>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 shiftin

>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.