Pilot’s bias opens gap in creditability

Now that Editor Tony Dodero has confessed who was responsible for the

absolutely tasteless cartoon that he ran in the Pilot last month

(“Drawing a few lines in the sand” April 4), we see that the

responsibility was spread among two editors and a freelancer. The

freelancer, I’m sure, knows what kind of dog food the editors will

eat and I’m sure caters to that particular taste. So don’t blame him,

he’s making a living.

There are two primary issues here: The inability or reluctance of

the editors to examine, deal with and write about the development

issues at hand, and secondly, the general supportive bias that the

Pilot has shown to developers.

It is certainly everyone’s right, including the Pilot’s and their

bosses in Chicago, to take a pro-development or anti-development

position in the paper, and to put forth their arguments for their

particular position and philosophy. That is a right guaranteed to all

of us by the Constitution, engaged in by many newspapers in America

and the Pilot has periodically done that. But certainly not in this

case.

It has been said many times over that the last refuge of a coward

is a personal attack and this is what the Pilot resorted to in its

tasteless cartoon, “Pain in the Arst.” Please, sit back and consider

what this has done to the credibility and image of the Pilot. Do you

for a moment think that the New York Times would resort to something

this tasteless? So why not stick to the issues, and get off personal

attacks and insulting cartoons? Your readers deserve better than

that.

As for the second point: the Pilot’s pro-development bias.

Dodero’s research indicates that there were 236 opinion pieces or

articles, some with comments by Greenlight leader Phil Arst, that

could be categorized as incendiary. True enough, but “incendiary” is

not personally directed or offensive. So much for equal time, or

equal space.

Dodero has expressed on numerous occasions, both in the paper and

in person, that editorially the Pilot represents the community. May I

remind him that in this particular instance the “Greenlight” sector

of the community represents 63% of the voters. If, in fact, the Pilot

truly represented the community, the editorials would favor the

Greenlight position 63% of the time. This I’m afraid has certainly

not been the case.

In support of his pro-development position, Dodero has also

expressed the need for more “jobs,” leading one to think that Newport

Beach is some remote corner of the Midwestern Rust Belt that is

collapsing under foreign competition and outsourcing, and is in

desperate need of more jobs to support our economy. We don’t need

more hotel workers, kitchen helpers, and other sundry help to drive

into Newport Beach on busy summer days, clog up the streets and

parking lots, although they would certainly create more jobs.

Newport Beach has also been dismissed by some council members as

having a lot of “retirees,” implying that people who have lived and

worked in Newport Beach for many years, contributed to the community,

built businesses and are now retired, should have no voice in

community affairs. Those are the same people who vote most often and

are trying desperately to preserve Newport Beach has a noncongested,

uncrowded, highly desirable place to live. Please respect that.

MICHAEL C. HIRSH

Corona del Mar