2 Views of the Coverage

I challenge the L.A. Times to publish this letter as your show of respect for the public’s right to be fairly and fully informed of campaign activity and involvement of not just the party of greed--Democrats and Republicans; but also the only duly ballot-qualified opposition on the November general election ballot--namely the Peace & Freedom Party’s candidate: Jack Lindblad.

Your omission is not an isolated marginalization of left politics. Earlier this year, I returned your questionnaire completed to the L.A. Times, which was not published in my contest; but in another similar contest, P & F responses were published!

As we know too well, the L.A. Times record of scurrilously and successfully representing only corporate capitalist candidates reaches back to Upton Sinclair’s devastated gubernatorial campaign of 1932 when it seemed he was certain to win. No, you certainly don’t waste any effort in current times to let it go that far.

Your blatant censorship dulls, diminishes and traverses the public’s constitutional right to know and decide on all the candidates and issues. Do you really consider the district’s constituents as custodial wards unable to digest facts and issues for themselves? Must you persist in reaching conclusions for the public? Yes, your intractability destroys the trust that the public places in the media’s purview. Perhaps the public will decide to reclaim that trust from you. Perhaps your press weighs the candidates only in the currency in U.S. denomination raised by their campaign committees.

Your policy forces the Peace & Freedom candidacy to run against the L.A. Times in addition to the other candidates. You do great harm to the constituency in your attempt to put blinders on the events. The constituency, if fully informed by the media, will make fully reasoned decisions whether “mainstream” corporate or not.

As witnessed by the 180 attenders, the Thousand Oaks News-Chronicle did report my attendance at the candidate debate on Aug. 14, my thwarted full parity of participation and my views of the campaign’s issues. Indeed, both Assemblyman Tom McClintock and Rep. Anthony Beilenson agreed on removing constitutional rights guaranteed to children born to anyone in the United States to stop “illegal” immigration. Beilenson circumvented my question as to why he, once having an admirable civil libertarian record, would co-sponsor a bill removing rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. My views are clearly in favor of the 14th Amendment as it has stood for 124 years.

I am filing a complaint with the State Board of Equalization to revoke Temple Beth Haverim’s property tax exemption based on the factual evidence that they are engaging in partisan political activity on behalf of the two major parties. To wit: Temple Beth Haverim held and sponsored the debate inviting only two of the three 24th District congressional candidates on the November general election ballot and specifically denied my full and equal participation.

JACK LINDBLAD, North Hollywood