> but if they were true then they were news I don't think that's a complete definition of what's "news." Imagine if Trump died tomorrow and the NYT posted an o

> but if they were true then they were news I don't think that's a complete definition of what's "news." Imagine if Trump died tomorrow and the NYT posted an obituary saying "Donald Trump, the real-estate developer who built a successful resort in Florida but struggled to keep a casino in Atlantic City alive, died at age 73 in Washington, DC, where he was traveling for work." Nothing in this sentence is untrue, but it would be fair to criticize it. (And it wouldn't be fair to say "Republicans are criticizing it because they don't like hearing that he wasn't that successful in real estate.") The job of a journalist is to say what's important for people to know. This story is alleging that the NYT obituary for Monson did not successfully focus on the most important things, not simply that it told things that weren't favorable. (That said, another comment here fro 'lalaland1125 argues that, in fact, the LDS Church's attitudes towards women and towards same-sex marriage had an influence on America and the world beyond anything that Monson did within his religion, and so the NYT did focus on the important things, which I think is a fair counterpoint. But that's different from saying that the obituary is fine simply because it's true.)