Letters to the editor
Delete his disk!
Editor:I don’t think it’s really necessary for me to attack the
narrow-minded
opinions in Princeton Kim’s article ("Putting the `man’ back in
manpower,"
Jan. 10). His ignorance speaks for itself.
However, I would love to see the Daily Bruin amend its policy
whereby it
prohibits "the publication of articles that perpetuate
derogatory …
stereotypes" to include those articles that promote gender
stereotypes.
Had this been the case, Kim’s article never would have made it
off his
disk. Judging by his rather banal writing style, perhaps this is
where his
future articles should remain, also.
Karen Loeschner
Fourth-year
EnglishAlleged mistake
Editor:With reference to the lead headline in Jan. 8, "Alleged
art thief faces
sentencing," you should be advised that it is improper and
indeed legally
incorrect to refer to a convicted felon as an "alleged"
suchandsuch.
Once a person has been convicted of a crime, it is no longer
proper,
advisable, necessary or correct to refer to him as an "alleged"
criminal.
The fact of a guilty verdict removes the journalistic need for
the word
alleged.
For many years, newspapers have used alleged as a means of
protecting themselves from scurrilous actions in defamation or
invasion of
privacy by individuals who were referred to without the
qualifying
adjective alleged. The word has an historic interest only in
the
context of journalism. It is rarely, if ever, used in a court of
law.
The improper usage noted above is a disservice to the vast
readership of
the Daily Bruin, and I hope you will be guided accordingly. This
is not the
first such occasion of the improper use of the word.
John Alan Cohan
Attorney at law
Pass/no pass
Editor:I hope Susan Lee isn’t expecting journalism credit for
her report on the
medical marijuana issue ("Striking a blow for legalization,"
Jan. 9).
Cannibalizing a Dec. 11 L.A. Times article does not a reporter
make.
Had she done her own work, perhaps she wouldn’t have mirrored
the
"divide and conquer" spin so often proffered by mainstream
media. Her
personal bias is evident by her inclusion of rather caustic
remarks by HEMP
activists about the "medical only" advocates and her exclusion
of any
comment from Californians for Compassionate Use.
If the L.A. Times could find us, and you have our website
address, there
is no reason that you couldn’t have balanced your article with a
simple
phone call.
Maybe next time.
Scott lmler
Secretary-Treasurer
Californians for
Compassionate UseSour apple
Editor:I’m particularly upset about an article (done by the
Associated Press)
that was published in the Jan. 10 Daily Bruin entitled "Mac
still favorite
despite troubles" which I find very misleading and biased.
The article contains some serious omissions. Although there is a
mention
of Apple losing market share to "industry-dominating `Wintel’
PCs," it
fails to mention by how much Apple dominates. Apple’s market
share in the
personal computer world has usually rested around 10 percent
(figures
published go from as low as 8.5 percent to as much as 14.5
percent
depending on the source and time period).
What the article fails to mention, is that within the same time
period,
IBM and compatible computers (most of which run DOS and Windows)
control
about 80 percent of the market. Sure, Apple itself may control
number two
position, but that itself doesn’t mean very much.
Many of Apple’s woes have been self-inflicted, such as the use
of lots
of proprietary components (rather than off-the-shelf
components), which has
caused them shortages. Paradoxically enough, they now allow
clones to be
created, which generates yet more price competition and cuts
further into
their margins. Another paradox is that the existence of these
clones has
also contributed to more computer part shortage problems (Apple
itself
couldn’t get enough parts).
In summary, the article has many factual omissions and is
misleading to
readers. The Daily Bruin should not reprint and publish articles
that are
as biased and misleading as this.
Andrew Chiang
Fourth-year
Computer science