, thereby allowing the president to replace U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. I hesitate to insert an inconvenient truth into your argument, but what the heck. Bush does not write the laws. Congress writes, debates, and upon passage, sends them to the president for his signature or veto.

And you blame Bush for what Congress wrote?

Wow! That is just ... wow!

-- Ray Stamper

Editorial Page Editor Dianne Hardisty responds:

I had to re-read our editorial. I did not recognize it from Ray Stamper's description.

The editorialdid not call the firings political. It noted evidence is mounting to support that conclusion and urged Congress to investigate. The editorial did not say the firings endangered "equal justice." Rather it noted the system was supposed to administer equal justice, regardless of "politics."

Call it what you like, but when a high-ranking official already has resigned, the attorney general is under pressure to resign and the president is acknowledging mistakes were made, it is looking like a "scandal."

Increasingly we are hearing from administration supporters that the media is picking on President Bush. They note President Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. Typically when administrations change, the new president fires all the sitting U.S. attorneys. Ronald Reagan did this in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993.

George W. Bush allowed some to stay on the job for several months when he took office in 2001, although eventually all were replaced, according to Associated Press Washington correspondent Tom Raum. It is unusual, but not illegal, for a president to fire so many U.S. attorneys midterm, as President Bush has.