THROUGH MY EYES -- RON DAVIS

Does the Independent have integrity and credibility? That’s the

question raised by a number of letters to the editor in response to the

paper’s editorial concerning the litigation surrounding the Bolsa Chica

mesa and the simultaneous printing of letters in response to my earlier

column on the same subject.

The letters to the editor disagreed with my view and implicitly

supported the opinion of my editors. In my column, written a week before

the editorial, I argued that notwithstanding the environmental importance

of the mesa to the community, the California Coastal Commission’s

determination prohibiting the owners, Signal Landmark and Hearthside

Homes, from building homes on 140 acres and requiring that the acreage be

maintained as a conservation area, entitled the owners to compensation.

Not surprisingly, my column drew a slew of letters from readers who

took exception with my reasoning. The week following my column, the

editors penned an editorial telling the readers that 30 years of

wrangling over the mesa was enough, and that Signal and Hearthside should

throw in the towel and quit litigating. Concurrently with its editorial,

the Independent published some of the letters disagreeing with my earlier

column, but which supported its editorial.

Some in the community have suggested that the Independent deliberately

culled through the letters in response to my column and published only

those who disagreed with me, while at the same time publishing its

editorial supported by these same letters.

Some of you have questioned the Independent’s integrity suggesting

that this act was consistent with the Independent’s willingness to slant

news stories to suit their own purposes and agenda.

Frankly, if anyone has a right to be upset with the coincidental

editorial and the paper’s simultaneous publication of letters disagreeing

with me and supporting the editors, it’s me.

But, I’m not upset, because I know that during the week following my

column and preceding the editorial, those who differed with my column

were quicker to their computers than those who agreed. I also know about

space constraints. Further, while some of you believe your opinions are

well-written and hit the mark, many are not, and should not be published

when there is a fair sampling that better expresses that point of view.

During my couple of years with the paper, the Independent has allowed

me to speak my mind, including criticism of its views. Only a couple of

months ago, I disagreed with an editorial on why Burlington Coat Factory

and Wards should remain at the mall, calling my editors reasoning

“troubling and fuzzy-headed.” Had they written their editorial concerning

the litigation surrounding the mesa before I penned my remarks, I would

have written a column taking their reasoning to task.

Moreover, during the past two years, the Independent has never

suggested that I alter my opinion on any subject. My column is edited for

newsworthiness, grammatical and spelling mistakes only.

Integrity and credibility are important to me. I don’t shy away from

issues because they involve friends, political leaders or my editors. In

fact, when I expressed my opinion contending that Hearthside is entitled

to some level of compensation, I did so knowing I would upset some very

dedicated activists for whom I have the utmost respect, and many of whom

I regard as friends. But friendship and fear of disagreement are never

reasons to silence a contrary opinion.

For sometime, I have felt that some people are inclined to attack the

message, not by attacking the reasoning and factual support for the

conclusion with more cogent reasoning and better facts, but by attacking

the messenger. There seems to be a notion that if we can label the

messenger with a negative label, then the messenger’s opinion is invalid.

But, opinions stand or fall based on their factual support and reasoning,

not on the delivery system.

My personal view is that the editors’ opinion and conclusion as to

what Hearthside should do was poorly reasoned and reached a conclusion

suggesting a belief in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

But, that was their opinion -- a product of their belief and analysis

-- not the result of some hidden agenda or conspiracy.

* RON DAVIS is a private attorney who lives in Huntington Beach. He

can be reached by e-mail at o7 [email protected]