SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.
MIKE BURNS, San Clemente
I enjoy our local newspaper very much.
But a recent piece on the proposed addition of double track extension of 1.2 miles in Capistrano Beach aimed at improving rail service brings to light a nagging question about unqualified statements being published in media these days.
The comment by the “retired chief of Orange County lifeguards” stating that the project would increase beach erosion and be a waste of money bothers me for the following reason.
This person (while probably respected) is not a civil engineer, nor a railroad employee or a geological engineer, or a representative of the Transit Authority, yet his statement is somehow given credibility by being published in a media that is otherwise known for factual reporting.
I see the same thing happening with many statements concerning green strategies as well. Statements made by unqualified individuals, not backed up by scientific evidence, should not be given “air time” based on their obvious biased and emotional impact.