Virginia Renker of La Mesa subscribes to the Union-Tribune and The New York Times. She noticed the U-T made an editing change in the same Times story that ran on the front pages of both newspapers Feb. 11.

The piece was on opposition to a state law that requires pregnancy clinics to post notices of public programs that offer contraception, prenatal care and low-cost abortions.

Times writer Erik Eckholm led his story with the scene at a pregnancy clinic in El Cajon. In the New York Times, the first paragraph ran like this: “‘Free Pregnancy Testing’ reads the large sign in front of the East County Pregnancy Care Clinic, on a busy intersection of this impoverished city east of San Diego.”

In the U-T, the lead ran like this: “‘Free Pregnancy Testing’ reads the large sign in front of the East County Pregnancy Care Clinic in El Cajon.”


“I am just curious why in the NY Times article ... they refer to El Cajon as ‘this impoverished city east of San Diego.’ This was not in the sentence in the Union Tribune,” Renker said in a email. “I don’t have an issue here, just want to be enlightened regarding the freedom papers have to change sentences.”

The U-T subscribes to various news services, and editors are free to edit the stories, even combine stories from two or more services into one report.

News service stories are written for nationwide, or worldwide, readership. They might provide some description of a place so readers can ground themselves. If the story involves something in San Diego County, U-T editors will delete familiar references.

What intrigued me, though, about the Feb. 11 story was the description of El Cajon as “impoverished.” I understand it’s not Rancho Santa Fe, but is it “impoverished”?


A-section editor David Clary was working the night of Feb. 10 on the next day’s edition. “When I saw the reference to El Cajon as ‘impoverished,’ it felt like too strong of a word to me,” he said. “I mentioned it to other colleagues on the desk, and they agreed. We simply took it out.”

Eckholm, the Times writer, said he briefly visited the city and saw the area around the clinic, South Magnolia Avenue at Washington Avenue. He said he had no problem with the edit for the San Diego readership.

“I’ll admit this broad-brush word was perhaps not the most felicitous way to describe a complex place, but I did want to convey to national readers that this particular clinic was not operating in an affluent or even middle-class setting,” Eckholm said in an email.

“I did a little research and found that El Cajon is often described as the poorest city in the county. I saw data indicating that it has a high rate of individuals living below the poverty line, including many in the working poor. And the clinic director told me that most of the women they see are low income,” Eckholm said.


Eckholm is right. El Cajon, along with National City, have the most residents living in poverty in the county, according to a 2013 SANDAG report. El Cajon’s median houshold income is about $45,000, which, according to SANDAG, classifies it as low-income. But still, is the city “impoverished”? To me, the word conjures up images of a Third-World city. I wouldn’t say that fits El Cajon.

The area around the clinic appears urban, rather nondescript — small plain-looking homes, apartments, a 7-Eleven, wide thoroughfares.

El Cajon is a big city. It has a population of a little more than 100,000, the sixth-largest city in the county. It’s diverse. Residents are black, white, Latino. It has the largest number of Chaldeans in the country after Detroit.

“El Cajon has its lower-income areas, some gang-riddled spots and an ongoing issue with homelessness,” said Karen Pearlman, who covers El Cajon for the U-T and worked for the El Cajon-based Daily Californian for nine years. “It also has higher-income areas — Fletcher Hills, Granite Hills, bottom of Mount Helix. There are homes with large lots, horses and stables, and groves of citrus, beautiful views.


“There are smaller homes that are quite nice. Very middle-class in general.”

The U-T has policy on labeling. “Labels are useful because they can summarize a lot of information quickly, but also ... they can oversimplify, stereotype and marginalize,” it reads.

“When we characterize people or organizations, we should ensure that those individuals or groups recognize themselves in the description.”

Although the description of El Cajon was really irrelevant to the thrust of the piece, I think it points to the sensitivity that editors and reporters need to apply to adjectives.