Printer-friendly version
By Robert Deason, Deerhorn Valley resident
April 25, 2010 (Deerhorn Valley) -- On behalf of my community and all people living in fire-threatened areas, I want to point out that your one-sentence "HOT NEWS" article (only mentioning the Counties limits on firefighting monies and a proposed tax) should – NEVER – have been splashed with "head turning" "sensationalistic" photos of fire devastating the country we live in and love.
Your sentence isn't HOT news, and your photos are NOT news! One of your pictures is of Deerhorn Valley, and no one here who saw the inrush of black heavily-fueled smoke (that you show so inappropriately) approaching their home and the beloved lifestyle they were knowingly aware that they may never see again, needs reminders to the heartbreaking and home-shattering events that took place. Your accompanying photos smack of amateur sensationalism, and serve NO purpose. Too, I have a rational concern how much this kind of publication serves to seduce and trigger month-long attacks from serial arsonists.
I have asked this before: PLEASE, on behalf of everyone in East County, downplay the overt display of flame and fire ravaging homes, and your publishing speculation and warnings on how vulnerable or burn-ready our back country may be – if and when it is.
We who live in the backcountry (the persons to whom it is REALLY news – horrible news) know all about it. Yes, we need reminders, but that's our community's and firefighter's job, and we are the real experts here, and after the recent fires we're geared up for it. It is one of the objectives of our Deerhorn Valley Web page of which my wife and I are web-masters.
I'm hoping you will publish this. It is direct, and not friendly – rightly so, I believe.
Without reference to the above, I love your publication, and it is a wonderful contribution to the San Diego Back country. I am on you mail list and I look forward to every issue. Thank you so much!
Respectfully; Rob Deason. Deerhorn Valley
Editor’s Response: I've confirmed with Rob that he is referring to photos in our e-newsletter, not on our website. It was not our intent to send a newsletter with multiple large fire photos. Due to a software problem with our newsletter server, we had difficulty inserted images and tried several different ones before a single image appeared in our preview copy. We were appalled to discover a concert flyer and two over-sized fire photos embedded in the newsletter received by readers, so we resent a corrected version promptly and apologize for this error.
Rob is mistaken, however, in referring to "one sentence" articles. Our “Hot News” section in the newsletter contains headlines; clicking the "hot news" header, "more hot news" or any photo in the hot news section links to the news section on our website with full stories posted.
It is not our intent to cause distress to fire victims by publishing fire photos for sensationalism. We felt that running one small photo of a prior wildfire in a story about wildfire preparedness and funding was appropriate as a reminder to readers of the power of a firestorm in East County. Similar decisions are made daily by editors who run photos of other traumatic events, such as the PSA plane crash, the Mai Lai massacre, or the 911 terrorist attacks, on anniversaries of events or when running articles on topics such as airplane safety, war crimes, or terrorism investigations.(Indeed, Rob's own Deerhorn Valley website includes a photo of a burning home in a section on fire-safing homes.)
As for the potential for a fire photo to motivate an arsonist to commit a crime, should the media withhold reporting on terrorism attacks or violent crimes such as the Chelsea King killing so as to avoid a chance of copy-cat crimes? Denying the public a right to information and images of historical events, even horrific ones, would be a slippery slope. The media’s job is to report the truth and alert the public to potential public safety issues, especially when there are questions about appropriate government oversight or funding of public safety services. This is also important when it comes time for voters to make informed decisions about ballot initiatives and candidates.
While residents who survived the wildfires here need no reminders of the dangers, there are also many newcomers to our region who are also readers of East County Magazine—and as the saying goes, one picture is worth a thousand words to drive home the potentially devastating impact of a wildfire—an impact that could be made even worse if there are not enough firefighters to respond as some officials fear could happen with budget cuts.
This difference of opinion over photos aside, we applaud Rob Deason for his outstanding job of publishing a Deerhorn Valley website at http://deerhornvalley.net/, and appreciate his concerns for keeping his community safe—a goal that we most certainly share. -- Miriam Raftery, Editor
Comments
I couldn't disagree more
It is imperative that residents of rural parts of the county come to terms with how limited fire protection is in their "neighborhoods". San Diego County is the only urbanized county in the state without a Fire Department. That is, unless you believe Diane Jacobs. Her County FD has no paid employees but she will tell you, nonetheless, that the county has a fire department.
It is time for the county to pony up and spend some of their reserves maintaining a real FD for all of the county instead of abdicating their responsibility to thier constituent base.
However, this means having the political courage to show the real costs of this protection and then using the money from the available reserves to make it happen.
Sadly, none of our current County Supervisors have this vision or courage.