Sound Off for April 15, 2007

Batch Data Processor | Saturday, Apr 14 2007 8:40 PM

Last Updated: Saturday, Apr 14 2007 8:46 PM

Reader: For years Don Imus flirted on the edge of what is acceptable public language and behavior. He finally stepped over the edge and now has to pay the price. I believe this local paper also will eventually have to pay that price.

I have been agonizing for years whether or not the 10 percent of truth and accurate news the paper publishes outweighs the 90 percent of misleading propaganda you publish to promote your own agenda. A recent edition decided it for me once and for all. I have canceled my subscription.

On Tuesday you ran on the front page, an article from the San Francisco Chronicle stating that a poll showed that four out of five voters in California approve citizenship for illegal aliens. I don't believe that. You didn't offer any proof that the poll was accurate or even if it had actually been conducted.

Who conducted this poll? Where was it conducted? Maybe all the people I talk to don't vote, I don't know, but I haven't talked to anyone around here that supports citizenship for illegal aliens.

-- Tom Mulkey

Jenner: The Field Poll is an independent, nonpartisan public opinion news service that's been polling in California for 60 years. It's both reputable and reliable.

As for this poll, the story said registered voters were surveyed, but it failed to say how many were questioned and when, and the margin of sampling error.

Our story failed to say the survey was based on 570 interviews conducted by phone between March 20 and 31. The sampling error was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

That information should have been included in the story. I apologize for failing to include that information.

I won't apologize for printing news you don't want to hear or believe.

I agree these results are surprising -- maybe even shocking. I have no doubt most Kern County voters would have an opposing view. In fact, I had an editor call the Field Poll seeking numbers breaking out Kern County, but we were unable to get them.

This story is another piece of evidence that while Kern County may be a "red" (conservative) county, it's situated in one of the nation's "bluest" states.

I'm sorry you canceled your subscription.

Reader: Imus story on the front page; Iran produces nuclear fuel on industrial scale on Page A9.

I pray to God that The Bakersfield Californian's view of what is news is not the American public's.

-- Gloria Mattern

Jenner: If the Iran story had really said that, I agree it would have been worth Page One.

But it didn't.

The Iranian president announced on Monday that his country had achieved that milestone. But, as the story said, U.S. and British officials, along with international nuclear experts, cast doubt on the claim.

We'll keep a close eye on the Iran story as it continues to develop. But it's hard to argue that the Imus story wasn't the "story of the day."

Reader: David Burger, Californian staff writer, is obviously not an English major.

He writes in Thursday's article about the local second place contestant on "Jeopardy!" that "Trebek embarrassed himself when he pronounced 'Don Juan' as 'Don Jew-an.'" Every English major knows Byron's masterpiece is pronounced in the English fashion "Don Joo'-un."

Go back to school, Mr. Burger. You are embarrassing yourself.

-- Vicki Bousquet, retired teacher

Jenner: Thanks for the lesson -- and the gentle rebuke!

Reader: I am disgusted and The Californian should be ashamed for the personal vendetta they have waged against my brother for the last several years. There are two sides to every story but The Californian and other newspapers are losing readers because they usually only give one twisted, slanted version. I wonder what would show up if The Californian reporters, politicos (Sen. Dean) Florez and (Commissioner Jeff) Green, and the county supervisors were given an annual anal exam by media who take things out of context, insinuate and extrapolate from their own preconceptions (lies).

News organizations are supposed to report what happened, not make up their own version. I realize it is automatic that whoever gets in the way of editors and reporters' versions of events will be road kill, but it is still immoral and wrong. I guess it is just easier trying to destroy public employees who don't kiss the butt of certain politicians and newspaper employees than it is to go after real hardcore criminals who might shoot back.

-- Mike Ladd

Jenner: Our mission throughout our reporting on First 5 Kern has been simply to tell readers how their tax dollars are being spent.

I understand your desire to support and protect your brother. But we didn't "make up" our version of the story.

Reader: The Californian's editorialists inaccurately characterized a valid legal opinion by the California School Boards Association as giving the green light to school board members to "wiggle through a loophole and not take the 'ethics training' or set limits on their junkets" ("School boards need ethics training," April 3).

Nothing could be further from the truth. AB 1234 clearly defined a "local agency" as a city, county or special district, and the bill's author stated that he specifically excluded school boards for a reason. Just because CSBA concluded this legislation does not apply to school board members, the legal opinion in no way condones ethics violations by school officials, as The Californian would have its readers believe.

In fact, CSBA strongly encourages its members to review and participate in the ethics training offered by the state Attorney General and the Fair Political Practices Commission. In addition, CSBA provides sample board policies on ethics and encourages the adoption of professional governance standards by all elected local school governance leaders. CSBA has a history of promoting the highest level of ethics for the elected officials administering California's educational system and we continue to honor this tradition today.

-- Linda Pavletich

Rio Bravo-Greeley Union trustee

Director, Region 12 Delegate Assembly, CSBA

Editorial Page Editor Dianne Hardisty responds:

The editorial did not "inaccurately characterize" the legal opinion of the California School Boards Association. Linda Pavletich simply disagrees with the characterization.

AB 1234 does not "clearly" exclude schools. Rather it defines "local agency" as including a city, county, special district, etc. Schools are not in the "included" list, but they're not clearly "excluded." That is what our editorial characterized as a "loophole."

The editorial did not contend the association condones ethics violations. Recent Californian reporting reveals some local school board members aren't disclosing financial holdings as required by state law.

The editorial encouraged state legislators to introduce new legislation that would require school board members to undergo the same ethics training as other elected local government officials.

Reader: When will The Californian start providing more articles objectively developed, appealing more to reason and with reasonable support for the writer's conclusions?

To illustrate, The Californian editorial, "School behavior outrageous," contains sweeping over-generalizations along with weak connections between observations and conclusions. In contrast, Superintendent Lingo's editorial response was logical, concisely developed, and met my needs as a reader to be informed.

As a reader of The Californian, one of my first concerns is the writer's objectivity. If a writer's objectivity is brought into question at any point, I assert the reader is reasonable in dismissing all of the writer's points. I subscribe to the newspaper primarily to learn information about community life, not to be entertained or receive fiction.

The Californian's editorial first relied upon testimony from a trial involving a few school district employees.

The writer assumes this small sample of reported behavior represents thousands of other employees. The writer then asks the reader to believe thousands in the district work force care little about children and massive federal requirements must be influenced by the writer's fabricated conclusion: employees have a "preoccup(ation) with each others' behinds." I find this writing offensive.

It insults the reader by lacking a logical development of the writer's ideas and lacks any justification for the conclusion.

I would like a newspaper to give me reliable information. I would like a writer to be objective, and reasonably develop conclusions or assertions.

The Californian has a lot of work ahead of it to meet the needs of its readers.

-- Randy Ranes

Editorial Page Editor Dianne Hardistyresponds:

The editorial you refer to is "opinion." It is not objective reporting, as you would find on the news pages. The editorial reflected the opinion of The Californian's editorial board.

Reader: You recently published an article called "Man with Down syndrome opens his own retail shop." Although I don't reside in Bakersfield, the story of Coby Short has been traveling the Down syndrome circuit, with interested parents and siblings passing along to article to one another. I have a 13-year-old brother with Down syndrome. He has visions, just like Coby did, of growing up to accomplish big things.

I am writing to congratulate your newspaper on a job well done. It is important for the community to know about happenings like this, especially because it helps break down stigmas people may have about individuals with cognitive and other disabilities. I appreciate your careful report on Coby's successes, as many have the newspaper as their only source for information that will, in theory, negate some of their ignorance and stereotypes.

I hope you and your staff will continue to publish articles that highlight the importance of accomplishments by all the people of your community.

Sincerely,

-- Jill West

Tulane University Department of Psychology

Jenner: Thanks for your kind note. We love stories like these, and so do our readers.

We'll keep looking for them.