
Do Not Trust Journalists – A Mormon Example - barry-cotter
http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2019/12/do-not-trust-journalists-mormon-example.html?m=1
======
dang
All: there's a decent debate about journalism to be had here. Please keep the
comments substantive and within the site guidelines—no flamebait or flamewar.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
finnthehuman
The LDS church is interesting in that it simultaneously large enough and
insular enough to make stark differences in journalistic angles sharp.

Journalism often falls into a trap that puts the cart before the horse. It's
preordained [no pun intended] what type of coverage many events are going to
get. Who among us couldn't guess what the NYT's take is going to be in a
mormon leader's obituary before they write it?

A journo doesn't go into something to figure out "what's the deal with [foo]?"
That won't sell (not to the public, nor their editors). But the reality is
often worse. Journos think they have everything all figured out before they
even investigate. They just need to investigate enough information to slap it
into their story as if they were a algorithm automatically writing a sports
story from the game stats.

edit: I'm editing out an already-vague story about being involved with
something that receives media coverage. I'll just say if you notice how dumb
journos are when they cover subject matter you're a unrelated professional in,
being the "who" in receiving end of news coverage lets you see just how much
they want to draw conclusions for the rest of the world unless you work on
visibility to counter their obvious narrative angles. And the worst thing is,
once this is the game it doesn't matter how right or wrong they are because
organizations are going to fight negative coverage either way.

~~~
inopinatus
> notice how dumb journos are when they cover subject matter

This is a key takeaway that, I suspect, everyone who has ever been
interviewed, covered, or quoted in the press feels.

Every time you see a story in the general media that grossly misrepresents a
subject you know well, remember that feeling. Because for every other topic
covered, I guarantee there is a domain expert feeling as you did.

I’m three for three in terms of regretting journo contact. Whether it was the
local rag or a national broadsheet; misquotation, glib misrepresentation and
sheer fabrication are inevitable results.

Corollary: reserve your greatest mistrust for anyone that openly and actively
courts the media. They are well aware of the outcomes and are manipulating the
game. This includes your in-house PR team and most elected officials,
including the ones you voted for.

~~~
jancsika
> This includes your in-house PR team and most elected officials, including
> the ones you voted for.

Important exception: leakers. (Keep in mind you wrote "mistrust" and not
"skepticism.")

~~~
inopinatus
That’s fair. Too late to edit but _skepticism_ would indeed target the
intended sentiment more precisely.

I’d hesitate to suggest that leakers aren’t playing the same game. Requiring
leakers to be entirely pure in motive and innocent in expectation would be a
false and unfair standard.

------
btilly
I voted for it because it describes a real problem with journalism as it is
practiced today. Journalists focus on the most attention grabbing tidbit that
comes to mind from recent events. They do not attempt to get context on it.
And do not attempt to inform.

Then when it becomes clear that they have screwed up, they double down on
their position because they are important people. They are journalists, and
therefore they are right. At least in their own mind.

But I have _never_ seen journalists report accurately on _any_ story that I
knew well. And their failure to even attempt it causes great harm to the
American public.

Now about the subject in question, as an atheist I oppose the LDS and all it
stands for. However this was a man who made a tremendous impact within the
Church and around the world. While conservative by today's standards, he was
relatively progressive compared to society for most of his life. Even while I
dislike his work against gay marriage, I still applaud his work in rooting
racism out of Mormon theology. And hearing about his real life accomplishments
has left me more informed.

~~~
kick
_But I have never seen journalists report accurately on any story that I knew
well. And their failure to even attempt it causes great harm to the American
public._

What publications do you read? For a random example off the top of my head,
I've found that Glenn Greenwald's reporting is exceptional on topics I know
well.

~~~
rayiner
Literally the first Greenwald article I came across in a Google search was
propaganda: [https://theintercept.com/2019/12/16/evo-morales-interview-
gl...](https://theintercept.com/2019/12/16/evo-morales-interview-glenn-
greenwald). Greenwald heaps praise on Evo Morales, calling his ouster from the
Presidency a “coup.” The story of Morales’ ouster is as follows:

1) In his first term, Morales pushes through a new constitution, which among
other things dissolves the Bolivian Supreme Court. In its place, it creates a
high court comprising judges elected from a slate of candidates appointed by
the legislature controlled by his party. This constitution has a two term
limit.

2) Morales runs for a third term, after getting the high court to rule that
his first term didn’t count since it started before the new constitution.

3) In his third term, he solicits a public referendum asking whether the term
limit should be waived to allow him to run for a fourth term. In a vote that
had very good turn out, the people vote “no.”

4) Morales ignores the referendum. Instead, he goes back to the high court,
which rules that the term limits violate Morales’ “human rights.” The court
allows him to run for a fourth term.

5) Morales wins the election, but the Organization of American States releases
a report finding “overwhelming evidence of vote rigging.” Massive protests
start in response to the report.

6) Morales slowly loses the support of key institutions, including the police.
Many members of his own party resigned. A major labor union called for him to
resign.

7) The account is disputed at this point. Morales supporters contend that the
military then withdrew its support and encouraged him to resign. Morales
opponents say that he ordered the military to crack down on protestors, and
they refused. Even taking Morales’ supporters at face value, at most what
happened is that the military encouraged him to resign after he lost the
support of key institutions and many members of his own party.

8) Claiming that he was deposed in a coup, Morales flees to Mexico.

9) Subsequently, Morales’ party basically told him not to come back.

Aside from hunting at the term limits, Greenwald mentions none of the real
story.

~~~
kick
Morales's oust _was_ a coup by any real definition of the word, and your story
is ignoring reality.

~~~
rayiner
A military coup is where the military overthrows a legally elected government
and seizes power for itself. Morales was illegally and corruptly elected, and
the military did not seize control:
[https://thehill.com/opinion/international/472356-dispelling-...](https://thehill.com/opinion/international/472356-dispelling-
myths-about-the-battle-for-democracy-in-bolivia). It’s not a coup for the
military to withdraw its support for a head of state that’s taking illegal
action. (Consider a similar situation. Trump packs the Supreme Court and runs
for a third term in violation of the term limit. He wins, but in an election
where UN election monitors find “overwhelming evidence” of fraud. Military
officials, who take an oath to defend the constitution, would have a duty to
refuse to accept his authority.)

More to the point, Greenwald omits all the background information necessary
for the reader to decide whether there was a coup. The military didn’t just
one day decide to stop supporting Morales after 14 years. It happened only
after a series of events—illegal actions by Morales and key institutions
abandoning him.

------
rayiner
This article is spot on. New York Times stories are unable to engage on any
subject in its own merits. Everything gets filtered through an increasingly
narrow political lens.

My wife and I belong to a church that disagrees with the LDS church in gay
marriage and ordination of women. But I don’t want to read the obituary of
someone like Monson and have it be about those two issues. There are 16
million Mormons. There is more to their world than those two issues. I don’t
read the news to be given a set of talking points fitting into a particular
narrative, even when I agree with the narrative. I want to understand the
subject on its own terms.

For my own part, as an immigrant from the third world, it’s maddening to read
coverage of foreign events in the New York Times. You can’t understand what’s
going on in the rest of the world through the lens of liberal New York
politics.

~~~
aplummer
> liberal New York politics

I would:

a) imagine something called the NY times to be somewhat skewed to NY.

b) It’s only liberal in America. In any other first world country, it’s right
wing.

~~~
9HZZRfNlpR
The rest of the world is much more conservative on social issues than America?

~~~
skissane
193 UN member states. How many have marriage equality? About 30. So, measured
on that issue, the US is more liberal than approximately 85% of the countries
in the world.

~~~
TomMckenny
Unfortunately, this is just saying the US is more liberal than most 3rd world
countries which is not very flattering.

~~~
rayiner
The US got marriage equality around the same time as other European countries
(in the last 10-15 years). Italy still doesn’t have same sex marriage. The US
does pretty well in terms of LGBT acceptance compared to Europe:
[https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/06/27/does-the-world-
think-i...](https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/06/27/does-the-world-think-its-
lgbt-citizens-are-real-nationals-just-8-percent-of-brits-say-otherwise).

On acceptance of immigrants and race the US is generally to the left of
Europe. The notion of an official language is common in Europe and decried as
racist in the US. The US was earlier in deploying laws against employment
discrimination, and affirmative action than Europe. (France in particular
categorically bans affirmative action.) Things like bans on Islamic head
coverings are routine and widely supported in Europe, but are beyond the
wildest dreams even if Bannon and Trump.

In abortion, the US falls behind because it doesn’t have universal healthcare.
But most states permit abortion much further into the pregnancy than almost
anywhere in Europe. (Sweden at 18 weeks is on the high end. Many countries are
at 12 weeks. The current statutory limit in Georgia is 22 weeks (a federal
judge has blocked the 6 week heartbeat law).

~~~
TomMckenny
Also in press freedom and other civil liberties it is easily comparable to
European countries, which is fantastic.

There are some social issues where the US remains conservative like attitudes
toward nudity and sex as well as religiosity and church attendance and child
punishment. There are more displays of nationalism like school children daily
saying the pledge etc. More significant issues include the death penalty and
mass incarceration. But in fiscal issues, the US is much more conservatives.
Even the party on the "left" houses Bloomberg, Bezos and Soros.

Consumer protection is unimaginably weak by European standards as are
protections for employees. All the "liberal" media outlets have a center-right
market focus. The WSJ is well to the right of Bloomberg Media and the
Economist which themselves are firmly free market. Calls for nationalization
of industries that Europeans long ago switched to non-profit are unheard of in
the States.

Even universal healthcare, which is universally supported by European parties
and much of the third world is a non-starter for Republicans and under endless
debate by Democrats. Government sponsored housing is no longer even discussed
and structures are even demolished. Likewise support for adequate pensions as
well as food and housing for the indigent: "Welfare reform" which was a
reduction in the social safety net, was embraced by B Clinton who is
considered by many in the US to be an extreme liberal.

~~~
rayiner
The agree that the US is more economically conservative than socially
conservative than Europe. (The biggest difference is criminal justice, as you
point out. We are far far right on criminal justice issues.) But I’d pick at a
couple of specific examples. Social Security is actually on the more generous
side compared to most European pension systems. (And attempts to partially
privatize it, as has been done in Sweden, have failed.)

I’d say that the US is to the right of most of Europe when it comes to free
markets at the national level, but to the left at the state and local level.
The US has no appetite for experimenting with markets for big ticket public
services and utilities. The US has among the highest percentage of K-12
education being in public schools in the whole OECD. School vouchers are
common in Europe. Many European cities have privately operated subway systems.
No major US city does.

------
nostromo
I see no problem with how the Times framed the story, and I’m no fan of the
Times.

If Mormons want to oppose same sex marriage and women in leadership, that’s up
to them - but don’t get upset if it’s mentioned in your obituary when you’re
_literally the head of the church_.

The Times however is very, very uneven in how they handle this though. They
will chide Mormons at any opportunity for sexism or homophobia, but refrain
from treating Orthodox Jews or Muslims similarly.

~~~
leftyted
> If Mormons want to oppose same sex marriage and women in leadership, that’s
> up to them - but don’t get upset if it’s mentioned in your obituary when
> you’re literally the head of the church.

I've been reading a book of Umberto Eco essays lately. I really like them. Eco
manages to synthesize many different historical perspectives into some very
general arguments about whichever complicated subject he's discussing.

I think that's basically what the goal of an obituary should be. It should
mention this person's opposition to same-sex marriage and the ordination of
women. But it should also mention other things, some of which are outlined in
this article. Out of all these different perspectives, something like the
truth will emerge.

~~~
beatgammit
Ideally cover significant events from each decade of his life. There's a lot
of material there, and plenty of it has been very impactful. To ignore it
speaks of laziness IMO.

------
fsh
After having read the obituary, I fail to see anything wrong with it. The blog
post does not give any factual errors, and the alleged omissions about the
lifetime achievements of the deceased are actually in the NYT article. The
article is also well sourced and the editorial shows a solid research and
writing process.

The blog post follows a dangerous trend, where people try to discredit the
whole concept of journalism whenever they read something they don't like.

~~~
beatgammit
IDK, I think we really need to have a discussion on what "journalism" means.
Articles are becoming increasingly clickbait, and news agencies seem to be
more biased than in the past. Perhaps the bias is just becoming more obvious
and clickbait is just a natural consequence of increasing competition, but I'm
finding it difficult to find news agencies that I can trust to report in an
unbiased manner.

I just want to subscribe to a few news organizations that have high
journalistic standards so I can get a reasonably complete overview of a
variety of current events. But I feel like I instead have to seek out news
agencies with opposing biases and hope that I didn't miss a bias (e.g. have a
conservative and liberal publication, but what about libertarian, green,
etc?).

Why can't I just subscribe to comprehensive journalism? I want to know all of
the good and bad things about all sides of an issue, not just the side the
author/news agency prefers. Don't tell me how was Monson is without telling me
how good he is. Give me as many competing details and viewpoints as will fit
in the space available and leave the subjectivity to the editorial section.

~~~
fsh
I don't think that discussing about nebulous concepts such as "liberal bias"
is any helpful. Do you have some examples where you felt that for example a
NYT article was missing important information? Which details or viewpoints are
missing from the obituary in your opinion?

------
awinder
The Times ended up following up on the controversy this generated:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/reader-center/thomas-
mons...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/reader-center/thomas-monson-
obituary.html)

It’s clear that this author and others were really peeved by the way the times
covered this, but “don’t trust journalists” is a wrongheaded message imo.
You’re able to dialogue with an individual outlet as shown here. And you’re
able to overlay different news sources on given issues to get a wider picture
if that’s what you want to do. Overall “trust but verify” works exceedingly
well, but there seems like a bit of a degree of grief in this writing.

~~~
criddell
Are there journalists you trust?

~~~
specialist
I trust citing sources.

I trust multiple sourcing.

I trust verified data and leg work.

I trust intellectual honesty (eg updates, errata, retractions).

\--

I was an activist for a while. Election integrity and voter privacy (secret
ballot). I blogged about my efforts. I shared all my work, so people could
factcheck too. I revised my views as I learned more. I tried very hard to
present the alternate views (conclusions) of the people I disagreed with.

It's no different than investigative journalism.

The real trick, the hard part, is figuring out how to fund the work.

~~~
criddell
And if I read your blog I probably wouldn't trust your work either. I have no
way of knowing if you are citing everything or only the sources that support
the story you want to write.

If your point is you should only trust yourself, then that's hard to argue
with.

~~~
specialist
Sure. But then how do you make decisions?

I've resolved this dilemma by settling for True Enough.

I used to be a Popperian. While I still think that's the ideal, in practice it
seems impractical.

Now I'm a prediction engine. Learn enough to feel comfortable making a
decision. If results don't match expectations, go back and update my ruleset,
try again.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

------
ausbah
It probably is the whole point of the article, but chastising the NYT for
writing one perspective on a subject to promote an agenda then going and
writing another differing perspective promoting a competing agenda is a bit
contradictory.

The author here bashes the NYT because they don't show what he sees as the
"good" parts of the Mormon leader - coming from a Mormon perspective, but the
whole reason they don't is because they are inherently competing perspectives.

I think its also worth considering what exactly constitutes journalism and the
audience a publication is writing for. An obituary isn't just a piece saying
"X person is now deceased", it is more like "X person is now deceased AND here
is a brief summary of their life". The former is strictly news, the later is
news with somewhat subjective attachment (still has facts, but which ones you
choose and in what order paint a certain picture). That somewhat subjective
attachment is going to be dictated by the audience one is writing for, a
liberal audience is going to get a liberal opinion (here painting the Mormon
leader in a negative right) and vice versa for a Mormon audience. I do not
think this is wrong, it is only natural - you just have to know when something
is something is being used to have a specific slant (even when using facts).

As for my opinion, Thomas Monson and the LDS church are backwards group of
people whose influence in American society I am happy to see slowly piddle
away.

~~~
beatgammit
I don't understand why reporting "competing" information is a problem. I'm not
reading a news piece to get the author's opinion on something, I'm reading a
news piece to get enough information to form my own opinion on something.
Therefore, I _expect_ some good with the bad, and if I only get one or the
other, the bias in the news organization becomes very clear and I'm less
likely to continue reading their articles.

For example, when reading about Trump's impeachment, I care not only about the
evidence against him, but also his defense concerning that evidence _and_ an
idea of the strength of both sides of the argument. If a newspaper continually
stresses one side of an argument, I'll stop reading that newspaper.

I've been on the fence about the NYT, and stuff like this doesn't help my
opinion about that paper. Obviously one article about a subject that isn't
very relevant to most people won't be the only reason I'd avoid a paper, but
it is telling that they're willing to stake their reputation on an apparently
poorly researched obituary.

~~~
fsh
I would be genuinely interested how you come to the conclusion that the
obituary is poorly researched. The text itself lists a number of sources and
the editorial shows an extensive research process.

------
SahAssar
The money-shot is in the last paragraph:

> That is the lesson of this entire saga. The New York Times defends
> themselves in the name of journalism. They are journalists they tell us, not
> religious propagandists. And with that declaration they reveal the truth: to
> be a journalist is to write, and to write, and seek credit for what you
> write even though you know nothing about those things which you write about.

The point of a journalist is not to write your perspective as a member of a
group, it is to write as one outside a group. This person was expecting the
article/comment/tweet to be written as if from that group, and that is not
journalism, that's more like a documentary.

Imagine if all journalistic articles were written from the perspective within
that group, would that really be a more informational and educational read?

If you disagree with how journalism sees your particular group then perhaps
it's time to think about if this is how that grouping is actually seen from
the outside. If there is a clear dissonance between how you see your group and
how it's seen from the outside, ask yourself why that is.

~~~
ardy42
> The point of a journalist is not to write your perspective as a member of a
> group, it is to write as one outside a group. This person was expecting the
> article/comment/tweet to be written as if from that group, and that is not
> journalism, that's more like a documentary.

There's actually a middle ground here. An obituary should really be a kind of
capsule biography that explains someone how they're seen _inside and outside_
their group. The NYT didn't to that, but rather they dwelled too much on a few
controversies and almost entirely glossed over why and how he rose to the
position he had. There's room for improvement in how they handled this.

------
anigbrowl
_The Atlantic’s McKay Coppins humorously imagined the same treatment being
given to other members of America’s recently deceased: “Hugh Hefner, the
Playboy founder who rebuffed demands that he stop publishing a misogynistic
pornographic magazine and exploiting young women, died at 91. "_

That would be an equally legitimate take.

~~~
briandear
But a take they didn’t chose to take, that’s the point.

~~~
shadowgovt
The author appears to have missed the takes that were actually that (Guardian
was one).

~~~
TomMckenny
He missed quite a few: but of course the author is not writing to inform but
shape opinion of a religious leader.

------
inertiatic
As a European with little knowledge of Mormonism apart from the basics of its
history, this obituary was far more informative of what the religion and its
leadership stands for than the article linked itself.

Most outsiders don't care, at all, what effect a leader had inside a sect, but
how their work affected the outside.

~~~
innocentoldguy
I found the information on their helping the poor and needy, and helping
educate over 100,000 people who otherwise wouldn’t have had that scholastic
opportunity, worthy of report.

~~~
TomMckenny
That information is in the NYT article too. Which is probably why the blogger
did not actually link to it.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-
monson-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-monson-
dies.html)

~~~
scintill76
I don't see anything about the education program in NYT. It doesn't make a
huge difference though.

I scanned through [http://newsdiffs.org/article-
history/https%3A/www.nytimes.co...](http://newsdiffs.org/article-
history/https%3A/www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-monson-
dies.html) as well. Nothing stood out as a fundamental change that would
explain why the blogger's unbiased perception could be different from others'.

------
empath75
There are 25,000 Mormons in New York City. They’re a vanishingly small
percentage of the New York Times’ readership. I think the paper would have
poorly served ita readers by delivering a hagiography for him from the
perspective of his religious followers.

~~~
briandear
Truth matters. And selective editing of the truth to fit an agenda is
journalistic malpractice.

~~~
iron0013
Whitewashing the reputation of a famous person—although it happens all the
time-would be far worse malpractice

~~~
neonate
Whitewashing is hardly the only alternative. A more complete picture,
including all these things, is also possible.

------
ncmncm
I found it amusing that the writer (and journalist) listed opposition to the
Equal Rights Amendment among achievements worth defending.

It still hasn't passed, to all our disgrace. It only needs a few more states
to ratify it.

~~~
gliese1337
Have you read the Equal Rights Amendment?

The idea behind it is nice, but as written it is an absolutely terrible bit of
law, rife with unintended consequences. We already saw what happened with
prohibition; opposition to the ERA is the _right choice_.

~~~
lalaland1125
What exact issues do you have with the Equal Rights Amendment? The amendment
is quite simple. It's just three sentences that state that men and women
should have equal rights.

> Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged
> by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

> Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate
> legislation, the provisions of this article.

> Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of
> ratification.

~~~
gliese1337
All government programs that benefit women suddenly become illegal. No more
mandatory FMLA maternity leave. No more WIC, especially not for single
mothers. Women would have to register for the draft. No more government
support for women's shelters. No more presumption in favor of women in family
courts. No laws requiring female representation. And a huge transfer of
legislative power from the state to the federal level, for no clear benefit.

Now, you could argue that some of those might be good things, but I guarantee
that will not be a universal opinion. And you could argue that, rather than
cutting services for women, we should increase services for men--but the
ammendment does not require that, and are you really ready to gamble that
that's how it would go?

And what about discrimination based on gender--which, after all, is not the
same thing as sex?

~~~
lalaland1125
Yes, all government programs that _exclusively_ benefit women would become
illegal. And, all government programs that exclusively benefit men would also
become illegal. These are not unintended consequences; equality for all sexes
is the explicit purpose of the amendment.

I also just want to note that most of the programs you mention actually
wouldn't be affected. WIC provides food money to single fathers in an equal
fashion to the food money given to single mothers. Similarly, FMLA provides
equal leave for both mothers and fathers. Family courts have already moved
past special treatment of women; they now operate in a best interests of the
child doctrine.

~~~
gliese1337
> These are not unintended consequences

OK, perhaps you personally have thought of all of those consequences and you
actually want them. And you don't care about gender-based discrimination, only
biological sex. But here's another potential side-effect:

The concept of "separate but equal" has already been thoroughly shot down with
regard to racial discrimination. If the ERA were passed, I _guarantee_ you
will see legal challenges to "separate but equal" treatment of the sexes.
Taking that to its logical extreme, that means the ERA could be reasonably
interpreted to mean that it is illegal to have, e.g., separate men's and
women's locker rooms in public schools.

And just imagine how many parents would be up in arms over their daughters
being forced to share a locker room with _teenage boys_.

~~~
belorn
The issue of gendered locker rooms and bathrooms can be reduced to an
economical problem of building personal unisex booths. It is a bit more
expensive, through compared to the budget of building a whole school it is a
very minor increase in construction costs.

So the issue is an 0.(many zeros)1% increase in taxes to address that
particular issue.

------
20191224234044
As a Chinese person, I've often felt that since about 3-4 years ago, NYT's
coverage of almost everything China has become increasingly biased, and is
increasingly targeted not at the government but at making ordinary Chinese
people's lives difficult. However, very few Western people care about this,
since the reports fit in with the narrative that people are already
antecedently inclined to accept. When it's something one likes to hear, truth
can take a back seat (especially when the domain is not one in which it pays
to know the truth - there's not a hard reality you can run into). Therefore
I'm very pessimistic that reports like this could make any difference. Yes,
every once in a while we read sth in our own domain of expertise, and we
wonder how we could justify being so trustful of everything else we read. But
eventually we will all go back to our old ways, especially when (i) what we
read is what we _like_ to read, and (ii) it's not a subject on which there's
any 'hard reality' to bump into.

------
BadThink6655321
Of three news articles of which I have first hand knowledge, two completely
misreported facts. They were exercises in reinforcing a narrative - the truth
be damned. The third was accurate, but it was over 45 years ago.

------
TomMckenny
Of course rather than taking a bloggers opinion of bias as fact, one could
actually read the piece and see for oneself whether it is as outrageously
biased as is claimed.

Unfortunately, no doubt due to some oversight on the part of the blogger, the
link to the original, rather than being with the top image, is actually pretty
buried so here it is.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-
monson-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-monson-
dies.html)

------
rectang
Left unsaid: whether you should trust journalists you consider your political
allies.

~~~
Spooky23
Only if you have them on the hook for a longer engagement.

I joke that if you want to understand an issue, the local paper is great for
eliminating reasons. They never tell the whole story and are rarely interested
in it.

Talking to a journalist is like talking to the police. They have a specific
agenda and standard for publishing that doesn’t necessarily align with telling
a story as you perceive it. You have to be able to manipulate them, which is
best left to professionals.

~~~
btilly
_Talking to a journalist is like talking to the police. They have a specific
agenda and standard for publishing that doesn’t necessarily align with telling
a story as you perceive it. You have to be able to manipulate them, which is
best left to professionals._

A lesson that I have seen learned the hard way. The reason why celebrities say
"No comment" is that it can't be misquoted.

My favorite example of a deliberate journalistic misquote is that my mother
was on a phone with a journalist and used a phrase starting with, "It is not
that I..." It appeared in print as, "It is...that I..." Yes, the word "not"
was replaced with "..." to reverse the meaning of what she said so that she
would look bad.

------
lalaland1125
The writer of this piece is either naive or disingenuous. The NYT is primarily
focusing on how this person's actions have affected their readers and at the
end of the day the LDS's homophobia and misogyny are the ways in which the LDS
has most affected NYT's readers in New York and Americans nationwide. That's
why the NYT leads with those sections and focuses the most on them. There
isn't an "agenda" here trying to dirty the image of the Mormon church: the
church earned that reputation through actual actions that harmed millions of
marginalized Americans.

~~~
phendrenad2
But how does homophobia and misogyny within the Mormon church affect people
who aren't in the Mormon church?

Also I find it telling that you say "the church earned that reputation". Yes,
the church, not a single man. The leader of a church is rarely a king who can
change doctrine on a whim. If this man had repented of homophobia and
misogyny, he may well have been supplanted by someone else the very next day.
So among the many things wrong with the wording of this obit, the fact that
they call him out personally as homophobic/misogynist rather than something
more accurate like "under his leadership the CHURCH was
homophobic/misogynistic" is a big one.

~~~
mattyb678
> [H]ow does homophobia...within the Mormon Church affect those outside the
> church?

Prop 8 is perhaps the prime example of how it affects those outside the
church. The LDS church was the main financial contributor to the yes on prop 8
campaign.

~~~
SauciestGNU
We could also mention the Boy Scouts here too. I was a scout, but some of my
valued peers were gay and the Mormon church led a witch-hunt against gay
scouts, as well as atheists (as I personally identify). My friends felt
essentially forced to quit scouting due to the policies attributable to the
Mormons.

------
mythrwy
I agree journalists are often ill informed, agenda driven and misleading.

In this case though what did they say that was untrue? The church and Monson
did hold these views and continue to. Stand up proud about it if that's who
you are. You can't have it both ways.

If the complaint is a negative slant, well, that's modern agenda driven
journalism apparently. Feel free not to subscribe or start your own paper.
(Which they do). But don't expect positions contrary to the currently popular
to be minimized in promotion of your niche in a major paper.

------
fzeroracer
He's right to not trust journalists, and that's precisely why I don't trust
his article.

He talks about spreading the true story of Thomas Monson but what I see in his
article is an attempt to pave over the negative contributions and criticism he
has received because he did some amazing things in his youth. No one person is
owed immunity from criticism and there is plenty of critique to be thrown
here.

~~~
briandear
But they didn’t even report the accomplishments: they focused on their agenda
and not the whole story. They omitted the parts that didn’t support their
premise. And it was an obituary! By definition it is supposed to be about the
life and times of the person and their lasting impact.

~~~
ejstronge
I'd encourage you to take a closer look at the article, which by no means is
as negative as your post and others have indicated[1].

1: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-
monson-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-monson-
dies.html)

~~~
beatgammit
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.

~~~
ejstronge
I'm not sure if this hits a personal nerve for you, but I think this exactly
as balanced as you're insinuating. For example, see the first paragraphs:

\--

"Thomas S. Monson, who as president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints since 2008 enlarged the ranks of female missionaries, but rebuffed
demands to ordain women as priests and refused to alter church opposition to
same-sex marriage, died on Tuesday at his home in Salt Lake City. He was 90.

"His death was announced on the church’s website.

"Facing vociferous demands to recognize same-sex marriage, and weathering
demonstrations at church headquarters by Mormon women pleading for the right
to be ordained as priests, Mr. Monson did not bend. Teachings holding
homosexuality to be immoral, bans on sexual intercourse outside male-female
marriages, and an all-male priesthood would remain unaltered.

"Mr. Monson displayed a new openness to scholars of Mormonism, however,
allowing them remarkable access to church records. But as rising numbers of
church members and critics joined the internet’s free-for-all culture of
debate and exposé, his church was confronted with troubling inconsistencies in
Mormon history and Scripture. The church even found itself at odds with an old
ally, the Boy Scouts of America, which admitted gay members and gay adults as
scout leaders."

\---

Paragraph one has a 'positive' thing (more women in LDS churches) and a
'negative' thing (no support for LGBT marriage).

I'm not sure how many obituaries you've seen of contentious figures, but this
feels standard.

------
specialist
Both NYT's and scholars-stage's obits are editorial.

Only the news of Monson's passing is reporting.

Neither did any journalism.

\--

Much as I dislike NYT (and by extension all corporate media), I'm unmoved by
this criticism.

scholars-stage defended a person he (she?) respected and published his (her?)
own obit. That is right and proper.

------
jstewartmobile
This person is obviously not a disinterested party--yet still not wrong!

I've done business in many different sectors over the years, and in every
single one, the venality and nearsightedness of journalism was both strikingly
obvious and aggressively exploited.

------
atlgator
Journalism schools teach provocation. Look for the edge, look for the spin.
There's no money in objectivity.

~~~
bubblesocks
I didn't go to journalism school but I did take a couple of journalism classes
as part of my writing degree. We were taught to be objective and not
provocative in my classes.

------
TomMckenny
The NYT accurately reports the death of a Mormon leader who worked against
women's and gay rights. This blogger does not deny the accuracy of this but
thinks this is an unimportant part of the Mormon leader's life, not worthy of
mention. Of lower priority than the standardization of the three hour sermon
for example. Regardless, the relative importance of theses issues is his
_opinion_ .

And 180,000 saints agree (the author and Mormoms generally refer to themselves
as saints). But it is still an _opinion_ by a group who are so opposed to gay
rights, they continue to oppose a pro-equality supreme court decision that
included four conservative justices. Presumably the many millions of "non-
saints" this discrimination works against in daily life have an opposite
_opinion_ about this issues' importance.

The blogger, also accuses the NYT of being click bait. The NYT's title was
"Thomas Monson, President of the Mormon Church, Dies at 90". The blogger
titles his post "Do Not Trust Journalism" stretching what is an accurate
report whose topic ordering he does not like, to imply every story in the NYT
and indeed all journalism is deceitful. For example, Reuters had the same
title.

I too could become an obscure blogger with religio-emotionally shaped opinions
and clickbait titles if I posted a one side response article titled "Mormons
Oppose Free Press". Such a story would be as unworthy of serious attention as
this one.

But instead, this story is taken seriously. An indication of how far down the
anti-press, anti-reality, pro-religious-nationalism rabbit hole we have
fallen. A result of a trend where tales from the most obscure parts of the web
are sought out to match the readers preconceived opinions and then taken as
complete gospel over all else regardless of implausibility or internal
inconsistency.

Religions and certain secular leaders and their followers often dislike the
press and much of literature, it will never be too hard to find someone
somewhere claiming things they don't like are deception and thus presumably
"evil". For example in Italy at this same period, you will find outraged
denunciation of press "lying" criticism of Padre Pio.

Conversely, it would be nice to talk with clear headed people about a solution
to the rise of religious-nationalism including its war on the press rather
than debating obscure right wing blog's cry of "Lügenpresse". Just as it's
nice to talk to informed people about climate without repeatedly facing a
stream of deniers.

Ultimately I image many will decide that truth is between these two: that
reality lays halfway between the uncomfortable facts they learn and the things
that they wish were true.

~~~
neonate
> This blogger does not deny the accuracy of this but thinks this is an
> unimportant part of the Mormon leader's life, not worthy of mention.

Are you sure? I didn't read the article closely but I didn't see him arguing
that those things shouldn't have been mentioned; just that they shouldn't have
been the only things mentioned.

~~~
TomMckenny
I can not be completely sure. It is implied but not explicitly stated. He
praises Monson's opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment so perhaps he would
want the anti-gay stance included but in a positive light.

------
iron0013
What the heck? The job of a journalist is not to tell you what you want to
hear. I’m sorry if some Mormons didn’t want to hear unpleasant things about
their leader, but if they were true then they were news

~~~
grimmfang
Exactly, I'm surprised this post is even being upvoted here on HN. It sounds
like NYT did their job, and did it well (considering so many people got pissed
off).

We can not tolerate tiptoeing around subjects simply because someone's "faith"
might be offended.

~~~
rayiner
You don’t have to tip-toe around a sensitive subject in order to give the
reader a meaningful look at what’s going on. The article does a good job
listing information that was important to help understand Monson in context.
You can do that and also address the issues the obituary talked about. But
judging everything in terms of a narrow set of political issues doesn’t
educate the reader. It’s not good journalism. (I’d love to read the New York
Times obituary of the founder of Bangladesh. I wonder what it would be like,
viewed through the narrow political lens of a liberal New Yorker. Would it
lead with his views on abortion?)

------
leftyted
It's not what's "the most attention grabbing tidbit" \-- that's what tabloids
do. It's ideological. As the piece says:

> [The journalist] forced events and personalities into a narrow, pre-
> conceived frame that bore little relation to the reality before him

Same thing as the NYT publishing an article about how the space program was
about white supremacy. Same thing as the Times' 1619 project, which alleged
that the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve slavery in the colonies.

Being a journalist is hard. Too many journalists seem to believe that "it's
impossible to be apolitical" or "if you aren't working to dismantle the
system, you're part of the problem" or even "no facts, only interpretations".
These perspectives aren't necessarily wrong, but you can't be a good
journalist if you've internalized them.

~~~
gamblor956
Those "articles" were published in the opinion and lifestyle sections, not the
news sections, and were not considered journalistic pieces.

But I suppose when someone has an ideological axe to grind they don't care
about finer points like that.

~~~
leftyted
I think there's a pattern here that's quite clear, in all parts of the paper.
This article is certainly interesting:
[https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/14/media/new-york-times-
criticis...](https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/14/media/new-york-times-
criticism/index.html)

One Times employee is quoted:

> the desire to "show and not tell" might be "well intentioned," but it is
> ineffective. "It puts a burden on readers and especially those who are maybe
> less savvy," the staffer explained. "And when the stakes are so high and so
> many people feel personally threatened and there's real danger in the air,
> the show don't tell approach feels inadequate."

Anyway, it's interesting to me that I have ideology in common with the author
of this article. We couldn't have more different backgrounds.

------
filmgirlcw
There is an irony in a member of a church that had famously attempted to cover
up all of the atrocities committed by its leadership, even going so far as
buying forged documents it feared would expose the church to scorn — a church
that goes after its critics in a way unrivaled by any other group, except
perhaps the Catholic Church (and even then, pretty sure LDS has it beat), is
complaining about an obituary in a secular paper not focusing on the party
line, which in this case was “we were able to recruit a bunch of people to
join Amway, er, the Mormon church” (that comparison is intentional), isn’t up
to his standards.

Also, anyone who doesn’t think that this obituary is completely ordinary for
publications like the Times is mistaken.

The obituary for John Paul the II saved the criticism for the end, granted,
but look at the obituary for Cardinal Law [1]. And if anyone thinks that when
Benedict dies (the Pope emeritus), the obit won’t lead with his controversies,
I think they are wrong. It’s too soon to say what they’d lead with on Pope
Francis, but I’m sure his controversies with the conservative parts of the
church will be mentioned.

Journalists aren’t your friends. And the role isn’t to write propaganda, which
is exactly what this guy wants from an obituary.

I’m sure the Deseret News was much more to his liking.

And that’s the other part of journalism. When it thrives, there isn’t just one
source. There are many different perspectives that can be shared.

[1]: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/obituaries/cardinal-
berna...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/obituaries/cardinal-bernard-law-
dead.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share)

------
inertiatic
Taken to an extreme, would you rather an obituary of Hitler not focus on a
certain narrative as Nazi Germany numbered 100 million people and there
certainly was more to their world than hating Jews?

~~~
benjohnson
If I'm understanding correctly I would like an obituary of Hitler to be
comprehensive - because with a broader context we could perhaps understand how
he rose to power. Or understand how a politician can be so charismatic that
the people ignore the deaths of their neighbors.

~~~
TomMckenny
The NYT article _is_ comprehensive, covering most of what the blogger says it
lacked. Which is probably why he did not actually link to it.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-
monson-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-monson-
dies.html)

------
hitekker
An obituary that seems to have more journalistic integrity than the one the
author objects to:

[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/mormon-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/mormon-
prophet/549773/)

------
akersten
Flagging for classic whataboutism and whining that the NYT does not serve as a
mouthpiece of the LDS.

> Will the New York Times ever tell this story—the story of a people, of a
> faith, of a life that has changed millions through decisions small and large
> made over the last sixty years? They will not.

~~~
dang
Please keep reflexive tropes like "whataboutism" off this site. They don't add
information and count as name-calling in the sense that we use the term here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
See also the bit about shallow dismissals.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20whataboutism&sort=byDate&type=comment)

