If you look at the original obituary, it seems most of the negative stuff is at the beginning of the article, with the positive stuff left for later on in the a

If you look at the original obituary, it seems most of the negative stuff is at the beginning of the article, with the positive stuff left for later on in the article. Monson did a lot of things that most would agree are "good" that impacted many inside and outside the church, yet we don't get any of that until the last half of the article, and many of the things covered in the first few paragraphs only affect members of the church, and thus aren't particularly notable for those outside the church. Also, many of the things in the article relate to activities of the church that don't really have anything to do with the life of the person in question. For example, did Monson have anything to do with polygamy? Yet coverage of polygamy was multiple paragraphs, with the relevant portion being Monson's efforts to increase transparency of church history. If anything, polygamy should be a casual mention here. The author of this piece isn't saying the article should or shouldn't have mentioned something for fairness, the author is arguing that the obituary was lazy at best or intentionally negative at worst. I expect journalists to be able to learn enough about a subject to give a fair report that covers multiple important viewpoints and to stay on topic, yet this obituary felt like it shoehorned negativity where it didn't really belong, almost like the author had a bone to pick, but tried to stay somewhat objective. Events should be given emphasis to the degree that they are relevant to the subject matter and hand, and I felt this article didn't do a good job at that. I'm getting tired of trying to figure out when a journalist actually knows enough about a subject to make reading their articles worthwhile. In this case it's fairly unimportant (the man is dead afterall), but it leaves me wondering if they're going to do the same thing on other topics, like Trump's impeachment or election news. Why should I subscribe to a news source that doesn't actually dig in to the subjects it covers?