Sound Off for April 22, 2007

Batch Data Processor | Saturday, Apr 21 2007 10:20 PM

Last Updated: Saturday, Apr 21 2007 10:23 PM

Reader: Looking at Wednesday's paper I was horrified to see a larger-than-life picture of that monster who murdered 32 innocent people right smack on the front page! Surrounding his likeness were pictures of some of his victims and small, short and appropriate bios of their lives.

Why have that animal's picture smeared all over the front page of the paper and all over the media? I do NOT want nor do I wish to think of his likeness associated with those snuffed-out lives.

In this day and age when we are all inundated with the media's view of world events and what you -- the media -- wishes and desire us to see and remember, why don't you just make a very, very, very, small picture of that animal, maybe located in the back of the sports section (sorry, sports fans) so we can read about him in the appropriate spot in our house, if you know what I mean.

If you in the media wish to turn our world around in the positive sense, make the pictures of the victims larger than life so we will remember the brave and heroic lives rather than the life of a person that will rot in a small corner of hell.

-- Bruce Neal

Jenner: Wednesday's front page featured 13 portraits of victims of the Virginia Tech slayings. On an inside page we published vignettes of all 28 victims whose names had been released at that time. And we published a full story on 76-year-old Holocaust survivor Liviu Librescu, who gave his life to save his students.

We did run a photo of Cho Seung-Hui on the front page, and it was larger than those of the individual 13 victims pictured -- but it certainly was not life-sized.

This was the first time we were able to tell our readers anything about this killer, or show his likeness. We had an obligation to tell our readers who this madman was and why he may have snapped, and we met that obligation.

I hear what you're saying and understand it. But most of the space in our coverage that day was devoted to honoring the dead. And our presentation absolutely did not cast the killer in a heroic light.

Reader: I called to applaud your decision to not include photographs of the Virginia Tech gunman in Friday's paper. It was a very responsible, conscientious and respectful thing to do.

I just wanted to applaud you on that. I know it must have been a tough decision, but I'm glad you folks made it. It's decisions such as this that make me proud to be a subscriber to The Californian.

-- Belinda Cole

Jenner: The world was surprised to learn that Cho Seung-Hui had made a video and photographs of himself posing with guns, knives and a hammer.

Once we saw these images, editors quickly agreed that publishing almost any of them would glamorize Cho and would be inappropriate on our pages.

We did run a small photo of his face from this package, but we felt words describing its contents were sufficient.

Thanks for your thoughtful note.

Reader: I am appalled by your paper's story about the state medical board investigation into Dr. Donald C. Loos. He is the highest-respected surgeon in Bakersfield. Did you know that he served as a missionary in India and made numerous trips abroad, at his own expense, to treat unfortunate citizens there? I haven't read about that in your newspaper.

My father, O.L. Coburn, and father-in-law, Harry Steinmetz, worked for your paper in the past. I was proud of their involvement. I have subscribed to the newspaper since 1951. I have always held your paper in the highest regard.

I am ashamed of you for criticizing one of the most honest, caring, skilled doctors in our city. I have known him as compassionate friend and doctor for many years. Shame on you for casting a shadow of failure over him and tarnishing your own reputation for fairness.

-- Nancy L. Steinmetz

Jenner: I can only conclude you did not read the story we published last Sunday.

We did not criticize Dr. Loos. Nor did we cast "a shadow of failure over him."

It's our unfortunate responsibility to report bad news as well as good.

The Medical Board of California has targeted three prominent local physicians in recent months, and we've simply reported on those actions.

Last Sunday's story on Dr. Loos and Dr. Robert Mosser was a news story, not a profile. It was as fair and balanced as it could be.

Reader: I have known Dr. Donald Loos since his family moved to Bakersfield in the summer of 1966. He has saved hundreds of lives and possibly thousands of lives since that time. He has been a valuable gift to the city of Bakersfield, and instead of the praise and thanks he deserves, The Californian came out with a headline in the local section that sullies his name. Why not find out more about his good work before publishing anything?

Why not wait until things have been finalized?

Every doctor I have talked to praises Dr. Loos as the best surgeon in Bakersfield. When someone in their family needs surgery, they choose Dr. Loos to do the work. All of the nurses who have worked with him praise his work and his caring, kind and positive personality.

My husband's life was saved when Dr. Loos removed a large colon cancer along with everything that it touched in 1982. The surgery was so perfect that my husband didn't need chemotherapy or any other follow-up treatment at all. He recovered from the surgery and is still cancer-free.

-- Betty Hoss

Jenner: I've heard many wonderful things about the medical work of Dr. Loos. In our story last Sunday, the former president of the Kern County Medical Society called him "the best surgeon in town -- by far the best."

Our story also detailed accusations by the medical board against Dr. Robert Mosser, and two months ago we wrote about the board's accusations against Dr. Charles David Fritch. All of these physicians are respected in the medical community and prominent in the community.

That's why, when a state licensing board initiates procedures that could cost them their license to practice medicine, it's news.

Waiting until "things have been finalized" is not an option.

We will follow these cases through to their resolution, and will strive to be as fair as we can to all concerned.

Reader: I'm writing to express my consternation about the recent article published in The Californian about Dr. Donald Loos. Why are events that transpired in 2004 rehashed in the news in 2007?

Dr. Loos is a highly capable physician and surgeon and has served our greater Bakersfield community well for decades. Moreover, he is a man of unquestionable character and integrity and cares deeply for his patients.

Few people probably know that he regularly volunteers his time and skills traveling to Third World countries to provide medical assistance to the poorest of the poor.

Sadly, articles like yours seldom mention the good that doctors like Donald Loos, Robert Mosser and Charles Fritch do. These doctors have collectively helped thousands of people in our community, yet they are characterized in the media as incompetent hacks. This is completely untrue and unfair.

Scandalous words in newspapers are every bit as sharp as a surgeon's scalpel. Dr. Loos and the other fine doctors in our community do not deserve to have their reputations besmirched and their careers ruined by tabloid journalism. They deserve our gratitude and respect.

Sincerely,

-- Chris Bennett

Jenner: The events leading to the actions against Dr. Loos took place in 2004, but the medical board only recently filed accusations against these men.

I agree with your comments about the contributions these physicians have made, and I agree they deserve respect and fairness.

I reject your characterization of our reporting as "tabloid journalism."

Reader: A photograph on Page B8 of Friday's Californian has a caption including the phrase "off of," which is only the latest in a series of headlines and captions containing that phrase.

Please remediate.

-- Tom Haugen

Jenner: Thanks for pointing out our use of that faulty phrase. We'll do our best to avoid using it.