Paid Ads Versus News Coverage

Sandra Switzer, in her letter to the Valley Edition (“Report on Rogan Ad,” Aug. 13), asks the question, “When is a political ad, that is not under criticism for exceeding taste or viciousness standards ‘news’ for the front page of the San Fernando Valley section of The Times?” She does not defend the content or the accuracy of the ad, which erroneously (and deliberately) portrays Congressman James Rogan as a school reformer.

Her apparent complaint is that Rogan had to pay $80,000 to knowingly represent a position that is refuted by his past voting record. She claims that it is unfair and that his 27th Congressional District opponent Adam Schiff’s rebuttal is made part of The Times story when, in fact, he should have been required to voice his opinion in a similar paid ad rather than part of the Rogan blurb. She feels Schiff should have forked over $80,000 from his own funds if he wanted the voters to get the other side of the story.

If we follow her premise to its logical conclusion, the well- and much-better-funded Rogan could then continue to make numerous, deliberate and false representations in paid commercials and Schiff would bankrupt himself attempting to respond. And who would then be left to determine the specific news that is still fit to print?

LOUIS ROBINS

Van Nuys