Or convicted ecoterrorist? The Seattle Times prefers the first label, but the second label is more appropriate for this story.
Briana Waters, a California woman convicted in March of assisting in the 2001 arson that destroyed the University of Washington's Urban Horticulture Center, was sentenced this morning to six years in prison.
The reporters do note that the fire did cause more than $6 million in damages, or rather that "prosecutors say" that the fire did that much damage. (As if there was any doubt about the matter.) But Mike Carter and Nancy Bartley don't mention two other significant facts: The ecoterrorists attacked the center because they thought the scientists there were doing genetic engineering — they weren't. And at least one scientist lost much of his life's work in the fire — which I think is a tragedy, even if he isn't a "violin teacher".
Slanted stories such as this one have persuaded me that I simply can not trust any stories on the environment from "mainstream" news sources. The stories are often wrong, in large ways and small, and they are almost always biased, sometimes grossly.
Cross posted at Jim MIller on Politics.
More: The Seattle PI did a somewhat more balanced story. And the New York Times — bless their evil little hearts — did the story right. Here's their headline: "Washington: Ecoterrorist Sentenced to Six Years".
Posted by Jim Miller at June 20, 2008 08:27 AM | Email ThisNext on the list for indictment should be Al Gore, for conspiracy to commit fraud and for shameless profiteering at the expense of humanity.
Posted by: Saltherring on June 20, 2008 08:42 AMWhen I asked what was wrong with the paper the reply I got was, “MEN cause acid rain” not Man but Men.
That is it, no more Public Schools; they do not get my support, my vote or my children.
Haters of mankind and mankind's achievements like Waters deserve every minute they will spend in jail.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 20, 2008 09:05 AMhttp://video.nbc11.com/player/?id=266753
Posted by: JDH on June 20, 2008 09:16 AMWOW, all I can say is WOW!
This is your typical dem/lib.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 20, 2008 09:47 AMIn the minds of the left, destruction of humans, properties, ideas is often justified by some righteousness as an animal cause of whatever, but that does not change the fact that those actions are illegal and immoral.
The newspaper is still clinging to this type of justification, even when there is none. A is A. Arson is Arson.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 20, 2008 10:15 AMI can see why Eric wants to have the press only talk about the crimes people have been convicted of, and not about anything else whatsoever the convicted felon may have done during their lives.
For example, just think how much nicer Republicans would feel if Jack Abramoff was simply referred to as a felon convicted in two different fraud cases -- and conveniently omitted Abramoff's active involvement in Republican politics and lobbying for more than 25 years.
Or if Tom DeLay were simply referred to as a defendant accused of money laundering and campaign finance violations -- conveniently omitting DeLay's service in the U.S. House, his tenure as Republican Majority Leader, and his other involvement in Republican politics.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 20, 2008 10:40 AMDude. Shut up already.
Posted by: jimg on June 20, 2008 10:48 AMThe headline's pretty important, don't you think? Using your examples, what if the headline in the Abramoff conviction article said "Magnamimous Benefactor Jack Abramoff", or "Experienced Statesman Tom Delay". Would you think that was fair too?
By describing her as "Violin Teacher" it distorts her crimes as someone who was a victim of circumstance.
Posted by: Palouse on June 20, 2008 10:54 AMDid she write a paper consistent with the problem statement? Was it properly constructed, sources properly quoted, no grammatical errors, no spelling errors, etc. etc?
Posted by: BA on June 20, 2008 11:15 AMZIP! as usual.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 20, 2008 11:32 AMJim, just be glad Richard isn't within lunging distance.
It seems to me that if the article would have listed the rationale the eco-terrorists used for starting the fire, THAT would be more of a arguement that they were defending the convicted criminal.
Am I missing some key piece of incriminating evidence that makes the case of media bias?
Posted by: Splinter on June 20, 2008 12:31 PMViolin Teacher sentenced to six years in UW arson
and
Eco-terrorist sentenced to six years in UW arson
Once you participate in an act of terrorism, your regular occupation is no longer relevant.
Posted by: Palouse on June 20, 2008 12:45 PMBut not compared to the people who actually torched the building. They all worked a plea bargain and will be out before the non-genetically altered alders bloom next spring.
Which brings up this amazing fact. 97% of criminal cases employ a plea bargain.
Our prosecutors consider the plea bargain the best method to be home by 4:30 PM in the afternoon, and to keep our jail cells more open, airy and pleasant for the inmates.
Gary Ridgeway, 47 time murderer, received a plea bargain and spared his own life. His plea bargain should have looked like this: For each murder you confess to, your execution date is extended by a day or two, and you can choose your method of execution.
The Horticulture arsonists plea bargains should have looked like this: Reduction in full damage re-payments reduced by the savings in court costs.
Afterthought. How many violin students did Brian have?
Posted by: Bart Cannon on June 20, 2008 12:54 PMAccording to other articles that I read, Waters was a resident of Olympia when the arson occurred. She was a former grad student at Evergreen State College.
Why aren't there investigations into why Evergreen seems to produce an unusual amount of these troublemakers? What are they being taught there?
(Next time Jim Miller could try actually reading the current edition of the Seattle Times before spouting off about their alleged editorial bias. The story Jim linked to was from YESTERDAY'S instant update story posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. after the sentencing hearing yesterday morning.
If Miller had picked up this morning's Seattle Times, or looked at today's internet edition of the Seattle Times, he would have seen a far different headline. One that he probably would not object to at all.
Sometimes the instant update stories posted only on the internet during the day have unusual headlines. But the regular copy editors do their best to improve them before the paper is actually printed and posted on the website for the next day's regular edition.)
Seattle Times
Friday, June 20, 2008 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
UW ARSONIST, BRIANA WATERS, SENTENCED TO 6 YEARS
By Nancy Bartley and Mike Carter
Seattle Times staff reporters
TACOMA -- In the end, the 250 letters of support, an impassioned plea by her mother and Briana Waters' own tears did not spare her from prison for her role in the 2001 arson of the University of Washington's Center for Urban Horticulture.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008008001_uwarson20m.html
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 20, 2008 02:01 PMWas this supposed to be some kind of comeback? You really nailed him, Jim!
Speaking Democrat: A Primer by Rep. McCotter
Posted by: JDH on June 20, 2008 02:37 PMWas she convicted of terrorism, or just arson?
Posted by: Zeeb on June 20, 2008 02:53 PMFor a better understanding thehim, watch this video of how today's media would have covered D-Day.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 20, 2008 03:00 PMAnd obviously the Times and P-I don't either. I think most conservatives would describe anyone who participated in an act of terrorism (and that's what it was, regardless of what she was actually convicted of), as a terrorist.
If you know someone is about to commit an act of terrorism, and you help them by driving them to the airport, or keep a look out for them (as she did), do you consider that person a terrorist? I do. That headline should have read "eco-terrorist", or at the minimum, what the Times changed it too, "Arsonist".
Posted by: Palouse on June 20, 2008 04:00 PMNICE throw Jim.... God I'm loving this! LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 20, 2008 04:01 PMWe see headlines like, "Teacher sentenced to prison for rape of student" on a fairly regular basis. And it never had occured to me that by providing the occupation of the offender, the writer is somehow dimenishing the seriousness of the crime committed.
All I'm saying is that I don't see a difference from the example I give above and, "Violin Teacher sentenced to six years in UW arson". I just don't see the big deal, but maybe y'all just need something to wring your hands over today.
Posted by: Splinter on June 20, 2008 04:25 PMThe ones the builders couldn't sell.
No? Ok...
Posted by: John Bailo on June 20, 2008 04:44 PMAs the writer above very intelligently said, this woman robbed a group of smart, productive people of years of their research. She might have robbed us of research that could save lives and cure diseases.
We all know she'll be out in half her sentence. She'll be out in less time than takes a teenager to graduate from high school. Less time than a soldier signing up today will be in the military.
And $6.1 million in restituition? That probably doesn't begin to cover the cost of fire and rescue not to mention lost property, and we all know there's zero chance she'll ever pay it back anyway.
If she'd have robbed a bank she'd be in longer and got less. (Guns and fire are both weapons.) If she has evaded taxes she would get longer.
I guess as a teacher, if she have molested a child she'd either still be teaching or on paid administrative leave while being shielded by the teachers union, so we should take what justice we can get right?
It's easy to point out the difference between your example and the headline: the teacher and student in your 'example' are 'related'. The teacher is teaching the student, and that relationship set up the situation in which the teacher then carried out the crime. The occupation of teacher is actually relevant and related to the crime in question. The crime may not have been able to be carried out by the teacher if that teacher was not teaching that student. Otherwise, it'd be 'Local adult' or 'Adult friend' or 'Adult relative'. If an adult takes advantage of a child, but is not the teacher, do they write 'Accountant rapes child' or 'Systems Administrator rapes student'? No - the occupation has nothing to do with enabling the crime, as it does with your teacher example.
I saw that headline, and it was clearly inappropriate and biased. What does her occupation as a Violin Teacher have to do with the crime or the story in question? Nothing, it's a tangential anecdote. They could have just as easily written 'Seahawks Fan Convicted of UW Arson' or 'Frequent Shopper at Trader Joe's Convicted of Arson'.
I don't understand how folks can't see how ridiculous that headline really is.
Richard Pope,
Nobody cares what you think. Really. It's true. Your tree is falling in the forest, and we're only listening in order to laugh at you.
Posted by: Larry on June 20, 2008 05:35 PMMy pet peeve is the title composer for Letters to the Editor.
The Times title composer for LEs is Diane Albert. She is an outrageously vain pun addict. Her punned up esoteric titles always demean the sincere efforts and contributions of the LE writes.
The P-I title composer shows far more respect for the LE contributors.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on June 20, 2008 06:24 PMJim Miller posted this thread at 8:27 a.m. this morning (Friday, June 20, 2008).
The regular Friday internet edition of the Seattle Times (with the headline: "UW ARSONIST, BRIANA WATERS, SENTENCED TO 6 YEARS") was available on-line at 12:00 a.m. today June 20, 2008 -- a little over eight hours before Jim posted about the earlier story.
In today's print edition (delivered about 4:00 a.m. in the morning), there are two headlines on this story. On Page B1, it says: "In this section ... UW ARSONIST: Briana Waters gets six years in prison > B2". On Page B2, it says: "UW arsonist sentenced to 6 years", followed by smaller headlines of "$6 million in restitution" and "2001 fire at Urban Horticulture Center".
I think today's headlines are considerably better from a journalistic point of view. "UW arsonist" seems to catch more attention than "violin teacher". And Waters has a much more defined public reputation as an arsonist, than as a violin teacher.
On the other hand, the headline in yesterday's internet update wasn't intentionally biased, as far as I see it. It clearly identified her as a criminal convicted of arson.
However, "Violin teacher sentenced to six years in prison for UW arson" would have been too many words to use in the print edition. Even with all six columns being used for the story and its headline, "UW arsonist sentenced to 6 years" was as many words as could be comfortably fit across the top of Page B2.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 20, 2008 06:29 PMAnd I understood Jim's point.
However, the Times is responsible for the content they publish, be it online or print. I saw the same headline that drew Jim's attention.
Their need to out-liberal the P-I is going to cost them the family business. How many employees of the Times must be laid off before the madness stops?
Posted by: thefifth on June 20, 2008 07:14 PMAlso, did you follow the trial?
Posted by: Luigi Giovanni on June 20, 2008 07:29 PM"Scum of the earth Eco-Terrorist receives light sentence"
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 20, 2008 08:01 PMPope - the headline existed, that's all that matters. And it still exists in the P-I. The Times came to their senses, kudos to them.
Posted by: Palouse on June 20, 2008 08:48 PMAt least, unlike the coward Briana Waters, this gal is willing to put her own life on the line for the tree, rather than simply destroying someone else's property. Not that isn't also useless and incredibly stupid and risky.
But either way, note the tactics of the left. If they don't get what they want, the use force, not persuasion. This is why these people deserve harsh sentences.
These people are NOT "scum of the earth" as you mockingly refer to our supposed opinions.
They are martyrs in a Holy War. They are BETTER than us!
The jail time will only succeed in giving them a fabulous cut-rate bargain in battle training and strategy. And it will add fuel to their contempt for us heathens.
The planning for their next series of crimes is already underway. And they will be all the more effective and all the more filled with self righteous zeal.
Please indicate what a proper newspaper headline should look like at that point. Don't forget the phrase "convicted eco-terrorists" and the word AGAIN.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on June 21, 2008 03:51 AMMy choice for headline includes the phrase:
"SOCIOPATHIC ARSONIST".
"Eco-Terrorist" in a headline would only amplify their martyrdom.
"Violin Teacher" would suggest "good person at odds with a misguided society".
"Arsonist" suggests mindless fire lover or insurance scam, when in fact there is a clear and holy ideology in play.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on June 21, 2008 10:37 AM