4 ms·

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 las

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.

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.