Some folks have asked why I participate in the My Point of View column for that liberal rag paper. Well, first of all, we need to maybe talk about why they refer to the Tribune as “that liberal rag.”

I sometimes have to make several attempts at reading articles in the paper. Many articles have statements used as fact, which are really the writers’ feelings and belong on an opinion page. Another annoying, commonly used ploy is quoting one partisan side, coaching the reader to believe that the quote is gospel. Articles written by AP and Minnesota Public Radio News are where I notice this the most. There are writers on Republican-leaning side that do the same, but their stories are seldom in the Tribune.

Since the Tribune does not have reporters to cover things like state and federal government, they rely on services like AP and MPR for that portion of the paper. Looking through all of the stories, picking content for inclusion, they automatically become brainwashed into believing that what they are reading is mainstream and subsequently adapt it into their reporting.

An example was in an article by Tribune’s Colleen Harrison on Feb. 10, “One Nation, Indivisible?” “The Supreme Court is currently one justice short.” The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the maximum number at nine. It is not a constitutional crisis if that maximum is not met. Nowhere in the constitution is the number of judges to the Supreme Court mentioned — only who appoints them and who approves them! This inaccurate statement was common in news articles mentioning the Supreme Court during the time following Scalia’s death and the confirmation of Gorsuch.

The April 18 Tribune article, “School board approves tax abatement program,” in the first paragraph, “School Board on Monday finally voted” — absolutely no way should finally have been used!

When I read the paper I sometimes see things differently than the authors. I don’t think errors like above are on purpose, more like drinking Scotch whisky, an acquired taste from reading tainted articles. A Tribune May 4, Page 7, article, “Republicans aim to erase state’s campaign spending election laws,” is chock-full of slanted word usage.

I was interviewed by Colleen for her Feb. 10 article and was taken by how she tried to write every word as I answered her questions. The problem was I did not give her enough data to write a balanced story. When she asked the question, did I agree with Donald Trump’s immigration executive order? She was looking for something more than “yes” — maybe the reasons why. She had to ask additional questions to get a comment on why.

If you ever get asked to participate in a story for the paper, do not pass up the opportunity. Before answering, take a breath, think and then start — and don’t use “err,” “ah” or “um;” your answers will have more credibility. Also, keep going with your answer until they interrupt to ask the next question.

Ebenezer Howe

Alden