The NYT accurately reports the death of a Mormon leader who worked against women's and gay rights. This blogger does not deny the accuracy of this but thinks th

The NYT accurately reports the death of a Mormon leader who worked against women's and gay rights. This blogger does not deny the accuracy of this but thinks this is an unimportant part of the Mormon leader's life, not worthy of mention. Of lower priority than the standardization of the three hour sermon for example. Regardless, the relative importance of theses issues is his _opinion_ . And 180,000 saints agree (the author and Mormoms generally refer to themselves as saints). But it is still an _opinion_ by a group who are so opposed to gay rights, they continue to oppose a pro-equality supreme court decision that included four conservative justices. Presumably the many millions of "non-saints" this discrimination works against in daily life have an opposite _opinion_ about this issues' importance. The blogger, also accuses the NYT of being click bait. The NYT's title was "Thomas Monson, President of the Mormon Church, Dies at 90". The blogger titles his post "Do Not Trust Journalism" stretching what is an accurate report whose topic ordering he does not like, to imply every story in the NYT and indeed all journalism is deceitful. For example, Reuters had the same title. I too could become an obscure blogger with religio-emotionally shaped opinions and clickbait titles if I posted a one side response article titled "Mormons Oppose Free Press". Such a story would be as unworthy of serious attention as this one. But instead, this story is taken seriously. An indication of how far down the anti-press, anti-reality, pro-religious-nationalism rabbit hole we have fallen. A result of a trend where tales from the most obscure parts of the web are sought out to match the readers preconceived opinions and then taken as complete gospel over all else regardless of implausibility or internal inconsistency. Religions and certain secular leaders and their followers often dislike the press and much of literature, it will never be too hard to find someone somewhere claiming things they don't like are deception and thus presumably "evil". For example in Italy at this same period, you will find outraged denunciation of press "lying" criticism of Padre Pio. Conversely, it would be nice to talk with clear headed people about a solution to the rise of religious-nationalism including its war on the press rather than debating obscure right wing blog's cry of "Lügenpresse". Just as it's nice to talk to informed people about climate without repeatedly facing a stream of deniers. Ultimately I image many will decide that truth is between these two: that reality lays halfway between the uncomfortable facts they learn and the things that they wish were true.