3 ms·

> Journalists focus on the most attention grabbing tidbit In this case, the NYT's title was "Thomas Monson, President of the Mormon Church, Dies at 90" But the

> Journalists focus on the most attention grabbing tidbit In this case, the NYT's title was "Thomas Monson, President of the Mormon Church, Dies at 90" But the blog's title is "Do Not Trust Journalism" >they double down on their position But what the reported on Monson is true! They did not add flattering points the way the church wanted because this is how a free-press in a non-theocracy works!

compiler-guy 7y ago
Except the criticism the article levels isn’t a lack of positivity. Rather it claims that the article ignores the most salient points of a fifty year career in favor of two comparatively recent developments. It even points out the losing battle with the Boy Scouts that serves similar political ends as the points it mentioned. Whether or not any of this is accurate, I have no idea. But he wasn’t arguing for hagiography.
- nraynaud 7y ago
  Plus I don’t think spreading a crazy sect in places that had mostly gotten rid of religion was really to be put on the credit of the person.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Religion was an important force in defeating communism: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244&context=srhonors_theses https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12.... The beachheads established by people like Monson are a huge credit to them.
    - TomMckenny 7y ago
      I think his followers maybe (accidentally?) dissembling: He only became president of the Quorum six years _after_ the iron curtain fell. And Mormons account for well less than 0.1% of Eastern Europeans. So to say he had something to do with it is another reason to be suspicious of those saying wanting to change his obituary.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  But what constitutes the most salient points is a matter of opinion. Which explains the considerable length of the NYT obituary[1] In such a lengthy piece, which omitted items could the blogger think were more important than the boy scout lobbing? Because that did affect quite a few thousand lives. Of course to those who don't think gay's have a legitimate claim to rights, emphasizing discrimination is just a political attack on an otherwise good guy. Just as Fifty years ago bringing up a "good" man's discrimination against African American would be called politically liberal bias. Just as a hundred years before that the legality of Mormonism was merely a political topic, completely unimportant when describing the overall charter of a man. Those who feel that lgbt people _do_ have these rights will obviously think those who act against those rights are crucially defined by that opposition. For contrast, consider an extremely philanthropic atheist had worked hard to keep Mormons out of the boy scouts. Should the NYT down play that or would it shameless biased and political to mention it? It turns out, the NYT wrote a lengthy obituary covering Monson's acts and including boy scout lobbing. And since that last is of extreme interest to millions of people, it certainly qualifies as important enough to be in a paper. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-monson-dies.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-monson-...
  - beatgammit 7y ago
    The author's point is that the obituary only mentioned recent events, ignoring the rest of his career. Most obituaries don't restrict themselves to only the last few years of a person's life, they tend to discuss a range of notable events throughout their life. The fact that the NYT merely focused on events within the last few years implies that they didn't dig very deeply. I don't read newspapers because I want to read something that fits my worldview, I read newspapers to get information so I can form my own opinion. To do this, I need dependable information that covers enough of the subject matter that my opinion is reasonable. The freedom of the press absolutely protects their right to release whatever they want, but that doesn't mean I have to continue reading a paper that shows poor journalistic standards. If they're willing to stake their reputation on putting down a recently deceased church leader without bothering to read much into his life, I question the integrity of their articles on more important topics. I would much rather the NYT not cover something if they're not going to put in the effort to cover it well. I have considered subscribing to the NYT in the past, and this highlights a few reasons why I may want to avoid doing so. I'm interested in the author's opinion of other respected newspapers to see if any of them are more deserving of my attention.
- tabtab 7y ago
  It's hard to judge without actually seeing an example of what it "should look like". If one thinks it should be long, then they should make a strong case for why this person deserves a longer-than-normal write-up. NYTimes typically goes by what they were in the news for, for good or bad, not give personal life stories or resumes, beyond quick summaries. They are a "news" service, after all. If social-political controversies are brought up, then both sides would probably have to be addressed, which may not always come out flattering from a member's perspective. The church has been staunchly against LGBTQ rights/progress, and generally believe women should be home-makers. Thus the org would probably come out looking like religious troglodytes (from a centrist reader's perspective). It would open the red/blue Culture War Pandora's box. Thus, be careful what you wish for.

compiler-guy 7y ago

Except the criticism the article levels isn’t a lack of positivity. Rather it claims that the article ignores the most salient points of a fifty year career in favor of two comparatively recent developments. It even points out the losing battle with the Boy Scouts that serves similar political ends as the points it mentioned. Whether or not any of this is accurate, I have no idea. But he wasn’t arguing for hagiography.

nraynaud 7y ago
Plus I don’t think spreading a crazy sect in places that had mostly gotten rid of religion was really to be put on the credit of the person.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Religion was an important force in defeating communism: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244&context=srhonors_theses https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12.... The beachheads established by people like Monson are a huge credit to them.
  - TomMckenny 7y ago
    I think his followers maybe (accidentally?) dissembling: He only became president of the Quorum six years _after_ the iron curtain fell. And Mormons account for well less than 0.1% of Eastern Europeans. So to say he had something to do with it is another reason to be suspicious of those saying wanting to change his obituary.
TomMckenny 7y ago
But what constitutes the most salient points is a matter of opinion. Which explains the considerable length of the NYT obituary[1] In such a lengthy piece, which omitted items could the blogger think were more important than the boy scout lobbing? Because that did affect quite a few thousand lives. Of course to those who don't think gay's have a legitimate claim to rights, emphasizing discrimination is just a political attack on an otherwise good guy. Just as Fifty years ago bringing up a "good" man's discrimination against African American would be called politically liberal bias. Just as a hundred years before that the legality of Mormonism was merely a political topic, completely unimportant when describing the overall charter of a man. Those who feel that lgbt people _do_ have these rights will obviously think those who act against those rights are crucially defined by that opposition. For contrast, consider an extremely philanthropic atheist had worked hard to keep Mormons out of the boy scouts. Should the NYT down play that or would it shameless biased and political to mention it? It turns out, the NYT wrote a lengthy obituary covering Monson's acts and including boy scout lobbing. And since that last is of extreme interest to millions of people, it certainly qualifies as important enough to be in a paper. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-monson-dies.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-monson-...
- beatgammit 7y ago
  The author's point is that the obituary only mentioned recent events, ignoring the rest of his career. Most obituaries don't restrict themselves to only the last few years of a person's life, they tend to discuss a range of notable events throughout their life. The fact that the NYT merely focused on events within the last few years implies that they didn't dig very deeply. I don't read newspapers because I want to read something that fits my worldview, I read newspapers to get information so I can form my own opinion. To do this, I need dependable information that covers enough of the subject matter that my opinion is reasonable. The freedom of the press absolutely protects their right to release whatever they want, but that doesn't mean I have to continue reading a paper that shows poor journalistic standards. If they're willing to stake their reputation on putting down a recently deceased church leader without bothering to read much into his life, I question the integrity of their articles on more important topics. I would much rather the NYT not cover something if they're not going to put in the effort to cover it well. I have considered subscribing to the NYT in the past, and this highlights a few reasons why I may want to avoid doing so. I'm interested in the author's opinion of other respected newspapers to see if any of them are more deserving of my attention.
tabtab 7y ago
It's hard to judge without actually seeing an example of what it "should look like". If one thinks it should be long, then they should make a strong case for why this person deserves a longer-than-normal write-up. NYTimes typically goes by what they were in the news for, for good or bad, not give personal life stories or resumes, beyond quick summaries. They are a "news" service, after all. If social-political controversies are brought up, then both sides would probably have to be addressed, which may not always come out flattering from a member's perspective. The church has been staunchly against LGBTQ rights/progress, and generally believe women should be home-makers. Thus the org would probably come out looking like religious troglodytes (from a centrist reader's perspective). It would open the red/blue Culture War Pandora's box. Thus, be careful what you wish for.