I love telling people I write for The Chronicle. As a Mormon and political conservative, most people I tell?both liberals and conservatives?seem surprised that I do it. They’re surprised because the Chrony has a reputation of being less than kind to conservatives, and specifically to Mormons. One conservative friend said, “I’m surprised they even let you in the office.”

It was exactly one year and three days ago that I first entered the Chrony office. Two months after that, the paper published my first column. And now, since anniversaries are a time for reflection, and with a year of Chrony experience under my belt, I’m going to take a stab at answering a timeless question: Is The Chronicle biased against Mormons? Do certain writers use it to take pot shots at Mormons without fear of retribution? Or do Mormon students at the U just take offense too easily?

My answers to these questions are no, yes and sometimes.

I spent my first day in the Chrony office as a writer for the Century, a publication produced by the Latter-day Saint Student Association. I was working on a story about a day in the life of the Chronicle writer. From that day until the present, I have never felt any sort of animosity, ill will, unkindness, bias or exclusion directed toward me from anybody at The Chronicle. I have simply felt like one of the writers, another member of the team, another person in the office fully welcome to say or write what I like and spout off sarcastic commentary at will (a Chrony specialty).

In fact, when the opinion editor first hired me, he thanked me for applying, saying, “We need conservative writers.” Several other staff members made similar comments. Most conservative people I know find this reception a pleasant surprise?but definitely a surprise.

The Chrony’s reputation for leaning liberal didn’t arise out of the dust, however. Earlier this year I spent almost half a day going through editions of The Chronicle dating back to 1960 for an unrelated column. As one would expect, I found arguments against Mormons’ thoughts, actions, ways of life and political persuasions in every year’s paper. I also found arguments defending Mormons’ points of view.

While it seemed more writers?particularly opinion writers?had liberal and/or anti-Mormon sentiments, the difference was not that great. Liberals have not monopolized the Chrony’s pages.

I think the animosity Mormons have felt (and sometimes feel) from Chrony writers is not due to what the writers who criticize them say, but how these writers say it. In writing, tone and connotation often say more than the actual words.

For example, rather than writing, “Conservatives’ stand on pornography limits free speech” and then offering arguments as to why, some columnists seem to have preferred language along the lines of, “The self-righteous right once again wants to bury its head in the sand, clutching to archaic religious texts and pathetically untenable dogmas to protect itself from the big, bad world.”

That is my example. Now listen to a real-life example from Woody Paige, a sports columnist for the Denver Post. On Feb. 12, Paige wrote a column criticizing the Salt Lake Winter Olympics. The column garnered national attention for its content, which most everyone recognized as biased and offensive.

Paige’s column argued that Salt Lake City had “royally screwed up the Olympics,” and that Colorado would reap the benefits of Salt Lake’s errors. Those are valid arguments. But Paige tried to prove his point by writing (among other things): “[Colorado] won’t force you to take a religious brochure at every street corner, make you eat lime Jell O at every meal?ask you to worship a salamander and a seagull, marry three of your mother’s cousins, consider you inferior if you’re not white, a man or heterosexual?[or] require you to square dance and wear weird underwear under your parkas and ski pants.”

None of these comments prove Paige’s point. Rather, they are cheap shots at Mormonism.

Paige apologized for the column two days later. After receiving hundreds of complaints, apparently Paige had a change of heart (his editors surely helped with the turnabout). So 48 hours after calling Salt Lake City “a dog’s breakfast,” Paige apologized, saying: “Sincerely, I’ve enjoyed my stay as a bystander. Utah can be proud of its Olympian effort so far?I am not writing this column under duress or threat. It’s my choice and responsibility.” Salon.com aptly called this apology “adding insult to insincerity.”

Such apologies do about as much healing as a Band-Aid does on a tumor. Equally ineffective is saying insulting things under the guise of humor. Abortion advocates don’t laugh at the term “kid killer.” Christians don’t find humor in the moniker “fundamentalist.”

In some cases, Mormon students at the U just overreact to what some columnist on some day writes, especially if the column simply disagrees with Mormon doctrine or philosophies. In these cases, Mormons who disagree could better help their cause by writing a measured and intelligent letter to the Chrony editor, or by simply reading and then forgetting about the column. In any given year, columnists who have serious issues with Mormonism are few and far between.

While a few Chrony writers and editors might disagree with Mormonism, and while they might express it in a Woody Paige-like fashion, Mormons should not consider The Chronicle?the paper, the publication?as biased. I’ve seen its inner workings, I’ve been to its nether regions and I’ve returned?still conservative, still Mormon and still with respect for those I found there.

Michael welcomes feedback at: [email protected] or send letters to the editor to: [email protected].