2009/02/19-24: A Week of Bias

I can imagine somebody coming here and thinking, "Buddy, you're right about the Tribune and all, but if you think it's so mind-numbing why not just stop reading it?"

And so I have, for about a month now.

But here's an old one, anyway. Way back in February I started making a list of all the Trib preachings in the Opinion section, having long since realized and wanted to demonstrate that the claim of being an "Independent Voice" actually meant falling consistently, partisanly, and dependently on only one side of the issues.

Of course, I usually avoid the Opinions section anyway, and before I could finish the project, I found myself too nauseated by nonsense, lies, sarcasm, and evil to continue.

Here are my findings.

---

Between Thursday the 19th and Tuesday the 24th (giving up after the first two editorials on the 24th), I recorded a total of 55 local "opinions" (that is, editorials and reader comments), including 16 from the Tribune herself and 39 from the carefully screened "public", along with another 12 non-local, nationally syndicated opinions (at least, I think they were all non-local). These 67 total opinions consisted of 77 distinct main points.

I graded each of them as "negative", "neutral", or "positive" as compared with my informed notion of the community values represented by the Tribune readership, and I categorized them by thesis. I ended up stretching out the "neutral" label quite a bit to include opinions that may have been superficially opposed to local values, but not necessarily technically antithetical -- that is, opinions that good-intentioned, perhaps insufficiently informed people in the community may still possibly hold without being idiots. So the results may seem kinder than they actually were. In reality, many of the "neutral" probably fit just as well under "negative".

To the Trib's very rare credit, of the 12 national articles, only 1 of them in these 5-plus days was "negative" for its pro-gay stance, and the rest were able to squeeze under "neutral".

As for the local opinions, the statistics follow:

2/19 Thursday
Negative: 2 Neutral: 5 Positive: 3 Ratio: 20%/50%/30%
2/20 Friday
Negative: 6 Neutral: 3 Positive: 1 Ratio: 60%/30%/10%
2/21 Saturday
Negative: 4 Neutral: 3 Positive: 2 Ratio: 44%/33%/22%
2/22 Sunday
Negative: 6 Neutral: 7 Positive: 2 Ratio: 40%/47%/13%
2/23 Monday
Negative: 3 Neutral: 6 Positive: 0 Ratio: 33%/67%/0%
2/24 Tuesday
Negative: 2 Neutral: 0 Positive: 0 Ratio: 100%/0%/0% (incomplete)

Totals
Negative: 23 Neutral: 24 Positive: 8 Ratio: 42%/44%/15%

Here are the categories of the main points, with each opinion containing at least one. Again, some of the neutral points were probably actually negative (like pro-unchecked voting) while some were perhaps positive (pro-mass transit), but I thought they didn't exemplify the extremes. Some points could be either negative or neutral depending on content and tone (education, anti-Utah government). Some negative points escaped the negative list due to their rational argument or lack of offensiveness (anti-war, anti-rich). Yet others fell into an unexpected group because of the idiocy or mediocrity of their proponents (pro-evolution, pro-disability).

Negative (total points: 31)
pro-gay (11)
anti-LDS/fake LDS (4)
anti-Buttars (4)
anti-Utah government (3)
anti-conservative/anti-GOP(3)
pro-promiscuity (2)
anti-home schooling/pro-educational establishment (2)
pro-evolution (1)
pro-stimulus (1)

Neutral (total points: 36)
anti-Utah government (5)
anti-nuclear waste (4)
pro-education (4)
pro-health care (3)
anti-billboard (2)
anti-military/anti-war (2)
pro-recession/pro-personal spending (2)
pro-fair tax (1)
anti-fair tax (1)
anti-rich (1)
pro-newspaper (1)
pro-fraternities (1)
pro-disability (1)
pro-bipartisanship (1)
anti-Burris (1)
pro-writers (1)
pro-environment (1)
pro-mentally ill (1)
pro-unchecked voting (1)
pro-mass transit (1)
unclear point (1)

Positive (total points: 10)
anti-gay/anti-pro-gay (3)
pro-democracy (2)
pro-Buttars (1)
anti-Obama (1)
pro-Larry H. Miller (1)
anti-lawsuit (1)
pro-scriptures (1)

Main point ratio:
40%/47%/13%

You may have noticed in the topics a reflection of the issues of the moment. While pop issues may have boosted some specific numbers that would not usually be so pronounced, I see no reason to think they would be out-of-line with the general trends.

The themes shown in these opinions are: a very strong proclivity towards homophilia, or love of gays. A strong sense of anarchism or paranoia toward government. A strong opposition to religion. A modest concern for education and environmental problems. A slight craving for laissez faire governance.

So, basically, the numbers and themes are a reverse of what you would expect in a truly independent, bias-free publication, given the views of this population. I feel my theory amply proven, that the Trib systematically excludes or suppresses certain viewpoints and promotes its own persuasional agenda. This test could easily be repeated.

Thanks for misrepresenting both yourself and the world, and behaving like a social virus, Tribune.

2009/02/24 Tuesday: Senate GOP sound off on Buttars' words

A B3 article calling for the revocation of free speech rights for senators.

Uh, let's see. Don't try to use "GOP" as a plural noun, Tribune. It really looks stupid. Go back to junior high.

"Buttars has been under fire for a week after he told a documentary filmmaker that gays pose the greatest internal threat to the country, lack morals, are demanding special rights and engage in disgusting sexual practices."

Hm, let's see.

Who has been putting him "under fire"?

YOU have, Tribune, and your deformed little Democrat legislator slaves, and your monkey-brained Public Forum pets.

1) Gays pose the greatest internal threat to the country

That's either saying that there are no especially significant internal threats to the country, or that moral threats to the country are extremely significant -- neither of which are objectionable views.

Do gays pose a moral threat? Well...

2) Gays lack morals

What are morals? Good behaviour. How do we define good behaviour? Religiously. What do all major U.S. religions historically call immoral? Gayness. Who, then, lacks morals? Gays, and everybody else who does wrong. Straights also lack morals.

3) Gays demand special rights

Holy cow... Too stupidly obvious to even need to defend. Oh, but, let's call for Buttars' censure for stating the obvious, because we're Democrats, and as Democrats, we suck, we hate fairness, and we demand, like gays, special privileges that we do not extend to others.

4) Gays engage in disgusting sexual practices

Uh, let's see. Sex is the combination of sperm and ovum. Sex does not involve combining either sperm or ovum with other stuff, and people who habitually attempt to redefine sex probably have some sort of addiction or mental illness or something. As for "disgusting", well, Buttars apparently thinks sex is sacred somehow.

Anyway, Tribune, you are idiots. Stop trying to deprive elected leaders of their rights of expressing the political, social, and religious beliefs shared by their constituents. If you make it impossible for a man with a belief to represent a population with the same belief, what do you think you're doing for democracy?

But thanks for trying, Tribune.

2009/02/24 Tuesday: Cameras in Pioneer Park? It's cop cliche

A B1 Walsh rant about criminals (us) demanding privacy.

The first dumbicility comes from the dude who divies out my paycheck funds but who I secretly suspect may have Asperger's Syndrome:

" 'I don't like cameras. But in Pioneer Park we face a problem of persistent crime,' says Mayor Ralph Becker."

Foul ball... If you didn't like cameras then you wouldn't be pursuing this policy. If you pursue a policy, then you "like" it. Stop with the two-sided Obamatalk.

Who's up next...

" 'They are not as quick a fix as one would hope -- and at a high cost to people's constitutionally protected rights to anonymity and privacy,' says Karen McCreary, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah."

Steee-rike. If you call something "constitutionally protected", don't you think it should probably, maybe, possibly, in some form, be somehow referred to in the Constitution you cite?

Are privacy or anonymity rights found in the Constitution? No, they are not found there. They were invented later by bizarre, para-logical interpretation. But keep up your craft, Karen McCreary. Somebody's got to make sure something's wrong with the world. Daft ACLU.

And last...

"After all, there's little to stop police from one day putting cameras in Liberty or Sugar House Park, or pointing the Pioneer Park lenses out onto the sidewalk. At you and me."

Honestly, Walsh -- totally honestly -- you're a child, and a naughty one at that.

What are naughty children like? They're afraid of getting caught for all the bad stuff they always try to do. Hide infected wounds rather than exposing and cleaning them, and you will eventually lose the limb; and cover up crime with "privacy", and your removal of accountability only breeds more and more misdeeds until we're all endangered. Why not expose Pioneer Park to some sunlight? Expose the other parks. Expose our entire city, and stop demanding cover for criminality.

Did it fail to reduce crime in Britain? Then, here's a thought: let's try acting on what we see on cameras. Let's actually respond and apprehend criminals, instead of not increasing our police response, allowing criminals to become accustomed to ineffective cameras, and leaving crime at the same level.

Oh, but... wait. There was that one guy who wrote that book warning that lack of privacy leads to the creation of an authoritarian superstate.

Well, that must be true. It teaches us paranoia, doesn't it? Must be correct, since paranoia is the kind of thing we want more of in the world.

...O.k., Walsh, you're right. Forget it. Tear down all the cameras, even the "private" ones you defended. Every man for himself. Let's make it really balanced by sending all the cops home, too. Idiot.

Thanks, Tribune.

2009/02/20 Friday: Wilson's benefits push: A profile of persistence

This was a B1 article about Jenny "I'm Not A Lesbian - Yet" Wilson giving gays more privileges.

"She had changed her approach [to extend partner benefits to gay county employees]. Now it was time to change party power. So Wilson campaigned for Democratic newcomer Jani Iwamoto, who ousted Crockett in November and handed Democrats a one-seat edge on the council."

Not much to say about this one, except to laugh at you dodgers who voted Iwamoto. Bet you didn't think you were voting for gay health insurance, did you?

"No, of course not! We were only voting for her cute name and flower sign that she littered our entire county with! 'Jani'! It's cute!"

You idiots. You got what you voted for: more gay stuff. And the more you keep voting for it, the more of it you'll keep getting.

"[Wilson] got her victory (she even picked up a GOP nod from freshman Max Burdick) and employees got their new benefits."

Well, you who voted Burdick were just hornswoggled. Don't let him become a sophomore.

What are partner benefits for, anyway? They're for promoting families who can't send both parents out to work. They're not so we can choose some same-gendered best buddy and give them free taxpayer money because we care so much about them.

Thanks, Non-Mayor Wilson, and thanks again, Tribune!

2009/02/20 Friday: No death penalty in Jordanelle slaying

A B3 article about a murderous adult being tried as a child.

"The Wasatch County Attorney's Office will not seek the death penalty for a man charged with shooting a woman and leaving her to die at Jordanelle State Park.

"Christopher Alvey, 19, is charged with aggravated murder, a possible capital offense, in the death of Ashley Sparks, 21, who was shot four times on Dec. 26.

"On Wednesday, Wasatch County Attorney Thomas Low filed a notice waiving the right to seek the death penalty. ..."

"Alvey's youth, his immaturity and difficult circumstances -- he appeared to be homeless at the time of the shooting, Low said -- may also have made a jury less likely to impose the death penalty."

So, what do we have here? 1) Murderers not only need to be legal adults at 18 to get the proper reward of their deeds anymore, but several years older still. Even 19-year-olds are not really adults yet. 2) Being "homeless" (sleeping in public) means you innately deserve to commit more crime than a person with somewhere private to sleep.

"Sparks' mother supported the decision, [Low] said."

Whoops... What a saintly soul, that mother... who, in her holy charity, has just helped another murderer live to get paroled and set free someday, also helping in her merciful way to tear down our legal system piece by piece, until that happy future day when nothing will be illegal and force will rule. Thanks, mom.

And thanks again, Tribune!

2009/02/20 Friday: Abortion bill may invite suit

This was a B1 article about an anti-abortion bill.

"A bill that would increase penalties for performing an illegal abortion lacks [awaits] a final routine vote on an amendment before heading to the Governor's Office ... but critics warn the measure could lead to costly litigation."

Oh, brilliant way to show the weakness of a bill: fail to mention any weakness but warn of "costs" that people like you will incur when you challenge it in court.

How did we used to decide whether to pass a law? We elected representatives who thought like we did to go discuss its pros and cons.

How do we decide now? We determine whether any rich fringe group might find the law offensive or not so we can avoid getting bankrupted in court defending the law. If there IS well-funded opposition, we do not pass the law, no matter its merits or the desires of our constituents.

Stupid. We shouldn't argue legislation with threats of potential "lawsuits"; and if that's the best criticism you have of a bill, you don't have very much.

"Missy Bird, executive director of the Planned Parenthood Action Council, points to language in the bill that defines a viable fetus as one that potentially is able to live outside of the womb as determined by the attending physician to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

" 'The problem is that those lines don't say for a 'sustained period of time.' The standard should be a 'reasonable likelihood of sustained survival outside the womb,' ' Bird said."

So this girl, whose mother organization pockets many hundreds of millions of tax revenues and many hundreds of millions more in baby-slaughtering revenues, thinks it's wrong to legally protect babies who would survive an immediate birth, but who may not last for very long on their own. And who better to determine such survivability than Planned Parenthood clinicians, whose standard of infant care involves a trash bag and a dumpster. Why, in that case, not even babies brought to full term would be "viable", and could still legally be dissected and suctioned. Heck, even toddlers aren't "viable" by that measure, so out with their rights, too.

Oh yeah, let's ask Egghead McCoy, that moral beacon in the legislature whom all of Utah, not just the central liberal enclave, is so proud to keep re-electing:

"Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City, questioned the potential costs of defending the legislation.

" 'This could cost the state literally millions of dollars to defend,' McCoy said. 'The definition of viability is constitutionally suspect, and while it's pieced together from other court decisions, it's inaccurate to say this language used in this context has been endorsed by any Supreme Court decision.' "

So it's not 'unconstitutional', it's just 'constitutionally suspect'... although it would admittedly be tough to have a Supreme Court endorsement EXCEPT by piecing together definitions from other court decisions. Kind of backwards there, Scott, but you're the best Salt Lake's got. O.k., well, let's not pass it. It could cost millions of the dollars we donate to the ACLU to prosecute, and millions of our tax dollars to defend.

"The American Civil Liberties Union's Marina Lowe said the organization will look at pursuing legal action if it becomes law."

Whew! Thank goodness for those guys, protecting us from those of ourselves who want to protect ourselves. You know, it's common conservative lore that one of the left's most well-used tactics is to frighten local governments and entities into submission with threats of court costs -- not because their laws or positions wouldn't stand up in court, but because they can't AFFORD the defense, and dare not commit fiscal suicide in such a battle.

It's sick, it's terroristic, and it should be illegal. What we really ought to do first of all is to pass a law capping the fees involved with consitutionality cases. People could still sue at will, and people could also defend themselves at will, without any undue financial pressure. And then there would be no more complaint against this bill, apparently.

Thanks again, Tribune!