Talk:The Salt Lake Tribune

Which is Oldest?

They can't both be (Deseret Morning News), but the claim is in both articles. Someone needs to fix this. Moogle 03:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the DNews claims to be the oldest continually printed, whereas the SLTrib claims to be just the oldest...there is a difference... [[User:JonMoore|JON, Conqueror of Men - (Talk to Me, Baby!)]] 04:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Schwarz Lawsuit as a Defining Historical Event for The Salt Lake Tribune

Newspapers get sued all the time—sometimes for valid reasons, sometimes frivolously. Any ruling against a newspaper would certainly be a significant part of its history. But, out of all the lawsuits ever filed against The Salt Lake Tribune, it seems strange that one in particular (filed in 2003 by Barbara Schwarz) deserves special mention in a section on the paper's history—particularly in light of the fact that claims made against the paper in Schwarz v. SL Tribune were ruled invalid by two courts, and the case was summarily dismissed.

Schwarz sued over a story in which the Tribune reported the number of FOIA requests she had filed was unusually high for a person with no involvement in journalism or law. According to the First Amendment Center,

Many of Schwarz’s requests are attempts to substantiate her claims that she is the granddaughter of President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the daughter of Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, that she grew up on a private submarine base on the Great Salt Lake (not a secret government base, she noted, as the Tribune reported) and that her husband was wrongfully arrested in Madrid, Spain, in 1988 and taken to the United States, where he is being secretly held.

That makes for interesting reading, but can one person's invalidated legal accusations constitute a defining event in the history of a newspaper? If so, then every grievance ever held against any newspaper should be considered encyclopedic. Either an exhaustive list of legal actions involving the Tribune should be included in the "History" section, or the paragraph should be omitted. Since aspects of this particular lawsuit are quirky and interesting, perhaps the paragraph could be moved to a new section ("Trivia"? "Interesting Lawsuits"? Not sure.) I'm going to try deleting it and see what happens. Rangergordon (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

1873 buyout by 'Border Ruffians'?

According to what I have learned before, and according to the Wikipedia article on Border Ruffians, they were a militia-like group who held a pro-slavery, pro-secession viewpoint and fought against the Jayhawkers, an abolitionist and pro-Union militia. This was during the period known as Bloody Kansas, which took place (from what I remember) during (roughly) the late-1850s and the early 1860s prior to the American Civil War.

Since the Civil War was over in 1865, and Kansas had been a state since 1861, I have to question the accuracy of this part of the article's history section. If three men bought the paper in 1873, I think that, if they still considered themselves to be 'border ruffians' in the established sense, they were probably a little out of touch!

Comments? Am I wrong on this? (I grew up in Kansas, and always learned that it was a remarkably peaceful and prosperous state after the war, despite the 'bloody' nature of its prior history....)

itinerant_tuna (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)