4 ms·

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, whi

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.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  >The author's point is that the obituary only mentioned recent events, ignoring the rest of his career. But that isn't true: it is the _blogger_ who is shifting the facts to mold opinions In addition to has lobbying against lgbt and women, the article covers his birth, earliest job, naval career, university degree with honors, wife children and business. It mentions his 1950 bishop appointment, his visits to service men in the Korean war, his 1963 promotion, his presidency, and the expansion of the church under his leadership. The article even literally says "he embraced humanitarian causes with Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups supporting homeless shelters, food banks, nursing homes and disaster relief efforts in the United States and abroad." When the blogger claims it only discusses recent events, he is, at best, mistaken. Of course it does not emphasizes or order them in the way the blogger wants which is not surprising in that he would like his religious leader portrayed more positively. Other people, on the other hand are not interested in having articles honed to conform to the desires of a religious group. Luckily, he has a church run paper he can read and the rest of us have a less religious centered source. Which is exactly how it is supposed to be. What is less clear is why the Deseret News (and other rightist papers) receive so little pressure to change, while the NYT receives a continuous stream of denunciation even from the highest government leaders. But, as you say, absolutely no-one has to read a particular news paper, that is part of a free press. The other part is that the press be free from government interference.
rayiner 7y ago
> 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. I don’t think that’s obvious at all. To use a different example, I think people shouldn’t be discriminated against based on their skin color. (This is maybe self serving based on the fact that I’m a brown guy.) But I’m not going to even bother to read an obituary for Bill Shockley or James Watson that starts with a discussion of their racist views rather than their science. It’s fine to add it somewhere below the fold, but to make it the central theme (as the obituary in question did with Monson) would be bad journalism and leave the reader ignorant about the historical significant of the men.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  Watson's bigotry was not a key feature of his legacy. It was confined to some comments that would hardly directly impact anyone. And he resigned after it. Contrasted with his discoveries that will benefit all humanity forever. To a reasonable person, this is obviously more defining than his ineffectual coarse statements at the end of his career. Conversely, Monson was the leader of a relatively small religious group which he worked to benefit in roughly the standard manner. But he also used his considerable power to directly lobby and negatively affect thousands of people far outside his own religion. He certainly did not resign over this but worked continuously and unapologetic. So as you say, it'd be pretty ridiculous to portray Watson's core legacy was bigotry. But clearly reasonable people can disagree about Monson's legacy. Especially those who were directly affected. Rather than a scientist, I think a better comparison would be other religious or maybe political leaders. Elsewhere I point out complaints about Jefferson Davis' historic portrayal. Another might be Saint Louis of France. Or Pope Gregory VII, reformer and which hunter. (For that matter even the city of Salem Mass is still defined by its lunacy 300 years ago.) Trump's obituary will either list the impeachment first or not, either at length or not. Either way someone will _call_ it biased but that doesn't mean it is.

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.

TomMckenny 7y ago
>The author's point is that the obituary only mentioned recent events, ignoring the rest of his career. But that isn't true: it is the _blogger_ who is shifting the facts to mold opinions In addition to has lobbying against lgbt and women, the article covers his birth, earliest job, naval career, university degree with honors, wife children and business. It mentions his 1950 bishop appointment, his visits to service men in the Korean war, his 1963 promotion, his presidency, and the expansion of the church under his leadership. The article even literally says "he embraced humanitarian causes with Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups supporting homeless shelters, food banks, nursing homes and disaster relief efforts in the United States and abroad." When the blogger claims it only discusses recent events, he is, at best, mistaken. Of course it does not emphasizes or order them in the way the blogger wants which is not surprising in that he would like his religious leader portrayed more positively. Other people, on the other hand are not interested in having articles honed to conform to the desires of a religious group. Luckily, he has a church run paper he can read and the rest of us have a less religious centered source. Which is exactly how it is supposed to be. What is less clear is why the Deseret News (and other rightist papers) receive so little pressure to change, while the NYT receives a continuous stream of denunciation even from the highest government leaders. But, as you say, absolutely no-one has to read a particular news paper, that is part of a free press. The other part is that the press be free from government interference.

rayiner 7y ago

> 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. I don’t think that’s obvious at all. To use a different example, I think people shouldn’t be discriminated against based on their skin color. (This is maybe self serving based on the fact that I’m a brown guy.) But I’m not going to even bother to read an obituary for Bill Shockley or James Watson that starts with a discussion of their racist views rather than their science. It’s fine to add it somewhere below the fold, but to make it the central theme (as the obituary in question did with Monson) would be bad journalism and leave the reader ignorant about the historical significant of the men.

TomMckenny 7y ago
Watson's bigotry was not a key feature of his legacy. It was confined to some comments that would hardly directly impact anyone. And he resigned after it. Contrasted with his discoveries that will benefit all humanity forever. To a reasonable person, this is obviously more defining than his ineffectual coarse statements at the end of his career. Conversely, Monson was the leader of a relatively small religious group which he worked to benefit in roughly the standard manner. But he also used his considerable power to directly lobby and negatively affect thousands of people far outside his own religion. He certainly did not resign over this but worked continuously and unapologetic. So as you say, it'd be pretty ridiculous to portray Watson's core legacy was bigotry. But clearly reasonable people can disagree about Monson's legacy. Especially those who were directly affected. Rather than a scientist, I think a better comparison would be other religious or maybe political leaders. Elsewhere I point out complaints about Jefferson Davis' historic portrayal. Another might be Saint Louis of France. Or Pope Gregory VII, reformer and which hunter. (For that matter even the city of Salem Mass is still defined by its lunacy 300 years ago.) Trump's obituary will either list the impeachment first or not, either at length or not. Either way someone will _call_ it biased but that doesn't mean it is.