4 ms·
It probably is the whole point of the article, but chastising the NYT for writing one perspective on a subject to promote an agenda then going and writing anoth
by ausbah 7y ago
It probably is the whole point of the article, but chastising the NYT for writing one perspective on a subject to promote an agenda then going and writing another differing perspective promoting a competing agenda is a bit contradictory.
The author here bashes the NYT because they don't show what he sees as the "good" parts of the Mormon leader - coming from a Mormon perspective, but the whole reason they don't is because they are inherently competing perspectives.
I think its also worth considering what exactly constitutes journalism and the audience a publication is writing for. An obituary isn't just a piece saying "X person is now deceased", it is more like "X person is now deceased AND here is a brief summary of their life". The former is strictly news, the later is news with somewhat subjective attachment (still has facts, but which ones you choose and in what order paint a certain picture). That somewhat subjective attachment is going to be dictated by the audience one is writing for, a liberal audience is going to get a liberal opinion (here painting the Mormon leader in a negative right) and vice versa for a Mormon audience. I do not think this is wrong, it is only natural - you just have to know when something is something is being used to have a specific slant (even when using facts).
As for my opinion, Thomas Monson and the LDS church are backwards group of people whose influence in American society I am happy to see slowly piddle away.
- beatgammit 7y agoI don't understand why reporting "competing" information is a problem. I'm not reading a news piece to get the author's opinion on something, I'm reading a news piece to get enough information to form my own opinion on something. Therefore, I expect some good with the bad, and if I only get one or the other, the bias in the news organization becomes very clear and I'm less likely to continue reading their articles. For example, when reading about Trump's impeachment, I care not only about the evidence against him, but also his defense concerning that evidence and an idea of the strength of both sides of the argument. If a newspaper continually stresses one side of an argument, I'll stop reading that newspaper. I've been on the fence about the NYT, and stuff like this doesn't help my opinion about that paper. Obviously one article about a subject that isn't very relevant to most people won't be the only reason I'd avoid a paper, but it is telling that they're willing to stake their reputation on an apparently poorly researched obituary.
- fsh 7y agoI would be genuinely interested how you come to the conclusion that the obituary is poorly researched. The text itself lists a number of sources and the editorial shows an extensive research process.