Jack Teoli’s June 11 letter was presented as a breakdown of the Los Angeles mayoral race, but much of it was opinion rather than analysis.
Mr. Teoli credits Mayor Karen Bass for the lower crime rate. Crime did decline in some reported categories, including homicides and shooting victims. However, crime also declined nationally during the same period. The statistics show that some crime categories fell during Bass’ tenure as mayor; they do not show that Bass caused those declines. His discussion of homelessness suffers from the same problem. The decline he references comes from the L.A. Homeless Services Authority’s annual point-in-time count. Those are estimates based on a short-term count, not a comprehensive measure of conditions residents experience every day. Citing the statistics without context presents only part of the picture.
Mr. Teoli also states that the L.A. Police Department endorsed Bass. She was not. She was endorsed by the Los Angeles Police Protective League, a labor union representing LAPD officers. According to LAPPL’s own endorsement process, endorsements are made through its political committee and board of directors. They are not endorsements by the LAPD itself and are not voted on by the union’s rank-and-file membership. Calling it an LAPD endorsement creates a false impression of departmental support.
His description of Nithya Raman is equally incomplete. Mr. Teoli places the word “leftist” in quotation marks as though it exists only in the minds of critics. Yet the L.A. chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America has publicly identified Raman as a member. That is a relevant fact that readers were not told.
Mr. Teoli is even more selective when discussing Spencer Pratt. He dismisses Pratt as offering few solutions but never explains what Pratt actually proposed. Pratt publicly advocated tougher enforcement of laws relating to street encampments, mandatory treatment for individuals whose homelessness is driven by addiction or serious mental illness, and redirecting funding from programs he considered ineffective. Ignoring those proposals while claiming Pratt offered few solutions is not analysis; it is omission.
There is nothing wrong with writing an opinion piece. What is wrong is presenting one-sided commentary as a neutral breakdown of an election. Readers deserve all relevant facts, not just those that support a preferred conclusion.
Arthur Tom
Santa Clarita
