Sound Off - soundoff's Blog - Bakersfield.com

Was review of Nikki's Smoking BBQ off base?

Reader: My name is Nikki and I own Nikki's Smokin BBQ, featured in Pete Tittl's restaurant review Feb. 14.

If you are going to write a story on my place, please get your facts right.

One, if your reviewer had looked at our menu, our beef ribs are not done in the smoker.

Two, there is no bacon in the Potato for a Crowd.

Three, what do we have anything to do with the Barbecue Factory?

I do respect Pete Tittl's opinion, and on that note, will be making some changes (bread).

The only other thing I have to tell you is the writing on the wall was my little brother's initials that passed away from cancer right before we opened, so thanks so much for mocking it.

-- Nikki Craig

Reader: We all have our bad days, but this must have been Pete Tittl's worst!

Nikki's is a GREAT place to eat! Many of us eat there regularly, more than once a week, and the food is ALWAYS scrumptious. Well prepared, clearly without shortcuts (boiling the ribs? You've gotta be kidding!)

And the atmosphere is delightful -- a country picnic theme. Thus the mural with a "dominating" tree, which is very well done, I might add.

At least he did show a bit of good sense with complimenting the twice-baked potato and sheet cake -- old family recipes!

I, for one, can't wait to get back to Nikki's for lunch. Think I'll go tomorrow!

-- Joy Irvin

Reader: Pete Tittl just released an article about Nikki's Smokin BBQ. I must say that he showed an extreme amount of disrespect and a lack of class. He makes comments about the initials carved into a tree in a mural. Please inform Mr. Tittl that those initials are a tribute to the owner, Ms. Craig's brother who passed away from cancer in 2007. He was in his early 20's.

Also Mr. Tittl claims that Nikki's does not really smoke their food as they claim and stops just short of calling them liars. Had Mr. Tittl requested a look at the kitchen or asked the owner exactly how things were prepared maybe he wouldn't pose opinions that undermine what they are trying to do there. What difference does a sign on the door of an office play when evaluating a restaurant? It seems Mr. Tittl went in there with a bad attitude from the time he walked in the door.

Comparing it to the Barbecue Factory is also irresponsible. In no way is Nikki's trying to recreate their atmosphere or food. I think it is appropriate for Mr. Tittl to print a retraction and apologize for the gross amount of disrespect he has shown Nikki's, Ms. Craig, and the Californian's readers.

Sincerely,

-- Chris Williford

Jenner: Pete Tittl has been reviewing local restaurants for more nearly 20 years. We run his reviews as a service to our readers, and he tries to point readers to venues and menus we think they might want to try.

His review did not savage Nikki's Smokin BBQ, and I believe it was fair. I asked Pete to respond to the criticisms lodged above.

Here are his comments:

"As a restaurant columnist, I'm an eternal optimist. I go to new restaurant's always hoping for the best, but as a stand-in for The Californian's readers I must write my honest reactions or I will be of little use to them. I realize they can disagree with my opinions, but I try to be fair to all businesses I write about.

"I did not try to insult the owner's brother by referring to the initials on the painted tree. I tried to provide as many details as possible as to what the interior looked like, and I called it 'interesting.' Nothing more. Calling it interesting is not close to 'mocking' it.

"When I sampled the twice-baked potato casserole, I also noted the presence of a smoked meat. Perhaps it was ham, but it can be difficult to tell, so I asked the waitress what was in it. She said the ingredients included bacon and cheese.

"I could not tell from the menu whether the beef ribs were prepared in the smoker or not, but they sure did not taste like the beef ribs I have enjoyed at other restaurants that were either grilled or smoked.

"I realize she was not involved with the restaurant when it was the Barbecue Factory, but since Nikki's is located in exactly the same location and has a similar menu, I thought it was relevant to mention it, especially given that the two restaurants have a very similar menu.

"I believe I was fair to the restaurant by highlighting what they did do well, particularly the sheet cake and the potato, and ended the column on a hopeful note in the last paragraph."

Reader: The Board of Directors of the Kern County Paralegal Association was quite distressed with the Feb. 14 story headlined "Paralegal sentenced in e-mail case."

Members of our association, and the California Alliance of Paralegal Associations in particular, worked with the California Legislature to define a paralegal, and to establish educational standards. Not only is our profession now defined by California Business & Professions Code §6450, we have a Code of Ethics, just like attorneys.

Our organization is celebrating its 20th anniversary. Because of our continuing education requirements, KCPA became a state-bar approved MCLE provider. We have worked long and hard to establish standards and respect for our profession. We have helped to educate attorneys in the use of our services for the betterment of their law practice, and how to differentiate between paralegals/legal assistants (synonymous), legal secretaries, legal document assistants, legal clerks, etc.

A person is not a paralegal just because he/she works in a law office and the attorney calls them a paralegal. Because attorneys Michael Kilpatrick and George Boyle probably called Victor VeVea a paralegal, that is what he was called in the court documents. KCPA was quite distressed with United States District Judge Lawrence O'Neill's quote that VeVea was an "intellectual vigilante who has his own set of laws and rules." Paralegals HAVE a code of ethics; Mr. VeVea apparently does not.

We invite you to visit our Web site at www.kcpaonline.org, and CAPA's at www.caparalegal.org.

-- Aneta L. Adams, CLA

Board Advisor and Former President, Kern County Paralegal Association

Jenner: I appreciate your efforts to uphold the standards of paralegals.

VeVea was a paralegal, according to the court and his employer.

In looking at the state Business and Professions Code 6450, which you mention, it says a person can become a paralegal in a number of ways, including working for an attorney and doing substantial legal work under their supervision. The code also doesn't require specific certification or education to be a general paralegal, just a bachelor's degree in any subject, at least a year's work experience for an attorney and a declaration from that attorney that they are qualified to be a paralegal.

Shooting headline missed the mark

Reader: Once again The Californian has proven its bias against the Bakersfield Police Department with the headline "Officers slay parolee." Out of all the verbs in the English language, you chose to use one that provokes an image of big, bad police officers killing without provocation.
Webster's Dictionary defines slay as to kill violently, wantonly, or in great numbers. Wantonly is defined as undisciplined.
The police department did not wantonly kill Mr. Anderson. They did not single him out and decide to shoot and kill him.
Mr. Anderson chose to resist arrest, pull a gun, and fire at the officers. His actions gave the officers no choice but to return fire to defend their lives and the lives of the public.
The headline should have focused on the fact that a police officer was shot in the line of duty. Your newspaper/tabloid took this opportunity to attempt to enrage the public and make them believe the police department is out of control.
The Californian should issue an apology to the police department and run another headline.
Please feel free to use any of these:
Police officers fatally shoot armed convicted felon
Parolee killed after shooting at police officers
Felon loses life after attempt murder of officer
- Kelly Anderson

Reader: Having spent 37 years in law enforcement, 25 with the Los Angeles Police Department, I came to dislike a certain L.A. paper because its stories about various police agencies seemed so slanted.
"Officers Slay Parolee" makes me believe The Californian is really a clone of the L.A. Times. I understand that the real job of a newspaper is to sell papers, not report the truth. The headline in this particular story makes one believe that the officers did something terribly wrong.
It is slanted and does not reflect the truth that the "parolee" is the one that brought this incident to the conclusion it ended in.
The parolee had a gun, decided to use it against the officers and he paid the price. We should not feel sorry for this parolee.
- Ron Miller
Reader: It is offensive to me to read an article about a police officer who went in harm's way to apprehend a felon on parole and was shot twice by that felon in the process and then it is reported in The Californian that the police slew a parolee.
They call it "justifiable homicide." Justifiable homicide is allowed by the penal code when a police officer, in performance of his/her duties must use "deadly force" to protect an innocent civilian or themselves. This individual was also a suspected gang member and has done time for other crimes or he wouldn't be on parole.
To say the cops slew him is like saying he was executed for no particular reason other than he was a parolee. The penal code does not require that the police retreat from their duty just because the one they are attempting to apprehend resists or flees or both.
In defense of reporter Louis Medina, the article did justice to the facts of the incident and I find no fault with his reporting of the incident. It was done properly. But the headline "Police slay parolee" is inappropriate in my view.
- Kerry Bulls

Jenner: I agree this was a bad headline.
Headlines must not only be accurate, they must be fair and as complete as possible.
The headline on Monday's front page failed to meet that standard. It was one-sided and unfair. It ignored the fact that the man died in a shootout with police.
It should not have made it into print.
Distilling a story into three or four words is a challenging task, but that's what we ask our copy editors to do.
In this case, the headline could have said something like "Parolee killed in shootout" - which would have taken up about the same amount of space.
We have worked for a long time to dispel the perception that The Californian has a bias against the police and specifically the BPD.
Bad headlines over sensitive stories like this only serve to perpetuate such perceptions.
I regret that, and I apologize for casting the police in a negative - and undeserved - light.

Going to question new firefighter OT in Southern California, too?

Reader: Thank you for your recent coverage of the devastating wildfires in Southern California. Kern County should be proud of the 230 local individuals from various federal, state and local agencies who are in harms way trying to suppress these fires.
I am curious about one thing however. Just how long will it be before The Californian criticizes these same brave individuals because they have “made too much” in overtime?
— James Adams

Reader: I hope we don’t hear The Californian criticize the pay of our fireman again!
And don’t try to tell me you did not criticize their pay.
— Dorothy Wimbish

Reader: Where’s The Californian’s article on how much overtime the Kern County Fire Department’s firefighters are making in Southern California? Most of the firefighters fighting the fires down south are on overtime. It’s one thing to question the cost of emergency service when it’s a slow news day, quite another when emergency workers are risking their lives for the public.
The Californian has done a disservice to the public by glorifying the overtime issue with the fire service without fairly explaining the process behind the overtime. The Californian ignored the grand jury report after the first round of critical articles about the overtime issues. That report stated the constant manning program was the most cost effective way to operate the Fire Department. Just a couple of days where relief firefighters are extra negates any difference between regular and overtime pay, let alone the cost to equip and train those extra firefighters.
The Californian never held the Board of Supervisors accountable to this supposed waste of county tax dollars. Instead they came after the individual firefighters. The truth is, the Board of Supervisors is properly managing the peoples’ tax dollars by operating the Fire Department in the most efficient way possible.
The Californian downplayed or omitted the fact that Kern County is reimbursed for the overtime earned out of county and that Kern County actually makes money on the firefighters earning that money. The Californian never stressed that if the KCFD doesn’t send firefighters out to help other departments, those departments won’t send help when we need it in Kern County.
The Californian never stressed the value of the experience the firefighters gain by operating at major fires across the nation. Kern County experiences major fires every five years or so; the nation experiences major fires several times a year. You gain experience performing a task over and over again. If that task is saving lives and property in extreme fire conditions, do you want firefighters who have never experienced those conditions, or firefighters who have experienced worse conditions many times in their career?
The Californian’s Web site stresses integrity, community service, accountability and ethics. These aren’t the descriptive words that come to mind when The Californian produces a series of articles like the overtime issues in the fire service without presenting the facts in a fair and unbiased manner.
— Wade Roberts

Jenner: You are entitled to your opinion about this newspaper and our coverage. But you can’t revise history and make up your own version of what we did or did not publish.
In 2003 we heard rumors of phenomenal amounts of overtime being paid to Kern County firefighters. We checked out the rumors, found them to be true and wrote about them.
But that was the beginning, not the end, of our coverage.
Over the subsequent months we published a number of in-depth stories. We reported that the Kern County Fire Department has a national reputation for responding to out-of-county fires and emergencies around the country. And we reported that the county is reimbursed for out-of-county overtime.
We also reported that over the years the union has negotiated successfully with the county in areas such as manning rules, pay and benefits. And that the cost of benefits for each firefighter is now so high that it’s cheaper to pay overtime than it is to hire additional firefighters.
We looked into how other California counties with large rural areas provide fire coverage, and compared the quality and costs of that coverage.
And yes, we sued the city and the county to get the payroll numbers and names so we could analyze it accurately. We won the lawsuit and we handled that information responsibly.
We did indeed provide context and fully told this story. And we didn’t bury these stories — almost every one of them appeared on the front page.
Finally, here’s what we haven’t done: We’ve never suggested that the job of firefighter is easy, safe or cushy. And we never, ever said any of these men or women did not work the OT they claimed or earn the money they were paid.
In the event that readers missed any of the stories examining this issue, we pulled these stories out of the archive and posted them online at www.bakersfield.com/1235.

Reader: Now that the firefighters are earning their overtime, why haven’t we seen kudos for them?
How many out there (besides the firefighters) would be willing to put their lives on the line? And live for seven to 10 days under those conditions (little sleep, missing food, very little down time, away from families)?
I think The Californian needs to show that those firefighters earn every penny of their pay, even though they don’t just do it for the money.
— Bill Jackson

Jenner: You might want to look at the front page of the paper pretty much every day this past week.
We published four stories about local firefighters over a three-day period. Thursday’s story by James Burger, about the harrowing experiences of a mixed strike force of Kern and Bakersfield city firefighters, was gripping.

Reader: Fairly careful study of The Californian over the past few days seems to reveal a complete absence of any mention of the Congressional Medal of Honor being awarded to Lt. Michael Murphy for extraordinary heroism.
Apparently you were unable to find so much as a few square inches to mention this award of the highest honor, so maybe if I cite it in a letter to the editor, it will at least get mentioned.
Isn’t this the newspaper that used a significant part of the entire editorial page recently to tell us that it was a waste of water to irrigate the proposed national cemetery?
By the way, that editorial contained some gross misrepresentations, but that is another story.
— David Banker

Jenner: No, this isn’t the newspaper that used a significant part of the entire editorial page to tell its readers that.
The Californian has published several editorials promoting the development of a national cemetery on the Tejon Ranch site.
Columnist Lois Henry wrote a column reflecting her opinion on landscaping a cemetery in an arid location that lacks the water supply needed to irrigate grass.
We ran a photo of President Bush and Lt. Murphy’s parents at the ceremony honoring him with the Medal of Honor on Page A10 of Wednesday’s paper. The accompanying text explained who Murphy was and how he was killed in action, and that he was the first to receive the Medal of Honor for service in Afghanistan and the third service member so honored since the beginning of the war on terrorism.
Sorry you missed it.

Reader: The dribble Lois Henry spewed in Wednesday’s Californian is a perfect display of total ignorance. We readers can only assume that her warped opinion on development also applies to New Orleans, Southern Eastern States, Plain States, or States along the Mississippi just to name a few?
I guess she thinks people shouldn’t be able to rebuild their homes after disasters like hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, or floods. Remember these disasters also hit the same areas time and time again. If her opinion was national policy we’d all sooner or later be living in Lois Henry’s fantasyland.
— Keith Nette

Columnist Lois Henry responds:
First, I don’t dribble, nor have I ever spewed said substance. Perhaps the word you were looking for was “drivel.”
My column clearly stated that people should build whatever and wherever they want with the blessings of their city and county officials. But when it all goes up in flames, again, and again and again, THEY should pay to put out the fires and clean up the mess, not the taxpayers. And I don’t appreciate subsidizing their fire insurance via my premiums under the state-mandated FAIR act. They should pay their own insurance. If it’s too expensive, well, maybe they’ll find a safer place to put their homes.
No place is perfectly safe, but to continually rebuild in harm’s way and NOT require stringent, proven fire safe standards is just arrogance on top of foolishness.
As for living in Lois Henry’s fantasyland, what makes you think we’re not already living there?

Reader: Californian writer Jenny Shearer’s slanted article, “Sheep Standoff” has pulled the wool over the eyes of The Californian’s readers! Her biased, empathetic view of the Smith family’s plight was one-sided. She interviewed us on her piece regarding growth. Mr. Smith said outsiders shouldn’t influence these decisions, yet he brought numerous outsiders to the violation hearing which influenced the temporary use of his operation!
By nearly 2-to-1 the residents of Shellie Marie Avenue petitioned for opposition to the Smiths’ request for more sheep. Regarding a flier we purportedly distributed, there was nothing misleading about it and the petition results prove that!
Mr. Smith talks of teaching values to kids. There are numerous violations on record with Kern County Code Compliance regarding violations by the Smiths in the past for having too many animals on their property. Does this show these kids that it’s OK to violate the law and have no consideration for rules or regulations?
Ms. Shearer failed to mention that the Planning Department thoroughly investigated the issues and rendered the recommendation of denial of the Smith’s attempt to house more sheep than is allowed per county code and found that the neighborhood would be significantly impacted!
She also failed to inform readers that upwards of 500 residential homes near our neighborhood have streets and utilities in place and will be zoned for residential, not ag use. Ms. Shearer’s article was regarding growth and she did not fairly represent both sides of the growth issue.
— Michael & Debra Elliott

Jenner: This contentious and long-standing issue has pitted neighbor against neighbor, and there’s a limit to how much excruciating detail we can impose on our readers in a single story. We also received a complaint from the Smith family alleging that we were biased in favor of the Elliotts and their position.
I asked Jenny to respond to your complaints:
“My work was an accurate and neutral presentation of a tense neighborhood issue.
“The story laid out what Robert and Sharyn Smith wanted to do and why but then described the negative impact their activities had on Michael and Debra Elliott’s family.
“There is a long and tense history between these families, and the story included information I believed was relevant for our readers. This additional information from Mr. Elliott is relevant, too, but we can’t fit into stories every historical development of a controversy.
“The fact the Smith family complained of bias toward the Elliotts tells me the piece struck the appropriate tone.”

Reader: I’m writing regarding a front-page article that has inadvertently damaged my reputation. Over the last month since the article was published, I have received calls, overheard gossip, and have even been accused as an accomplice regarding the Crisp and Cole scandal. Apparently many readers have mistaken Aiden, Logan and Associates for Logan Real Estate — the more recognizable, local Logan’s. The damage the confusion has caused us is unknown, but having lost the trust of even a single client has its effects.
Is there anything The Californian can do to help clear the air?
— D. Parker Logan

Jenner: Similar names have always caused confusion, but the issue will only get worse as our community continues to grow. All we can really do is be meticulous in being accurate, and detailed with our identification. That’s why we try to include middle initials and even middle names, if possible, when dealing with criminal suspects. In your case, your letter might “clear the air,” but it’s unrealistic that we can do so in every possible case of confusion.

Famoso coverage great, but what about ... ?

Reader: I enjoyed your coverage of the recent races at the Famoso raceway. The articles were well written and informative and I am grateful for your coverage.

However your reporting staff missed the boat, or drag racer in this case, in one important area.

We have a homegrown boy who drove a homegrown car and is in the Drag Racing Hall of Fame but I never saw a mention of him or the car. He consistently beat up on the big names when they came West, and that includes Don Garlitts. His name is James Warren.

-- Mike Grundvig

Jenner: Thanks for your comments, Mike. Glad you enjoyed our coverage.

I shared your comment about James Warren with veteran sportswriter Mike Griffith, who's covered motorsports for The Californian for many years. Here's his response:

"I don't think I missed any boat. The first story I ever wrote for The Californian was a feature on James Warren and Roger Coburn more than 30 years ago. I've done numerous stories since then. A few years ago I did a feature on James after he was named one of the National Hot Rod Association's Top 50 drivers of all time.

"I'll be catching up with James before the 50th anniversary of the March Meet in March 2008. That's the race where he won the Top Fuel title three years running in the mid-1970s, and that will be an appropriate time for a feature on James."

Reader: The story you did on the Liberty High School drama team (in the Eye Street section) taking fourth place in the Utah Shakespeare festival was very good.

Taking fourth is quite a feat with all the schools taking part in the competition.

But I must say that Liberty took FIRST place last year and you did not even put a little blurb in your paper. It would have been nice to have given last year's team, which WON FIRST PLACE, at least some recognition.

Thank you,

-- Chris Latherow

Jenner: They say that no good deed goes unpunished.

I can't tell you why we didn't write a story last year recognizing the Liberty team's achievement in the competition.

It may be that we didn't have the reporting resources available at the moment. More likely, nobody told us about the Liberty team's accomplishment.

Whatever the reason, I regret that we weren't able to give last year's team its due.

I'm happy we were able to celebrate the efforts of this year's team members and their accomplishment in this prestigious contest.

Reader: Enough already with the Crisp and Cole crusade to try and destroy the two.

Do our opinions really matter? Is it going to change anything? If it doesn't involve us directly then maybe we should stop sending letters that state our opinions and what should happen to them.

Get over it. You don't have the facts, you only know what the news reporters have said and we all know how accurate the press can be.

So get of their backs and let the courts handle it.

-- Marleen Patt

Jenner: I'm not sure I understand your beef about sending letters stating your opinions.

But I can and will address your other statements.

First, we're not out to destroy David Crisp or Carl Cole. But the story about what has happened to their real estate business is not only fascinating, it's flat out newsworthy. And as the investigations into their real estate dealings unfold, we will continue to cover those developments.

It's true we don't know all the facts. But we know quite a few of them.And sharing the details about how the firm did business is vital to our readers' ability to understand what happened.

We're not writing stories with a big headline on every minor turn of the screw in these investigations. But we have shared, and will continue to share, relevant facts with our readers.

As for your comment about accuracy, our reporting has been thorough, meticulous and accurate. If there's an error in the thousands of facts we've reported, please bring it to my attention.

Reader: Woke up this mornin'

Walked out for the news

Only thing in the paper

Was B.B. singing the Blues

You call that a party?

Then you don't know Junior Brown

'Cause from where I was sittin'

He's the best hands in town.

-- Ed Quijano

Jenner: Junior Brown is indeed an awesome musician. And our Eye Street editor is a huge Junior Brown fan who attended Wednesday's concert. Jennifer Self, who has been to many -- if not all -- of Junior Brown's Bakersfield shows, confirms that Wednesday night's was one of the best ones. Brown was loose and really seemed to enjoy himself.

But as Jennifer points out, it's hard to not see B.B. King's performance -- probably the last one he will make in Bakersfield -- as significant and noteworthy, and probably bigger news.

I expect we'll get more chances to see and hear Junior Brown in Bakersfield. We'll look for an opportunity to give him some coverage in the future.

In the meantime, thanks for one of the most clever letters of complaint we've received in a long, long time.

Reader: The article about Lisa Green considering a run for district attorney if Ed Jagels retires was accompanied by the most unflattering picture of her anyone down there could possibly have found, even in their most hurried moments.

She is an attractive, professional-looking woman who has made quite a difference in Kern County.

Next time maybe someone should take a little more time and choose a picture that really depicts who she is. Please don't tell me that's the only picture you have in your collection. How exactly was that picture chosen?

-- Caroline Reid

Jenner: Our archive does contain a number of photos of Lisa Green from recent years. But only two show her with her most recent hair style, the perm she was wearing on the day of the Vincent Brother sentencing.

It's our policy to show newsmakers as they look today. That's why our photo editor chose the photo of her speaking to reporters in the hall outside the courtroom after the Brothers sentencing last month.

When the Brothers trial ended we asked Green for the chance to photograph a portrait in her office, but she declined. We will ask again.

The wonders of Kern and casual bikini tops

Sound off

Batch Data Processor | Saturday, Sep 15 2007 9:55 PM

Last Updated: Saturday, Sep 15 2007 9:58 PM

Reader: I just read your list of nominations for the "Seven Wonders of Kern" and found it unbelievable that Red Rock Canyon was not included.

This beautiful area is visited by thousands of county residents to ride off-road vehicles, camp and hike. It is a state park.

Where else in the county do you have this diversity and beauty?

-- Dixie Chantler

Jenner: The label for our list probably should have included the word "man-made."

Web editor Davin McHenry tells me we plan a similar survey in which readers can select the top natural wonders of Kern County.

Reader: I just wondered if they had changed the definition of the word "casual," used in the headline above the picture of the girl selling coffee -- it just disturbed me very much.

I wear "casual" all the time and I always make sure to cover up what you pictured in the paper.

Thank you.

-- Mary Carpenter

Jenner: I'm sure you're referring to our Sept. 8 story on Java Mama's, a new coffee stand whose employees wear bikini tops.

Offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. I didn't have a problem with the photo, although I did think that one photo was enough -- and we didn't need to run two.

I'm sorry you found it disturbing.

Reader: It sickened me to see the editorial cartoon The Californian chose to run on the anniversary of 9/11. Couldn't grieve the dead. Couldn't respect their families or the families of soldiers serving far away. Couldn't say anything uplifting or uniting.

The Californian marked this solemn milestone with a cheap, hack liberal swipe at various political enemies. How typical. For shame.

-- Barry Hanson

Jenner: You apparently missed the Page One photo and story, the related editorial and column.

Here's what Editorial Page Editor Dianne Hardisty has to say:

"The editorial cartoon accurately depicted the diverse consequences of the 9/11 attacks and resulting Iraq war. You focus your criticism on those consequences you disagree with, but the cartoon equally slammed those holding other opinions of the war on terrorism and in Iraq.

"That you were upset by the cartoon and its message demonstrates that the cartoon achieved the response the cartoonist sought."

Reader: I would like to commend The Californian for your coverage on the plight of the Medina family burn victims, initially breaking the tragic story with a lengthy front-page article on Sunday, Aug. 19.

Your staff writer, Felix Doligosa Jr., touched our hearts at the Kern County Soccer Park, prompting us to take action in developing a fundraising event, which staff writer Jenny Shearer did a great job covering. As a direct result of your media coverage, our fundraiser and subsequent donations raised more than $11,000 to assist the Medinas in their attempt to rebuild their lives.

I would be remiss if I did not thank Tomas Flores for his assistance with coordinating this event with his Bakersfield Soccer League's championship games played at the Soccer Complex and his efforts to obtain many donations from the store owners at Golden State Mall. The combined efforts of the BSL and the KCSP demonstrated that two very different organizations, working together, can achieve a common objective.

I would like to also recognize the following companies and organizations for their generosity to this most noble cause: Bakersfield Brigade, AYSO 181, Bakersfield Condors, Casa Moore Stereo, Carlos Rangel Chiropractic, CYSA South, El Portal, Rabobank, H.A. Sala, John Scarrone Farms, Soccer Warehouse, Swift's NAPA Stores, Tenant Improvement Specialties, Torres Farm Labor and Wal-Mart.

Lastly, I had the privilege of meeting 10-year-old Victor Medina Jr., who has been released from the burn center, but has to continue many more therapy sessions. He still has many facial wounds, and has his hands and arms wrapped in bandages. Despite all the pain and suffering he has gone through and with more to come, I was amazed at his positive attitude, courage and determination to return to his Chivas soccer team as their goalie. An inspiration to say the least!

I do hope that The Californian will do a future story on his progress.

Thanks,

-- Soli Woods

Director of Fundraising

Kern County Soccer Park

Jenner: Thanks for your note, and kudos to you and all who supported your effort to help this family.

We will stay in touch with the Medinas and update readers regarding their progress.

Reader: OK, I need an answer! All of us do!

Look up the front page of the Sports section on Sept. 11. What do you see? Alex Smith of the San Francisco 49ers running for a touchdown. Big deal. So what? Who cares?

Look again at the bottom right-hand corner of the page and notice the two-paragraph article that announces that BC football is ranked No. 1 in junior college football in the entire country.

Why don't the Renegades get the proper attention in The Californian. They should be on the front page all week!

Prep football, especially BHS and Centennial, get pages of coverage weekly! BC baseball gets almost daily coverage, which is great! But what is the deal with The Californian and BC football?

These little blurbs on BC football are embarrassing to a fabulous school with a profound sports program.

Coach Chudy and his staff and team are No. 1 in the nation!

Come on guys, get it together!

-- Ed Davis

Reader: After all the complaining I did last year about the lack of publicity for our BC Renegade basketball team, I have to admit you have been just terrific with the coverage of our Renegade football team.

I can't thank you enough ... but wasn't that game Saturday (Sept. 9) a thriller!

Sincerely,

-- Herb Loken

Jenner: BC football is a storied program, and this year's team is off to a terrific start.

The item we wrote reporting BC had vaulted from No. 3 to No. 1 in the rankings did run on the Sports cover, although it certainly could've been higher on the page.

I'm happy with the coverage we've given the team, and proud of the work of sportswriter Mason Kelley, photographer John Harte, Sports Editor Tony Lacava and all of our staffers who've contributed to covering the team.

It's not realistic to expect something in the paper every single day. But if you want a daily dose of BC football, you should check out Mason's blog on our Web site. He often posts to it every day, and sometimes twice daily. Find it at http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/masonkelley

Changes at newspaper, can you try being better?

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.

Forget the weather, what's with that page?

Sound Off

Batch Data Processor | Saturday, Jul 21 2007 5:05 PM

Last Updated: Saturday, Jul 21 2007 5:09 PM

Reader: Your new weather format is terrible. You've taken Bear Valley Springs and Tehachapi out of Kern cities. The population in Tehachapi is growing by leaps and bounds and is much more populated than Glennville or some of these other cities -- California City, Kernville, Lebec, Maricopa.

What's more populated? We need to get this back on your Kern list in the paper. I know Tehachapi is over on your map but I want to see it listed where it was before and Bear Valley Springs. You've really screwed up this paper. I know you're trying to save money. You took the TV Guide out and I understand that that saves you $400,000 per year. Take some of your Saturday things out like the anniversaries and the birthday section. Take a poll. You're going to lose subscribers. I've been a subscriber for 40 some odd years and I'm about to quit. I can always go to the LA Times.

-- Jim Barnett

Jenner: Bear Valley Springs is in the list and Tehachapi is on the map. The list is for the cities that don't fit on the map.

Reader:The weather page has been ruined. Take a good look at it. Look at that map.

Worthless.

-- Gladys Moore

Reader:Just calling to tell you that I'm not happy with your weather page. I loved the other one. It could have been expanded. This other one I can hardly find.

Also, I have a son in Idaho and I don't ever get to see the Boise weather or anything. It's just not as good as the other one.

I'm not happy.

-- Evelyn Fabbri

Jenner: We've restored Boise to the list of national cities.

Reader: I am writing to voice my opinion on your recent change to the weather page.

I do not like it.

It is very hard to read.

I miss the color and the old location, where it was easy to find and read.

You made it too small and without the color it is hard to decipher what you are trying to show.

It just does not seem to me to be the right page to cut back on.

PLEASE go back to the old way.

Sincerely,

-- Brad and Sharon Higbee

Reader: LEAVE THE NEWSPAPER ALONE! The latest "improvement" of moving the weather page to Page A2 has produced a solid black national temperature map. Quit trying to improve the newspaper by adding, subtracting and moving.

Improve the newspaper's content by getting the facts right and using correct English. It also might help if you eliminated all the spell checkers and made writers and editors responsible for proofreading their stories for correct English usage and spelling. If we can't figure out what's on TV at least make the newspaper worth reading.

-- Ellen Svendsen

Reader: The weather page -- once you changed it from the colored page to the black and white everything is fine except for the diagram of the map of the U.S. with the gradations of temperature running from 10 degrees to 100 degrees. If you look at that map in the black-and-white mode, it looks like the U.S. is 90 degrees all across from west to east and north to south.

When it was in color at least we were able to tell where the hot points were and where the cooler points were. The rest of page is good, but that one section -- the map of the U.S. -- is just monochromatic.

-- Al Christensen

Jenner: We agree that the national map didn't work in that format.We replaced it with a map that has more information and is more readable.

Reader:I do not understand your philosophy. You take items in your newspaper which are satisfactory and supposedly change them for the better, but they turn out to be worse.

The last time you changed the weather page you eliminated the weather for several interesting cities and now you have eliminated more cities. If this keeps up there will not be any cities listed!

The map supposedly showing the temperature throughout the United States is a joke! The entire map has been one shade every day. It is useless.

The former map showing where rain, snow, etc. were located was much more useful and informative.

On the TV Guide page the listing for TV Land has not been correct since you changed the format!

I could go on and on, but what is the use? You have your policies without regard to the reader!

-- Gerald E. Peterson

Reader: I read last Sunday's article about the "man" who skinned and ate a snake alive. I think I would have rather watched that "man" be skinned and eaten alive than an animal who had no choice in his own grisly death.

Why you would even give him that amount of publicity is beyond me, as that is exactly what he wanted.

Perhaps a better choice of articles would be how much good rattlesnakes do in the wild, ridding us naturally of varmints and letting "Mother Nature" do what she does best.

Next time why not take the high road rather than give creeps just what they want.

Let us hope that maybe the next story will be "man seriously suffering from rattlesnake bite, not expected to live." Now you are reporting better news!

Sincerely,

-- I. Carrington

Jenner: I'm glad you and other readers were outraged by the man's behavior. I agree, it was outrageous.

It was clear to editors here that this story was newsworthy. I never saw it as playing into the hands of the man who killed the snake.

He wanted a spot on a TV show. The fact that he wouldn't offer his name suggests to me that he probably wasn't doing it to get ink in our paper.

There are some things we do not report as news stories. Bomb threats. Threatened lawsuits. Most suicides.

But when stunts like this are undertaken in hopes of landing a spot on a television show, I think it says something not just about this individual, but our society. I think the community needs to know about this kind of behavior.

To me, that's taking the high road.

Reader:I am not sure how it was decided that people were in too much of a hurry to read the local section on Monday -- and no other day of the week. If this was done for financial reasons, then I would appreciate the truth.

I take The Californian because I enjoy reading the printed word. If I want a quick digest then I listen to the radio in the morning or watch TV news.

-- Helen Venosdel

Jenner: We truly were driven more by a desire to save readers time than to save ourselves money. We based our decision on market research that shows us that our busy readers are feeling "time starved," and that they have less time to spend with the paper on Mondays.

Despite the changes we made, I don't believe we're short-changing our Monday readers. Believe me, our smallest Monday paper contains many, many times the amount of news and information than any radio or TV newscast -- of any length -- has to offer.

Reader: I am a 66-year-old grandmother of 16, great-grandmother of nine and have been riding for 30 years. It may come as a shock to you, but some women riders ride OTHER makes of motorcycles.

I am very disappointed in your article, as it furthers the "mind-set" that Harley is the only bike out there. Actually they are the only ones that make that obnoxious noise. I have not, nor will I ever, ride one.

But I will continue to ride MY motorcycle.

-- Jeannie Edwards

Jenner: I'm not shocked to hear that women ride motorcycles other than Harleys. But I am a little surprised that someone would take offense at such a positive presentation about women and motorcycle riding.

Did you have to detail dog's destruction?

Sound Off

Batch Data Processor | Saturday, Jul 14 2007 9:40 PM

Last Updated: Saturday, Jul 14 2007 9:43 PM

Reader: I just wanted to write regarding last Saturday's story about the death of a dachshund at the Centennial dog park.

I think that this article is absolutely appalling! There is no reason that every detail describing this dog's horrible death was written. Down to the noises he was making as he died! Give me a break, how can you in your right mind even think that would make for a good article? Just because it was an animal there is no reason to describe it with such crudeness, or describe it at all.

You would have never done this with a person, death is death regardless. What about this dog's poor owners who have to see and read the disgusting details you have written. Trying to be dramatic for an impact or just writing the news is one thing, but this is totally over the line! This was NOT news!!

What about the youth who are encouraged through school to read YOUR paper, look for an article to share, etc.? How do you know that a child didn't stumble across this article? It would scar them. I was in tears reading this article, and not just because I am a pet owner.

I can tell you that I am glad that I DO NOT have a subscription for your paper anymore; if I did I would cancel it immediately due to this inappropriateness!

Thank you for your time, and I hope you take this matter seriously.

--Veronica Slaton

Jenner: We do take it seriously. In fact, the level of detail was carefully weighed in the writing and editing of this story.

I asked reporter Felix Doligosa Jr. to share the thought process he went through in reporting the story and in choosing what to include.

Here's what he had to say:

"The dog owner wanted to tell me the details. He said it felt good to talk about it, even though he sometimes choked or his voice cracked over the phone.

"He wanted me to know how bad it was because he didn't want dog owners to suffer like he did. He felt it was important that others know about the risks of having a small dog around big dogs in a dog park.

"I hate to admit this, but when I was writing the part of when the couple hurried to take Grr to the hospital, I started choking up. I didn't really think about how sad it was until I wrote it. I'm a small-dog owner and I wouldn't want that to happen to my baby."

As for how the owners of the dog felt about the story, here's an e-mail they sent Felix after it was published:

"Thank you for writing the article about Grr. We really appreciate that you kept it in the spirit of what we wanted to say. Our esteem for your newspaper has gone up tremendously.

Thanks again,

Sarah and Spencer Schluter"

My take: The description of the attack and Grr's death were a minute portion of this story, and was tastefully handled.

I'm sorry you found the story so disturbing, but it was a disturbing event, and I thought Felix handled it well.

Reader: Thank you reporter Jason Kotowski for your follow-up story about the extraordinary actions of the two men who performed an amazing rescue of two people involved in the head-on crash on Granite Road last Sunday. William Roper and Ray Haycock are true heroes and deserve such recognition.

I was one of the drivers who happened on the accident, but was stopped several vehicles back so I had no view of the actual scene. I did learn it was a head-on crash and shuddered at the thought. It wasn't until I read reporter Louis Medina's account of the accident on Monday that I learned about unnamed passers-by rescuing the two drivers.

Why am I not really surprised? Their actions are pretty indicative of what you would expect in our area. Thank goodness Kern County is still a place where people care enough to become involved, even at their own risk. Their quick thinking and resourceful actions saved two people. I'm grateful such men live among us.

-- Mary K. Shell

Jenner: Your comments about Kern County still being a place where people will put themselves at risk to help others are right on, and we love to celebrate such heroes on the front page.

I invite readers to tell us about such heroes and suggest such stories by calling the News Desk at 395-7384 or by e-mailing local@bakersfield.com.

Reader: I think you should publish the morning and afternoon television programs at least for Saturday and Sunday. This aspect is pretty important to the sports buffs in town. If I can't dig the channel and time for an NFL game from the sports page, where do I go?

-- Norm Barone

Jenner: We do publish the listings for televised sports every weekend. A full slate is available in Friday's paper, and on Saturday and Sunday we list that day's programming in Sports.

Reader: While I didn't like your decision to cancel the weekly TV guide, I can live with the current daily TV page with one change: If the listing doesn't indicate whether or not the program is new, the page is useless. I am sure I am not alone in refusing to watch what the TV industry euphemistically calls "encore presentations." The L.A. Times seems to be able to do this and I see no reason why you can't do so also.

Sincerely,

-- Glenn Wells

Jenner: I see no reason why we can't do it, either. Our listings provider tells us they can distinguish between new and recycled programming, and we've asked them to begin making that distinction in the listings. Look for this feature to begin in the next week or so.

Reader: "Fiery head-on crash injures 2" (last Sunday, Page B4): Right next to the Sound Off column, which has some items regarding goofs, appear the words: "Byrd was removed the vehicle Kern County firefighters, Arnold said." That is not a sentence. Are you eliminating prepositions as a cost-saving measure?

"Wildfires rage ..." (Page A11):

This is an Associated Press article, so you're not solely to blame, but it refers to "Highway 395, which runs along the eastern spine of the mountain range ..." This makes it sound as if 395 is in or very near the Sierras in the area being discussed when the highway is actually several miles away from the (high) mountains.

The article is not very clearly written in that it's quite vague as to where the fire is. There are hand-waving references to the John Muir Wilderness area but it's uncertain if the fire is in the wilderness or just somewhere nearby. The article mentions 395 being closed between Big Pine and Lone Pine but doesn't say why it's closed.

All in all, a not very well-written article.

-- Everett Greene

Jenner: Ugh! It always makes us cringe when we have errors of any kind in the paper, or when stories are vague. Thanks for reading us closely.

Reader: I would like to thank everyone for the article regarding the stolen palms, especially the diligent California Highway Patrol for their watchful eyes.

I would also like to thank the owner of the property, Dick Watson, for giving me palms to replace the stolen ones. To some it might have seemed trivial but to those of us that have had things stolen it was quite personal.

Thank you also to Californian reporter Maggie Anderson for her hard work in gathering all the information. It is nice to know that people still read the paper.

-- Shirley Brown

Reader: I would like to thank the Californian's Eye Cook crew and Urner's for doing such a good job Saturday, June 30. They were all very courteous and helpful. Also a thank- you goes to the other sponsors. I met some very nice cooks and employees.

And last but not least, a great big thank you goes to the judges: Herb, Merv and Myles.

-- Doris Patrick

Ann Coulter, TV Guide and dead dogs

Sound Off

Batch Data Processor | Saturday, Jul 7 2007 9:20 PM

Last Updated: Saturday, Jul 7 2007 9:23 PM

Reader: I found your response regarding the Ann Coulter issue rather amusing, if not erroneous in itself. You start your response with "not so fast." I'm going to say the same: "Not so fast, Mr. Jenner." What you have overlooked is the fact that Ann Coulter's remark about Mr. Edwards was stated. I'm certain you understand the word. If not, look it up in Webster's.

You have a nice day.

-- Russell Patrone

Reader: Regarding Californian's reprinting of AP's distortions of Ann Coulter:

NOT SO FAST, JENNER!

You claim "Maher's statements (about Cheney) certainly did provoke a significant outcry at the time he made them." Jenner, you have ZERO proof for that statement; simply reproduce the Californian EDITORIAL condemning Maher's comment. You can't because it doesn't exist. Please don't lie to us. Then you say, "How do Maher's comments excuse Coulter's remarks about Edwards?"

NOT SO FAST, JENNER!

Do you have to play intentionally dumb to protect your liberal bias and thirst for "yellow journalism"? Obviously, Coulter was asserting that Maher's remarks WERE NOT WIDELY CONDEMNED at the time he made them; she WAS NOT asserting that his joke was funny! In order for us to believe your idiotic self-justification, we must accept that you have NO idea of the meaning or use of irony in speech.

NOT SO FAST, JENNER!

-- Chris Pavik

Jenner: You're correct in pointing out that we didn't publish an editorial condemning Maher -- nor did we run one condemning Coulter. Californian columnist Marylee Shrider did include Maher's comments in a column (ironically) decrying Coulter's use of the word "faggot" in referring to Democrat presidential hopeful John Edwards. I'll admit that the loudest protests I remember in the outcry over Maher's remarks came primarily from talk radio hosts and bloggers.

And I think I do understand rhetorical language and irony.

The point I was trying to make -- and perhaps failed to effectively make -- is that Maher was out of line when he made his comments about the vice president being dead, and that Coulter is out of line for making similar comments about Edwards being dead, no matter who spoke first or how they spin their comments.

Reader: "Meeting has causal tone"

I would imagine that you will get many comments about this headline from last Sunday's paper. Unfortunately spell-check cannot distinguish between two correctly spelled words. CAUSAL or CASUAL. Which do you think it should have been?

--Al Abrams

Jenner: It certainly should have been "casual." I regret this mistake, as I do every error. While editors should spell-check every page, I don't think in this instance that's the true culprit. I think we were moving too fast and didn't proof that page carefully enough.

We'll endeavor to do better. Thanks for the note.

Reader: I've gotta know: Who is the absolute idiot who decided to discontinue the weekly TV section? The "replacement" offers no daytime programming, no late night programming, no weekend sports and no way to know what's on any time in the future. Perhaps it will force me to spend more time reading the paper, right? Not quite. I've canceled.

-- Don Allen

Reader: We miss having a "daytime TV schedule" for the week in Sunday's Eye Section. And now we have to search a long list every day for the night-time schedule. Aren't the people who have all the channels you are listing plush enough to buy The TV Guide weekly? Why compete with TV Guide? If you persist with the current method, couldn't stations be grouped according to Bakersfield ones first, then the Los Angeles stations, etc.? Just wondering? Remember it's hard for us "oldies" to accept change.

Long-term subscribers,

-- Allen and Belva Warkentin

Jenner: Unfortunately, TV Guide stopped running local listings long before we did. I know it's hard to accept change, and I regret that we've upset some longtime subscribers by our decision.

Reader: I am very disappointed that you have discontinued having the Sunday TV section. If you do not bring it back, I will cancel my subscription. My brother-in-law feels the same way. Bring back the TV section and have less HUGE FULL-PAGE ADVERTISEMENTS! I have been a subscriber for 50+ years.

-- Virginia Wahl

Jenner: Virginia, I truly appreciate and respect our 50-year relationship. However, I don't believe we will restore the weekly TV section, and I hope you and other readers will continue to patronize the advertisers who buy those full-page ads.

Reader: I just returned from an extended vacation and I'm the reading Sunday, July 1, paper for the first time in a little bit. I'm looking at the Sunday TV listings and I see the new format where you've regrouped and you've added National Geographic channel which I don't believe was included before. I know you've received a lot of grief recently about discontinuing the old TV guide in Sunday's paper. I wanted you to know that I like this new format and I'm glad you did it this way.

-- Jerry Cox

Jenner: Thanks for your note, Jerry.

Reader: I am a years-long subscriber to The Californian. When I moved from Bakersfield to Rosamond in 2005, I kept my subscription and recently renewed it for another 6 months. My local carrier is simply fantastic and quite often my paper is delivered as early as 4 a.m. I cannot imagine trying to start my day without reading The Californian from "cover to cover." But alas, even the best of the best has occasional glitches and I have become disappointed in the weekly Sports section report about area fishing.

There are not many places to go fishing in and around the Rosamond area.

Since I retired I simply do not enjoy driving long distances as much as I used to. I have been to Brite Lake near Tehachapi several times -- a very lovely setting and only 25 miles from my home. Problem is, each time I've been there it has been "fished out" from the previous planting/stocking and it isn't much fun casting a line for hours without even a nibble. No one seems to know when the next time the lake will be stocked, so I faithfully read your weekly column for an update on Brite Lake fishing.

I am disappointed that the report has been erroneous for the past numerous weeks. I would like to believe there is an acceptable answer to this "glitch" and have my faith in your column restored. Perhaps you get your information about Brite Lake from Tehachapi Parks and Recreation Department and maybe you have merely been reporting the information as you receive it. I would appreciate this problem being looked into and corrected.

Thank you,

-- Sid Highley

Jenner: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Sports Editor Tony Lacava has spoken with the people who prepare that report and has been assured that the problem will be addressed. Please let us know if you don't see immediate improvement.

Reader: Your information on the questionable business practices of Crisp & Cole is most enlightening. I hope it also enlightens the CSUB trustees who selected that firm to build a commercial project to enhance the campus i.e. provide more revenue. If the series doesn't enlighten the trustees, we alumni had better enlighten them.

-- Audrey Cochran, RNCS, CCCN

Jenner: Cal State Bakersfield officials announced earlier this week they were terminating their discussions with the real estate firm regarding the building of twin office towers on campus.

Reader: I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest thanks for giving me the opportunity to be a contributing writer for The Californian.

Bakersfield is my hometown and it's an honor to write for my hometown paper. I enjoy writing stories about my past like Hacinda (sic) Palace.

Thanks for giving Jennifer Baldwin the job of Contributions Editor. She is very professional and courteous and helpful. The people of Bakersfield are lucky to have a hometown newspaper that is there for all of us.

-- J.D. Harris

Reader: Thank you for publishing my letter (unedited!) and that of another letter writer concerning the circus.

I was not a subscriber of your newspaper until you ran James Burger's stories about our County shelter a couple of years ago. When I read people were threatening to cancel their subscriptions because of the photo on the front page, I became and remain a subscriber in support of your decision. Too bad if it was upsetting to people having their morning cup of coffee.

The last victims to receive attention are animals. I know most people would use the excuse that there are more important issues, but I think Gandhi would answer that best: "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

Thank you.

-- Stacey Augustson

Newspaper didn't put Ann Coulter in context, reader says

Sound Off for July 1, 2007

Batch Data Processor | Saturday, Jun 30 2007 6:20 PM

Last Updated: Saturday, Jun 30 2007 6:23 PM

Reader: By printing a recent Associated Press story, The Californian has participated in a great distortion. The story in question, published in Thursday's edition, quotes Ann Coulter as wishing John Edwards would be killed in a terrorist attack.

The truth is Ms. Coulter never said that. What she did was compare reaction to some of her recent comments to those of Bill Maher who did state that if an attack on Dick Cheney had been successful, the world would be better off. There was no outcry over Mr. Maher's comments. Ms. Coulter then said, and I quote directly "So I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination."

The context obviously changes the entire meaning of the statement. However, the author of the story never mentions that and probably never even checked into it. The Californian, meanwhile, blindly prints the story without verifying its accuracy. It is no wonder so many people are flocking to other sources of information besides newspapers.

When newspapers return to reporting news rather than hyping non-stories, circulation may once again increase. That is unless their credibility is so tarnished it can never recover.

-- Wil Bergen

Jenner: Not so fast.

The AP story did not include Coulter's reference to Bill Maher's comments about Cheney. I agree that it should have.

But Maher's statements about Cheney weren't funny in the first place. And they certainly did provoke a significant outcry at the time he made them.

Further, how do Maher's comments excuse Coulter's remarks about Edwards? Do two wrongs make a right? Her statements were no more funny or appropriate.

The story we published Thursday was about how the Edwards campaign is responding to -- and even capitalizing on -- Coulter's comments.

It was not the most momentous story in the paper, but it's hard to see how you can call it a "non-story."

Reader: Your story about Tuesday's accident at 18th and H streets left me wondering. Information regarding the accident is attributed to a person named "Pflugh."

He or she is not previously identified. Is this the person who e-mailed Californian staffers with identities of your employees or a police officer? I have found this kind of editorial oversight to be far too consistent.

If you want to be recognized as other than a so-so local daily blab you should make a better effort to eliminate the type of error reflected in this article.

-- Mac Anderson

Jenner: The person referred to is Bakersfield police Sgt. Matt Pflugh. Certainly the story shouldn't have made it to print without his first name and rank.

We will strive to eliminate errors such as this. We want to be known as a great local daily blab, not one that is simply "so-so."

Reader: I just read that "despite their calls, the number of complaints convinces me that our research was correct." What research are you talking about? Jenner, you are a liar! There is no research. What did you research? The people of The Californian.

No, my friend, you are a liar and you just made a big mistake and you compound your mistake to add insult on the injury. On the weekends you decided that nobody wants to watch TV until 7 p.m. That's both Saturday and Sunday. Don't you realize that we want to know what's going on Saturday from 9 a.m. on and Sunday from 9 a.m. on?

No, Jenner, you are a liar and I'm very disappointed in you and The Californian.

-- Bill Kingsley

Jenner: The research was done by American Opinion Research of Princeton, N.J.

That company has used a combination of telephone interviews and mail surveys to conduct multiple readership studies for us since 2000.

Every time this organization has surveyed readers we insisted that they ask about the TV section. And every year, fewer readers have said they depend on the section.

As I've said, we know it's terribly important to a small segment of our readers.

I believe we've heard from most of those readers in the two weeks since we discontinued the weekly section.

Despite their heartfelt entreaties, we don't plan to reinstate the weekly section.

I'm truly sorry we disappointed you -- but I wasn't lying about the research.