I just read it, and the "positive" stuff is in the last half of the article. Basically, the first several paragraphs are about some relatively niche recent even

I just read it, and the "positive" stuff is in the last half of the article. Basically, the first several paragraphs are about some relatively niche recent events, mostly focusing on gay/lgbt policies (didn't mention the impact of that until near the end), women, and changes to missionary age. It felt like it was intended to drive a specific narrative until the tone changes a bit near the end of the article. Newspaper articles tend to start with the most relevant points first, and then expand as the article continues, and which details get put where are very important. I often read only the first few paragraphs unless I'm very interested in the details, so it makes sense that someone would be frustrated by the choice of what to put in the first few paragraphs. If I were to write this piece, I would mention the focus on working with other religions for mutual charitable goals (last couple of paragraphs) and emphasis on caring for widows (his personal focus) along with recent events (lgbt policy change, for example) since that more completely communicates his legacy. Him "not bending" to a relatively small protest isn't particularly relevant to his legacy and perhaps belongs further down the article. The obituary doesn't need to be positive, but it should be a relatively diverse view of his legacy, and the beginning is especially important to that, and that is where I think this article failed. I don't expect a newspaper to sugarcoat someone's life, but nor do I think it's acceptable to put mostly negative things at the beginning and leave the positive for later where most readers won't read. The beginning should be a relatively comprehensive view of the subject matter that covers good and bad in roughly the same ratio as the rest of the article, which should have a relatively unbiased selection of facts from the subject matter.