In an attempt to promote a vision of Culver City as the town where the original Munchkin Land once existed, the other newspapers strive to portray this as the Second Happiest Place on Earth. Crime happens elsewhere.

 

     Reality, though, says that individual gang members visit — and even live — in our city.

     This is not to knock our fine Police Dept. Culver City is a good little town to live in and raise our kids.  My family and I sleep more soundly knowing that we have a dedicated group of hard-nosed officers patrolling our streets, especially at night, keeping us safe. They do a wonderful job trying to keep this reality from visiting our community.

     As much as city leaders would like to control the releasing of news, though, this is Culver City, not Fantasyland. Reality happens here. This is not an island encased in a protective bubble, insulated from crime.

 

     I don’t understand how printing what happens in our city, reporting news in a timely fashion, affects a newspaper’s bottom line?

     When a crime happens, newpapers report the facts. But not in our city. There doesn’t seem to be a simple answer to the question of why not. It is complicated and secretive. There seems to be an implied understanding by the parties in the informative news chain to promote Culver City as an idyllic island surrounded by an angry sea of big city crime.

     How does this management, or censorship, of the news affect our community?

     What does this façade do for us?

     Our schools and neighborhoods seem safer. Our elected officials look better.

     We feel safer. Most of all, The Look inflates the values of our residential and commercial properties.

     In order to keep our community growing, we must continue distorting our public image as a community to sustain the advantage that we have over other, seemingly more crime-ridden, localities.

     I don’t mean that the only purpose of local newspapers should be to investigate suspected evil doings in our city. But editors need to maintain a balance between producing a commercial enterprise and maintaining their professional obligation to provide timely, local news-warts and all.

Just a Facade

 

     All of us seem to have bought into this facade of the happy news arrangement now in place. Even I, to an extent. Do I want my home’s price to decline? Heavens no. But I also think it is important for our community to receive an accurate reflection of itself in the newspapers, warts and all, not a controlled, chimeric illusion.

     The foregoing makes one wonder how our School District and our city distribute their advertising to the local newspapers. What criteria do they use? Is each order let on a competitive bid? Is there an annual bid? Or does it go to the local newspaper that produces the rosiest copy.

     Is it a coincidence that the Culver City News, noted for the least reporting of controversy on the School District and the City Council, receives the bulk of the business?

     Is it coincidence that the Culver City Observer felt it necessary to print a letter calling for voters to withhold their support from the incumbents in the last School Board election? Yet, the Observer would not print a detailed follow-up analysis, including an exclusive District breakdown of the election from the County Registrar’s Office website that showed the public how much support incumbents lost due to voters’ strategy decisions.

     The Observer told me it would not print my assessment because my name was affiliated with The Front Page. This was the second time I had come face-to-face with this guilt by association. 

Foreshadowing History

 

     I am reminded of the first instance, which happened several years ago. I volunteered to shoot photos of the various sports programs at Culver High. In order to enhance the coverage of sports and celebrate the accomplishments of student athletes, I offered to send the photos free to both the Observer and the News.

     After about a year, out of the blue, the owner of the News demanded that I stop sending my photos to the competition, namely the Observer. He insisted on exclusive rights to me photos. Otherwise, he said, he would not use them.  

     Being new to the rough and tumble game of sports photography, I reluctantly agreed. 

     Matters settled down for awhile. But a year and a half after the issue of the School Board’s healthcare benefits came to light, I received a terse, point-blank email from the editor of the News.

It said:

1. Your name is removed as a contributor to The Front Page.

 

     I understand the decision by the owner of the News to stop printing my letters and my commentary on the School Board. His paper. His decision.  But I can’t get over the feeling that I am persona non grata. 

     For the newspaper to hold my still-complimentary photos hostage was downright nasty. It makes one wonder who or what could have persuaded him to make such an outlandish demand, which, in the end, would only deprive the community of celebrating student athletes and their activities. My sports photos never have been interpreted as commentary on our local government officials.

     I never have linked my photos with my writing. Never demanded that one be printed in return for the other. They always have been separate and distinct.  Yet the owner of the News found reason to demand that I had to silence my dissenting voice on the School Board’s continued lack of accountability on healthcare benefits in order to have his paper continue to be a photographic outlet. 

The True Motivation

 

     Was his policy decision due to some implied economic pressure from the School District or School Board? Did they suggest they might pull their lucrative advertising from his newspaper?  Could I have been on put on a kind of School District Enemies List? Had I been blacklisted? 

     Didn’t blacklisting and guilt by association end in the 1950s with the McCarthy Era?  Didn’t Enemies Lists go out with the Nixon resignation?  Maybe not. Vestiges of such a list may exist within our close-knit community.

     In response to the email from Mr. Esterly, I emailed him:

 

      I called earlier to personally tell you of my decision. But you were not available. So I guess email will have to do. I gave in to Mr. Verdugo’s previous demand that I not give my photos to the other local paper. But I have thought it over and have decided to sever my relationship with the C.C. News. I cannot go along with Mr. Verdugo’s new, personally overly invasive demands.

     I started this commentary with a question: Who or what deems a story newsworthy in Culver City?  You may already have guessed my answer.  That’s right, it is…  the all-mighty dollar.

  

     Although the Observer and I disagreed about publishing the School Board election analysis, I must thank Observer editor Mitch Chortkoff and the Observer owner for continuing to print my photos.

     By not linking restrictive demands to my photos, the Observer has shown me its commitment to the kind of high-class operation and the personal integrity that I am very proud to work with.