To the point that anti-Mormon journalists are just in the same integrity camp as the LDS church when reporting on the LDS church

Oh for goodness sake.  Just now I reached my threshold of annoyance for Dooce and Monica Bielanko arguing that anti-Mormons reporting on the LDS church is the same thing, only on a different end of the spectrum, as Mormons reporting on the LDS church.

Allow me to explain why it's totally not the same thing.

Monica made the point to me that KSL and Deseret News are church-owned and therefore when they report on the church, and always favourably, that this is biased like I said she was biased.

Except...

...wait for it...

...everyone knows that Deseret News is church-owned.  And most people probably know that KSL is church-owned. Certainly neither facts are hid.

When Monica or any journalist reporting on the church or a news station or news blog reporting on the church wears a visible badge saying, "I'm anti-Mormon," or "Ex-Mormon here," or "Ya, we don't so much like the LDS church,"  THEN it will be the same thing. 

If people can't figure out that a church-owned news station is not going to report on the church unfavourably then that person probably can't read or piece together much coherence anyway.

So, news stations:  Start making your biases as obvious as the LDS church does and then I, and other Mormons, won't have so much of a problem with you only sharing part of a story, or the part of a quote that you're sure is going to rile people up, or your skew on a quote that biases the viewer's discernment.  'Kay?

That's enough of a clinching point alone.  I could leave it at that.  But there's one more thing to consider:

Mormons covenant to uphold the church because they believe it to be the church of Jesus Christ.  They covenant to consecrate their possessions, time, talent to the building of God's church.  GOD TRUMPS JOURNALISM.  Okay?  So, Mormon media doesn't HAVE to tell everyone all the possible evil interpretations of what the LDS church says and does.

Non-Mormon Journalists, on the other hand, if they have made covenants with Satan, I don't want to stand in the way of their sincerely held beliefs.  Freedom of religion and all that.  If they've made covenants with a God they believe is different than the God I believe in, and that covenant involves tearing down the LDS church, then I have no beef with that either.  Be true to your beliefs and I refer you back to point #1.

But if they have not made sacred covenants, then there's nothing that should be trumping their journalistic integrity.

Media,

DO

YOUR

JOB.

Comments

[sloanie]

Must you be so intelligent and rational with your arguments? :P

Here's my beef. Why is it the media's job to interpret anything? Oh yeah, because it's entertainment more than it is mere reporting of what was said or what happened. No, everyone has an agenda now. Goes back to the whole money and power thing corrupting honest journalism. Speak before you think. Make everything an emotional appeal to get people riled up. Yada yada yada. What a waste of our time and energy.

[gabbyvalentine]

Great points. That whole thing was ridiculous and as is typical of the media - very misinterpreted/jumping to conclusions.

[Kerri]

I think Bielanko's point was that her personal bias doesn't influence her reporting, and it therefore doesn't matter either way... not that it's "the same thing" as church owned news reporting positively about the church. To me, it seems her point is that both people who love and people who dislike the LDS church should not allow their biases to cloud the story. I agree with that, and I, looking at her reporting, don't think that her biases have clouded her journalism. I do think that some the pro-LDS feelings of members/supporters of the church have influenced their journalism to the point that one can't actually take the reporting seriously.

[sloanie]

Kerri, show me ANYONE in the MAINSTREAM MEDIA that reports without bias. They may try to make it subtle at times, but I honestly have no faith in the media as it exists today.

[Natasha]

Kerri, Dooce DID say "it's the same thing" in different ways, on Twitter and Monica said something very similar to me. Their original point was, as Sloanie said, that everyone has biases. Monica made that point once already. Everyone has biases but she keeps them out of her work but the LDS church doesn't. This post of mine is a response to that. The LDS church-sponsored media doesn't have to. The news media does. But can we trust that they do?

Well, I watch some of that media and I see where it's not unbiased. I see where they leave out relevant information. In the Fox 13 piece, for example, on Dallin H. Oaks, they did not include the actual quote from the speech which would have provided some more substance and background to his video quote. If it was a time issue, why did they choose one over the other? Because they thought it would rile people up. That's what news media does. And hey, by all means. Just be sure to post your bias disclaimer somewhere so it can be an equal playing field of competing bias.

And my response to Monica on her blog post, about her temper tantrum on her blog, was: "Also, something to consider: What do you think would happen if Barbara Walters wrote a blog post vividly detailing her political or religious opinions in the same manner you did? Think she might lose her job? Think she might get fewer gigs?

"It's my personal blog! It's my personal blog!" Ya, so was Dooce's and she got fired. *shrugs*"

[Kerri]

@Sloanie

I didn't say there was anyone who reported without bias - I said that good journalists don't let that bias influence (or "cloud") how they report a story, and I think there are lots of news outlets that do a great job of it. (In my first comment I said that I thought Bielanko did a fine job of it).

Your use of all caps (ANYONE, MAINSTREAM MEDIA) makes me feel like you're very passionate or angry in your response to my comment and I don't get that.

[Natasha]

@Kerri

Caps in online print no longer means anger or shouting. I think the new standard was established by Dooce and has been widely adopted. It's used for emphasis. Often in place of italics, or meant to suggest a dry, sarcastic way of speaking.

[sloanie]

Thanks for clarifying that caps are for emphasis, Natasha. I was a bit incredulous, perhaps, but not angry or anything.

@Kerri:

That's fine if you feel that way. I just read Monica's post about journalistic integrity. She makes it clear that she reports on positive aspects of the church as well. However, it appears that, in this case, the bias shows up when the reporting is with regards to a position on gay rights. The bias does come out in such a sensitive topic as this.

[Jude]

Mainstream media is a business, not a selfless servant of truth or fair play. All business maximizes profit by minimizing raw materials cost (in the case of media truth, strict adherence to ethics, balanced views) so as to maximize the saleability of the product (controversy in the guise of information or fact). It is the controversy that makes both the market and the product. Many rock bands have gone big notwithstanding minimal talent by realizing this. Openly stating what one's interests (biases) are when commenting is the more ethical approach.

There is much force in Nietzche's maxim that "there are no facts, only interpretations." Obviously this quote, like the discussions in these comments, concerns sociol/historical "facts" and events and not simple facts like the boiling point of water or the correct calculation of sums. Discussions of what someone asserts (the validity or meaning of those assertions, for example) are obviously not like the latter facts at all and anyone who suggests that a wholly unobjective comment on such things is, at best, wildly optimistic. People can not help but bring who they are into their views and comments-usually unconsciously-but always unavoidably. Even the most objective argument/position is only a scrupulous effort to be objective. To have a view is to take a side. The antidotes: present all views regardless of convenience and cost, state one's bias openly, and acknowledge that other people may have fair points to make even if you are not persuaded by them.

[Megan]

Can I ask a dumb question? Was there a specific article that spawned this whole debate or just an overall type thing?
Anyone who reads more than one news source should be able to tell that things get reported differently across media outlets either on purpose or not so. (Fox News is a great example.)

[Natasha]

Megan, yes. I linked to my post that explains much of this, within this post.

Here's the order as I know it:

1. Dallin H. Oaks gave a speech.
2. News media reported on that speech.
3. Monica Bielanko vented about the speech and about an incident with LDS Church Newsroom.
4. Dooce posted a Twitter link to Monica's blog post.
5. I read the blog post.
6. Dooce posted a link later to a post by Salt Lake City Weekly.
7. I read it, was really annoyed, and wrote this blog post: http://www.becomingsomething.com/2009/10/poor-dallin-h-oaks-call-for-fair-media-commentary.html
8. Monica read it and commented. It wasn't her favourite thing ever of Ever.
9. I believe that Joel Campbell read it when he followed me on Twitter and saw my link to it, then was led to Monica's blog post which I wrote about. He commented about it on Twitter.
11. Dooce commented on his tweets, asking how Monica being biased was any different from the church being biased.
10. Joel Campbell wrote this: http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/joel_campbell/?id=11302
11. Monica Bielanko wrote a post in response to Joel Campbell's article and was, I think, influenced by my post and our subsequent private conversation.
12. Dooce posted a link to the post.
13. I wrote this blog post.

Order of events from my perspective.

[Megan]

Natasha, I appreciate the outline. I normally follow your blog, but missed that one because I was out of town.
Just skimming thru the details I must give you kudos for ALWAYS being so willing to explain your beliefs in an open forum. I cringe when a coworker gets mad that I say my town sucks (Facebook post) because our cars were vandalized...much less delving into conversations of religion and politics.

[Natasha]

Thanks, Megan! And thanks for the "witty blogs" link in your blogroll. :-)

[Nancy]

Your comments on the bias of reporters are insightful and important. One of the first lessons I learned as a History major in college was that there is no such thing as unbiased history. Some histories (and news stories) may come close--and how boring that must be!--but even the CHOICE of what to report on reveals a particular point of view. Fox News, which prizes a "fair and unbiased" reputation, has been taking lots of heat for its reporting on Obama, and that is at least partly for just what it has chosen to notice or not notice.