Re “Lobbyist says Dababneh masturbated in front of her” (Page 1A, Dec. 5): Do the headline writers at The Bee not know the difference between public and private information? Do they not think the language of the newspaper should be with class not crudeness? Is The Bee a serious newspaper or a tabloid? As my husband said when he brought in the morning paper: “A headline is supposed to make me want to read the article, but this one makes me want to throw the paper away.”
Has The Bee forgotten that schoolteachers use the newspaper in the classroom, even in elementary school? The editorial board used the words “in excruciating detail” and “indignities” in an opinion piece about the Dababneh case. It seems the board knows what should have been omitted from the headline.
Edythe A. Evans,
I’ve been away a couple of months, just returned and restarted my Bee subscription. The first paper arrived with half the front page and top headline devoted to a lawmaker’s masturbation in front of a lobbyist. The L.A. Times also had an article on this, but with a smaller placement at the bottom of the front page and a less explicit headline.
Your headline was over the top and really not necessary to the article itself. This is not the reintroduction to The Bee that I’d expected. Please report the news without sensationalism.
Carol Addy, Carmichael
The real wall
Re “How bad is the GOP tax plan for California? Republicans don’t even like it” (Editorials, Dec. 4): The real wall, which has already been erected, is the one between Democrats and Republicans. There is absolutely no compromise. When the Democrats were in control, Republicans were obstructionists. Now the Democrats are obstructionists. When the Democrats had legislative control, Obamacare passed with no Republican votes. Now the Republicans are passing the tax bill with no Democratic votes.
It’s difficult to comprehend why politicians vote in totality on every aspect of their party’s platform. It’s understandable with the far right and the far left, but don’t the moderates of both parties have some common ground?
Frank Isaac, Roseville
Re “First major housing project revealed for Sacramento’s downtown railyard” (sacbee.com, Dec. 4): The first railyard housing project is all market rate, although it include a mixed-income component. The city’s “Railyards Mixed Income Housing Strategy” pledges “mixed income” housing, but includes only 600 affordable units out of 10,000, with a few for very low income renters.
Such strategies are not consistent with the mayor’s campaign pledge for fair share affordable and public housing distribution throughout Sacramento, or with the need to increase home ownership to achieve racial fairness and neighborhood stability. This is a developer’s dream and Sacramento’s nightmare.
Craig Chaffee, Sacramento