Newsweek - The Mormon Odyssey

[ben]

Has anyone read this latest article from Newsweek about mormonism? Nothing new in it, although I did find it interesting that it proposed that the church is starting to be honest with its history:

"The reins are looser now. The church is likely always to be more comfortable with orthodoxy than with inquiry, and this year's celebrations won't bring the unsolicited airing of dirty laundry (a church-sponsored art exhibit about Smith made no mention of his polygamy, for example). But there is no longer the sense that documents are being squirreled away. LDS historian Richard Bushman, professor emeritus of history at Columbia University and author of the new biography "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling," recently gave two lectures in which he tackled some of the more difficult elements of Smith's life in front of audiences that included high-ranking LDS leaders. "I ran the risk of making them bridle at me," he says. "But they liked the talks. And that leads me to believe that we don't have to bury our stuff anymore. We're able to deal with the problems and accept them."

Wouldn't that be nice if that where true. The only aspects that church apologists are dealing with are those areas that, with all the current publications about its actual past (the real and not the faith promoting version), they have been forced to deal with.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9630255/site/newsweek/

[silverfox]

Has anyone read this latest article from Newsweek about mormonism? Nothing new in it, although I did find it interesting that it proposed that the church is starting to be honest with its history:

"The reins are looser now. The church is likely always to be more comfortable with orthodoxy than with inquiry, and this year's celebrations won't bring the unsolicited airing of dirty laundry (a church-sponsored art exhibit about Smith made no mention of his polygamy, for example). But there is no longer the sense that documents are being squirreled away. LDS historian Richard Bushman, professor emeritus of history at Columbia University and author of the new biography "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling," recently gave two lectures in which he tackled some of the more difficult elements of Smith's life in front of audiences that included high-ranking LDS leaders. "I ran the risk of making them bridle at me," he says. "But they liked the talks. And that leads me to believe that we don't have to bury our stuff anymore. We're able to deal with the problems and accept them."

Wouldn't that be nice if that where true. The only aspects that church apologists are dealing with are those areas that, with all the current publications about its actual past (the real and not the faith promoting version), they have been forced to deal with.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9630255/site/newsweek/

Yes that WOULD be nice if it were true.

[free thinker]

Now I might sound a bit strident here but I see a very careful manipulation taking place .

Let a little info out at a time. In politics they call it a "trial balloon". You are going to make a few waves. Some will leave the fold, but let's just slowly introduce the facts and sugar coat them a bit. We will ease the members into getting used to these facts.

Not me baby!!! Not one damn chance in hell!!!

Joseph Smith married mere girls to get some. No other reason. He was getting some!!! There is not a human on this earth that will convince me otherwise.

I dont care if Bushman has fifty degrees from fifty prestigeous colleges. "Rough Stone Rolling" my a**. Such an easy thing to say. We forget that human beings got smashed when that rough stone rolled through their life!!

free thinker

[elder_nomo]

Has anyone read this latest article from Newsweek about mormonism? Nothing new in it, although I did find it interesting that it proposed that the church is starting to be honest with its history:

"The reins are looser now. The church is likely always to be more comfortable with orthodoxy than with inquiry, and this year's celebrations won't bring the unsolicited airing of dirty laundry (a church-sponsored art exhibit about Smith made no mention of his polygamy, for example). But there is no longer the sense that documents are being squirreled away. LDS historian Richard Bushman, professor emeritus of history at Columbia University and author of the new biography "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling," recently gave two lectures in which he tackled some of the more difficult elements of Smith's life in front of audiences that included high-ranking LDS leaders. "I ran the risk of making them bridle at me," he says. "But they liked the talks. And that leads me to believe that we don't have to bury our stuff anymore. We're able to deal with the problems and accept them."

Wouldn't that be nice if that where true. The only aspects that church apologists are dealing with are those areas that, with all the current publications about its actual past (the real and not the faith promoting version), they have been forced to deal with.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9630255/site/newsweek/
Hi Ben - Yes, I read the article. It's possible that "Sister Soukup" *thinks* she's being open and honest. She might even *believe* that the church is loosening the reins. She mentioned a few of the controversial topics, which probably feels daring and edgy to her.
I can't blame her too much for saying the world is pink while she's wearing her rose-colored glasses.

I take more issue with Newsweak. How the hell did they assign a faithful mormon to this story? Where is the objective reporting and editing?

I agree that the Morg is being forced to face up to a few more things these days. What a lucky break for them that Newsweak failed to do its job.

[hamar]

Now I might sound a bit strident here but I see a very careful manipulation taking place .

Let a little info out at a time. In politics they call it a "trial balloon". You are going to make a few waves. Some will leave the fold, but let's just slowly introduce the facts and sugar coat them a bit. We will ease the members into getting used to these facts.

Not me baby!!! Not one damn chance in hell!!!

Joseph Smith married mere girls to get some. No other reason. He was getting some!!! There is not a human on this earth that will convince me otherwise.

I dont care if Bushman has fifty degrees from fifty prestigeous colleges. "Rough Stone Rolling" my a**. Such an easy thing to say. We forget that human beings got smashed when that rough stone rolled through their life!!

free thinker

I'm with you FT and I believe it is part of a well orchestrated conspiracy to bleed some pressure off of the baloon that folks like us create for tscc, just like you and ENoMO said. I doubt if Sis S is part of the conspiracy; she is just being played by the suits in SLC, it is all part of the COB plan to sugar coat the BS to make it all more palatable for the TBMs that are starting to teeter. Bushman is definetely part of the conspiracy though; he knows what's going on and probably had many discussions with "Da Boyz" about just how much and what to say regarding "the truth".

It's sort of like raising the hell out of gas prices then saying "we need to drill in the Gulf of Mexico so we can find more sustainable oil supplies". It makes the stink of it all much more believable and acceptable by those who believe and think they know the truth. Yea right, WTF? :Puking

[free thinker]

I sent the following letter to the editor at Newsweek.




Concerning your article titled "Mormon Odyssey".

I am dissapointed in Newsweek. Do you seriously consider this journalism? Why would you employ a current member of the church to offer a "fair and balanced " portrayal?

Do you realize that if she wrote an article critical of the Mormon Church that more than likely she would have had ecclesiastical action taken against her in which she may have lost full fellowship, or possibly even her membership? There is no way she could have given accurate reportage.

For the sake of brevity I want to tell you this simply. As a man who spent thirty years as a member of the Mormon church. And yes I served a faithful mission etc. You missed something very salient. There is a subtle, and not so healthy underbelly to Mormonism. One that can only be experienced from the inside.

It is very easy to join Mormonism. It is much, much harder to leave. I cannot give you my name or location for fear of reprisal.

A free thinker in the western US.





free thinker

[ben]

I had to check it out for myself, as I didn't realize that the author of this article for Newsweek was mormon.

Here is an interesting link to a transcript of a Q and A that she did.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9624798/site/newsweek/

I totally disagree with her comment (in the transcript) about not including the various first vision accounts (i.e. multiple variations on what really happened as penned by good old Joe Smith himself) because it was within the ballpark. Most TBMs are oblivious to this fact. When I left the church and had my name removed, I mentioned this little tid-bit to the bishop in our ward at the time and it rocked his boat enough (you could see it in his face) that he took a copy of Grant Palmer’s book from me to read and still has not returned it.

[why me]

Hi Ben - Yes, I read the article. It's possible that "Sister Soukup" *thinks* she's being open and honest. She might even *believe* that the church is loosening the reins. She mentioned a few of the controversial topics, which probably feels daring and edgy to her.
I can't blame her too much for saying the world is pink while she's wearing her rose-colored glasses.

I take more issue with Newsweak. How the hell did they assign a faithful mormon to this story? Where is the objective reporting and editing?

I agree that the Morg is being forced to face up to a few more things these days. What a lucky break for them that Newsweak failed to do its job.
I think that she explained this by saying that she was not the only one working on the piece and that there were non-mormons working on it. It also had to go through non-mormon editors. And in this way it was balanced.

However, if it were written by a non-mormon, the mormons could have complained as you are doing.

I think that as long as there are other researchers or editors that are not mormon, it is as balanced as it can get under the circumstances.

(I cannot remember where I heard her say what I just wrote about the non-mormon researchers etc).

[flotsam]

I'm interested, why did you write the quote below? From what I know about you from your writings, it doesn't seem like it's really true. Is there something about your situation that I missed?

. I cannot give you my name or location for fear of reprisal.
[/COLOR]


free thinker

[hitchiker]

Has anyone read this latest article from Newsweek about mormonism? Nothing new in it, although I did find it interesting that it proposed that the church is starting to be honest with its history:

"The reins are looser now. The church is likely always to be more comfortable with orthodoxy than with inquiry, and this year's celebrations won't bring the unsolicited airing of dirty laundry (a church-sponsored art exhibit about Smith made no mention of his polygamy, for example). But there is no longer the sense that documents are being squirreled away. LDS historian Richard Bushman, professor emeritus of history at Columbia University and author of the new biography "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling," recently gave two lectures in which he tackled some of the more difficult elements of Smith's life in front of audiences that included high-ranking LDS leaders. "I ran the risk of making them bridle at me," he says. "But they liked the talks. And that leads me to believe that we don't have to bury our stuff anymore. We're able to deal with the problems and accept them."

Wouldn't that be nice if that where true. The only aspects that church apologists are dealing with are those areas that, with all the current publications about its actual past (the real and not the faith promoting version), they have been forced to deal with.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9630255/site/newsweek/I am reading Richard Bushmans book at the moment , it seems a little bit tame but is very well researched , what if i were to take it to church and do a few quotes from it over the pulpit , what would happen , a couple of years ago i was censored for mentioning that JS was married to Eliza Snow , a week after my talk it was announced from the pulpit , nobody must do sac talks using material written outside the church corriculum without first getting consent from the Bishop , i doubt if anything has changed

[why me]

I'm interested, why did you write the quote below? From what I know about you from your writings, it doesn't seem like it's really true. Is there something about your situation that I missed?
I can understand free thinker not wanting his name mentioned but his location is not very understandable.

He could also have used the name 'free thinker' as an alias. I suppose that his closing to the letter gave it a more 'dramatic' close.

[elder_nomo]

I think that she explained this by saying that she was not the only one working on the piece and that there were non-mormons working on it. It also had to go through non-mormon editors. And in this way it was balanced.

However, if it were written by a non-mormon, the mormons could have complained as you are doing.

I think that as long as there are other researchers or editors that are not mormon, it is as balanced as it can get under the circumstances.

(I cannot remember where I heard her say what I just wrote about the non-mormon researchers etc).

I read that too about how she collaborated with other non-mo's (can't remember where i saw it either).
And yes, I'm sure if it was written by a non-mo, the mo's would complain of bias in the other direction.

I still have a few problems with this, though.
One is the lack of disclosure. Yes, the magazine does tell that Soukup is LDS. But it's in the Editor's Desk section, almost 50 pages from the article.
In financial articles, if the reporter owns the stock of a company being reported on, that is disclosed on the same page. I venture to guess that most people will not know that Soukup is mormon when they read the article.

Another problem I have is Soukup's lack of expertise. It may seem like an odd criticism - who knows the mormons better than a mormon? [She seems to have convinced her non-mo editors of that.] But that's just the point. She knows one side very well, but not the other.

In the Editor's Desk section, it says that up to this time, she had "never read a non-church-approved account of Smith's life". wow. Granted, she read some while researching this article, but she's a newbie at this... there are PLENTY of outside JS scholars who know the real issues, the questions to ask, the points to address.

In the article itself, Soukup says.....
Central tenets of Mormonism seem confusing - even literally incredible - to those outside the faith. An angel named Moroni? "Plural" marriage? A resurrected Jesus visiting the New World?
Even I know that 2 of these 3 issues are red herrings.
Take a look at the issues people have for leaving mormonism right here on post-mo.org or at RfM. How many people are worried that the angel was named Moroni??? How many people found it hard to believe Jesus could visit the New World?? These are not the serious issues. She did get to a real issue, but even there she calls it "plural" marriage, a Mo euphemism for polygamy.

My third problem is that while Soukup does offer up some critical comments, there should have been a greater diversity of sources.
The only "true outsider" is Norman Geisler (of the Southern Evangelical Seminary), whose voice is wasted on the criticism that mormonism is not "christian". IMO, that is a silly claim, easily disposed of. What a piece of cake for the mo's. Man o' straw.

I will admit there is both positive and negative from the rest of the people quoted. But they are all members or former members. Where is the independent analysis?

Problem four is the spin. Sometimes subtle, she may not even know she's doing it...

Simon Southerton is quoted. That's a step toward balance. But he is listed as a "former LDS bishop" - no mention that he was ex-ed. It makes it appear that A) the church tolerates dissent more than it really does, because it appears this criticism is from a member, and B) avoids the entire controversy about why he was ex-ed.
spin.

Soukup says "The reins are looser now" talking about the church's supposed willingness to confront its history.
That's spin IMO. The reins are the same as always - Deny the controversial stuff until you're forced to admit it.

Soukup gives the "official" account of the first vision. No mention of the multiple conflicting versions. Spin.

And.....
"The characteristic features of the LDS church - sacred temple rites, personal revelation, tithing and a history of polygamy - come directly from Smith. So does the emphasis on high moral standards, family ties and community service."
Notice the phrase "history of polygamy". Distancing today's church from that practice. Spin. But the bigger problem is in the last part - high moral standards and family ties??? From Joe, the king of teenage brides??
SPIN...

One more....
[about the Urim and Thummim]...
stones attached to a breastplate that were supposed to help him translate the text from "reformed Egyptian", an unknown tongue, into English.
help him "translate"? SPIN. What he did was nothing like a translation.
an "unknown tongue"? SPIN. It's not an unknown tongue - it's a non-existent tongue.

Again, I don't necessarily blame Soukup. The editors of Newsweek should have been more diligent.
True, the article could have been worse. But it could have been much, much better.

[free thinker]

I'm interested, why did you write the quote below? From what I know about you from your writings, it doesn't seem like it's really true. Is there something about your situation that I missed?

I have a robust clientel of TBM. I do not mix my faith or lack thereof in my business affairs.

Having said that. If it was known by them that I was an active post-mo there, could be fallout that would put me at a severe disadvantage. I may lose a number of important clients.

It is unfortunate, and I do not like to maintain this non-disclosure, but it is a pragmatic decision I have made. There is a great deal of hard work at stake.

Silver Fox and Jeff Ricks both know my name and where I live. I wish I could be more open about it here, but I cannot take the chance. If you wish to know more feel free to PM me. I am very open as a person. But I will not be foolish.

I will tell this though. I live in the Phoenix AZ metropolitan area.

He could also have used the name 'free thinker' as an alias. I suppose that his closing to the letter gave it a more 'dramatic' close.

The reprisal would not be physical violence but rather loss of business, and a substantial amount of money. When you are a businessman, and mormon, the church network is a natural. When I made these clients I never, never imagined I would leave the church. But here I am, and now I have to be practical and wise.

My church membership never influenced the way I do business. My level of integrity is as it has always been. But please understand that TBM do not always see it that way.

free thinker

[why me]

Again, I don't necessarily blame Soukup. The editors of Newsweek should have been more diligent.
True, the article could have been worse. But it could have been much, much better.

I think that we need to keep in my mind where the article was placed. Newsweek is a magazine for mass consumption. I don't think that its purpose is to stir up controversy or even to be in the business of being accused of bashing one group or another group.

I have this feeling that newsweek wanted a rather balanced idea of Mormonism with some issues that would give the piece some legitamacy. Nothing more than that.

I am sure that it treats catholicism, islam or the evangelicals the same way or any other religious organization the same way.

Also newsweek needs to keep in mind its audience. It is not an academic journal with a limited readership. Rather, its audience is the man and woman in the street who want to keep abreast of world and national affairs through colorful printed articles. It is also used in schools for current events etc.

Newsweek's articles cannot be into the heavy stuff. It would defeat its whole purpose, imo.

Soukup is a believing mormon who finds her comfort in church and who has at this moment in her life reconciled herself to her religion and her article seemed to reflect that aspect of her existence.

And who knows what the editors decided to edit out of her article. The whole process can be a tedious one.

I wrote a book review for an academic journal recently and the editors cut it by half. :eek: I thought: 'all that work gone to waste!'

[why me]

[QUOTE=elder_nomo]I read that too about how she collaborated with other non-mo's (can't remember where i saw it either).
And yes, I'm sure if it was written by a non-mo, the mo's would complain of bias in the other direction.

I still have a few problems with this, though.
One is the lack of disclosure. Yes, the magazine does tell that Soukup is LDS. But it's in the Editor's Desk section, almost 50 pages from the article.
In financial articles, if the reporter owns the stock of a company being reported on, that is disclosed on the same page. I venture to guess that most people will not know that Soukup is mormon when they read the article.

Another problem I have is Soukup's lack of expertise. It may seem like an odd criticism - who knows the mormons better than a mormon? [She seems to have convinced her non-mo editors of that.] But that's just the point. She knows one side very well, but not the other.

In the Editor's Desk section, it says that up to this time, she had "never read a non-church-approved account of Smith's life". wow. Granted, she read some while researching this article, but she's a newbie at this... there are PLENTY of outside JS scholars who know the real issues, the questions to ask, the points to address.

In the article itself, Soukup says.....
Central tenets of Mormonism seem confusing - even literally incredible - to those outside the faith. An angel named Moroni? "Plural" marriage? A resurrected Jesus visiting the New World?
Even I know that 2 of these 3 issues are red herrings.
Take a look at the issues people have for leaving mormonism right here on post-mo.org or at RfM. How many people are worried that the angel was named Moroni??? How many people found it hard to believe Jesus could visit the New World?? These are not the serious issues. She did get to a real issue, but even there she calls it "plural" marriage, a Mo euphemism for polygamy.

My third problem is that while Soukup does offer up some critical comments, there should have been a greater diversity of sources.
The only "true outsider" is Norman Geisler (of the Southern Evangelical Seminary), whose voice is wasted on the criticism that mormonism is not "christian". IMO, that is a silly claim, easily disposed of. What a piece of cake for the mo's. Man o' straw.

I will admit there is both positive and negative from the rest of the people quoted. But they are all members or former members. Where is the independent analysis?

Problem four is the spin. Sometimes subtle, she may not even know she's doing it...

Simon Southerton is quoted. That's a step toward balance. But he is listed as a "former LDS bishop" - no mention that he was ex-ed. It makes it appear that A) the church tolerates dissent more than it really does, because it appears this criticism is from a member, and B) avoids the entire controversy about why he was ex-ed.
spin.

Soukup says "The reins are looser now" talking about the church's supposed willingness to confront its history.
That's spin IMO. The reins are the same as always - Deny the controversial stuff until you're forced to admit it.

Soukup gives the "official" account of the first vision. No mention of the multiple conflicting versions. Spin.

And.....
"The characteristic features of the LDS church - sacred temple rites, personal revelation, tithing and a history of polygamy - come directly from Smith. So does the emphasis on high moral standards, family ties and community service."
Notice the phrase "history of polygamy". Distancing today's church from that practice. Spin. But the bigger problem is in the last part - high moral standards and family ties??? From Joe, the king of teenage brides??
SPIN...

One more....
[about the Urim and Thummim]...
stones attached to a breastplate that were supposed to help him translate the text from "reformed Egyptian", an unknown tongue, into English.
help him "translate"? SPIN. What he did was nothing like a translation.
an "unknown tongue"? SPIN. It's not an unknown tongue - it's a non-existent tongue.
QUOTE]

You bring up good points here. I cannot disagree with you. The article would have been more objective and even interesting.

But I also think that the purpose of the article was not to bring up the points you mentioned. I am almost sure that newsweek wanted to avoid controversy as it would want to avoid controversy with any religion.

The magazine wants to keep all of its readership happy including the Utah readership---a business is a business and newsweek is in the business of keeping readers and not losing them.

The article about the LDS church in newsweek will bring up complaints from some readers but I don't think that it will cause subsription cancelations. And for newsweek, the article is a success when this happens.

But if newsweek were an academic journal your points would be definitely right on.

I understand your idea of spin but unfortunately it seems that spin is a fact of life today. I am still spinning from the media leading up to the outbreak of the Iraq War.... :Crazy:

[why me]

I'm interested, why did you write the quote below? From what I know about you from your writings, it doesn't seem like it's really true. Is there something about your situation that I missed?

I have a robust clientel of TBM. I do not mix my faith or lack thereof in my business affairs.

Having said that. If it was known by them that I was an active post-mo there, could be fallout that would put me at a severe disadvantage. I may lose a number of important clients.

It is unfortunate, and I do not like to maintain this non-disclosure, but it is a pragmatic decision I have made. There is a great deal of hard work at stake.

Silver Fox and Jeff Ricks both know my name and where I live. I wish I could be more open about it here, but I cannot take the chance. If you wish to know more feel free to PM me. I am very open as a person. But I will not be foolish.

I will tell this though. I live in the Phoenix AZ metropolitan area.

He could also have used the name 'free thinker' as an alias. I suppose that his closing to the letter gave it a more 'dramatic' close.

The reprisal would not be physical violence but rather loss of business, and a substantial amount of money. When you are a businessman, and mormon, the church network is a natural. When I made these clients I never, never imagined I would leave the church. But here I am, and now I have to be practical and wise.

My church membership never influenced the way I do business. My level of integrity is as it has always been. But please understand that TBM do not always see it that way.

free thinker
I understand your point. No one wants to lose business especially when it has nothing to do with work quality. Your point is well taken.

[elder_nomo]

You bring up good points here. I cannot disagree with you. The article would have been more objective and even interesting.

But I also think that the purpose of the article was not to bring up the points you mentioned. I am almost sure that newsweek wanted to avoid controversy as it would want to avoid controversy with any religion.

The magazine wants to keep all of its readership happy including the Utah readership---a business is a business and newsweek is in the business of keeping readers and not losing them.

The article about the LDS church in newsweek will bring up complaints from some readers but I don't think that it will cause subsription cancelations. And for newsweek, the article is a success when this happens.

But if newsweek were an academic journal your points would be definitely right on.

I understand your idea of spin but unfortunately it seems that spin is a fact of life today. I am still spinning from the media leading up to the outbreak of the Iraq War.... :Crazy:
Why_me, I have to agree with you. I've been a Newsweek subscriber for many years and I'm not going to cancel over this. I will grumble, but that's about it.
On the other hand, if the article was slanted more the other way (or even truly even-handed, IMO), I'm sure lots of mormons would kick up a real fuss and cancel and cry foul.

Agree, it's not just Newsweek and it's not just this article. I think there is a trend in journalism where they present statements from 2 sides of an issue and consider themselves fair and balanced. There is no analysis, there is no weight given to the arguments. It's sloppy and lazy.

And yes, this is barely a twirl compared to the hurricane of a spin there has been on Iraq.

[dogzilla]

I think that she explained this by saying that she was not the only one working on the piece and that there were non-mormons working on it. It also had to go through non-mormon editors. And in this way it was balanced.

However, if it were written by a non-mormon, the mormons could have complained as you are doing.

I think that as long as there are other researchers or editors that are not mormon, it is as balanced as it can get under the circumstances.

(I cannot remember where I heard her say what I just wrote about the non-mormon researchers etc).

Once again, here's another example of a distinct lack of understanding of how a magazine is put together. Just because non-mormon editors looked at it, doesn't mean the article is magically balanced. Those editors were looking for spelling, grammar and a logical organization and were probably cutting unncessary copy to make the story fit the space they'd budgeted. Fairness and balance have NOTHING to do with the process. You are thinking of newspapers, which supposedly have some obligation to be fair and balanced. Magazines -- even news magazines -- and especially feature stories in magazines do not necessarily have to be fair and balanced. People have the funniest ideas about journalism and what is and isn't supposed to be balanced.

Furthermore, no nevermormon would have any clue that, while the author's facts are basically correct, she is missing a lot of information in terms of the seamy underside. How would a senior editor know such a thing unless he or she had been a member of the church? The fact checkers are usually 19-21 year old interns without enough world experience to dig beyond "can I corroborate the assertions in this text?" Clearly, the writer, editors and fact checkers did not spend nearly enough time on all sides of the story, or even bothering to find out who the experts are on each side.

To me, the tragedy of this is that the general public views Newsweak (thanks elder nomo, I liked that) as a credible publication. I think it's garbage and rank it up there with USA Yesterday (The news that was news yesterday, but you don't find out about it until today.) They have slick, glossy paper and purty pictures full of smiling white (and delightsome!) faces... what makes any of you think people are actually reading? Publishing is all about running a business and turning a profit; the Fourth Estate (as a check and balance) died with Nixon. What Elder nomo said below is true: often two sides are barely presented (and even then not very thoroughly) and journalism is getting sloppy and lazy. I would say this holds true far more frequently with the mass-produced, one-in-every-doctor's-office publications even moreso than non-mainstream works such as Mother Jones.

:: Light bulb fires up over Dogzilla's head ::

I bet Mother Jones would be interested in a giant corporation who's been defrauding its membership for generations... Hmm....

:: wanders off to think about writing up an article proposal to a real magazine ::

[lunaverse]

I don't think there is such a thing as unbiased reporting, and the fact that newspapers claim to be unbiased tricks people into trusting them more than they ought.

I'd like to see journalism move towards declaring ethical stances, towards first-person reporting. They're not really objective anyway, nor do I believe they can be. The claim that they are is like a cult leader who says his followers should be open minded to create an illusion of freedom.

Luna

[dogzilla]

I don't think there is such a thing as unbiased reporting, and the fact that newspapers claim to be unbiased tricks people into trusting them more than they ought.

I'd like to see journalism move towards declaring ethical stances, towards first-person reporting. They're not really objective anyway, nor do I believe they can be. The claim that they are is like a cult leader who says his followers should be open minded to create an illusion of freedom.

Luna

We can discuss journalism ethics until the cows come home, but what you are talking about is what Hunter S. Thompson did. They called that Gonzo Journalism, where the reporter inserted himself/herself into the story and never claimed objectivism. Suffice it to say that there's a huge disparity between what journalists are taught in school and what actually happens. I do agree with you; the reporters and papers cannot possibly be objective because everything is driven by advertising and increasing revenue.

As a magazine editor, I made many, many decisions that I found to be editorially distasteful, because I had to consider my advertisers and follow the money, ya know? Same thing as a reporter: you can write the most fair and balanced and accurate story there ever was, but if it pisses off your paper's major advertiser, the story will never run or will be edited beyond recognition. This is why Tim Russert and the New York Times are being completely mum about their roles in the Valerie Plame/CIA leak case -- they cannot possibly be objective since they are now the story. (See the movie, "Live From Baghdad" for a commentary about becoming the story instead of reporting it objectively.)

Anyway, what we are talking about turns out to be the main reason I've refused to work at a paper throughout my entire adult career. It makes me feel too dirty.

[why me]

We can discuss journalism ethics until the cows come home, but what you are talking about is what Hunter S. Thompson did. They called that Gonzo Journalism, where the reporter inserted himself/herself into the story and never claimed objectivism. Suffice it to say that there's a huge disparity between what journalists are taught in school and what actually happens. I do agree with you; the reporters and papers cannot possibly be objective because everything is driven by advertising and increasing revenue.

As a magazine editor, I made many, many decisions that I found to be editorially distasteful, because I had to consider my advertisers and follow the money, ya know? Same thing as a reporter: you can write the most fair and balanced and accurate story there ever was, but if it pisses off your paper's major advertiser, the story will never run or will be edited beyond recognition. This is why Tim Russert and the New York Times are being completely mum about their roles in the Valerie Plame/CIA leak case -- they cannot possibly be objective since they are now the story. (See the movie, "Live From Baghdad" for a commentary about becoming the story instead of reporting it objectively.)

Anyway, what we are talking about turns out to be the main reason I've refused to work at a paper throughout my entire adult career. It makes me feel too dirty.

This was sort of what I was saying in my above post. Soukup's piece could have been highly edited but I did not see the role of the adverts only the subsribers. But I think that you are right about the adverts and their role in the story.

I just cannot understand how Americans can claim a free press with so much crap going on in the background.

I see corporate control through my lenses.

[dogzilla]

This was sort of what I was saying in my above post. Soukup's piece could have been highly edited but I did not see the role of the adverts only the subsribers. But I think that you are right about the adverts and their role in the story.

I just cannot understand how Americans can claim a free press with so much crap going on in the background.

I see corporate control through my lenses.

Well, it was a free press back in the day when Ben Franklin got that all started. That's when the Right to Bear Arms meant "muskets" not semi-automatic weapons. (Or furry woodland creatures. I read that as "bear arms" -- you know like the limbs of a bear -- the ones they hug you with.)

But, yeah, now it's all as corrupt and money-driven as anything else. Most people have no idea just how money-driven it is. It's just an extension of Hollywood now. Unless you're aware of some ugly, fat newscasters with big pimples... but really insightful, intelligent commentary.