Another magazine article about the LDS church

[Comprehend]

well, I'll go tell Katzpur the bad news... She and I can't tell the difference between anti and loose reporting...

*kicks the ground*

 

[Bishka]

Heh, on a whim, I googled the terms "Mormon" and "7th largest" and got a homemade transcript of the 60 Minutes interview with Gordon B. Hinckley. Apparently that was the position of our church at the time of that interview, and the reporter neglected to see if we had grown in over ten years!

Shoddy journalism all the way, I say.

Some people......

 

[nutshell]

well, I'll go tell Katzpur the bad news... She and I can't tell the difference between anti and loose reporting...

*kicks the ground*

Everyone's entitled to his opinion.

 

[emmaleebee]

Yes, I do. I have lived among people who don't know anything about the church. ... It doesn't surprise me one bit that they got their facts wrong. The beliefs of the church aren't understood very well by those outside of it. This was most likely a case of shoddy journalism, not a diliberate misrepresentation.

I think SoyLeche hit the nail right on the head--because this was writen by someone that does not live in or near Utah, and therefore most likely knew little to nothing about the church before he started writing the article, I don't consider it anti, just shoddy journalism.

I can really see where you are coming from, Comprehend, in saying that his neglegence made it anti--if the journalist lived in Utah I would totally agree with you. There is a difference between perpetuating anti concepts and maliciously/intentionally being anti. I think this is just a case of trying to cover all sides without putting too much effort into it and thus just wasting everyone's time.

 

[nutshell]

Perhaps the anti vs. loose reporting issue is a Utah Mormon vs. non-Utah Mormon thing.

 

[Comprehend]

Perhaps the anti vs. loose reporting issue is a Utah Mormon vs. non-Utah Mormon thing.

are you not a utah mormon?

 

[nutshell]

are you not a utah mormon?

LOL!!!:thud:

Are you kidding me? What made you think I'm a utah mormon?

 

[Comprehend]

LOL!!!:thud:

Are you kidding me? What made you think I'm a utah mormon?

Nothing made me think either way, I don't know where you are from... (I don't really pay attention to it).

 

[nutshell]

Nothing made me think either way, I don't know where you are from... (I don't really pay attention to it).

Don't backtrack now. You said, "are you not a utah mormon." Doesn't that imply you believed I was? If so, why did you believe that way?

 

[DeepShadow]

Perhaps the anti vs. loose reporting issue is a Utah Mormon vs. non-Utah Mormon thing.

Perhaps. I agree with Emmalee that this would have been different if the writer were in Utah. In Utah there's little to no excuse for misinformation about Mormons. His paper would have a link to the LDS.org newsroom, for one thing, and they'd have established protocols for dealing with the church.

I think Utah Mormons sometimes forget how ignorant people outside of Utah can really be about Mormons. I had a classmate in high school who literally thought I wanted to be a polygamist. He was neither stupid nor malicious, just confused.

Perhaps in Utah, everyone knows enough about the church to pick a side, and thus people are for it or against it. Elsewhere, there's a huge grey area between the two, and at times it seems to be populated almost entirely by lazy reporters.:slap:


Of course, I can see another reason why some folks might label this as "anti:" because it misrepresents the church. This isn't exactly an unfair criterion, even if I don't use it; after all, slander laws IIRC don't distinguish between the criminally malicious person who starts a rumor and the criminally stupid person who perpetuates it. In the eyes of the law, they are both guilty of the same crime, which is measured in part by the harm or potential harm done to the slandered party. In that sense, someone might call up this reporter's boss with a libel suit and make it stick. Malicious or not, he's responsible for his words.

 

[Katzpur]

Of course, I can see another reason why some folks might label this as "anti:" because it misrepresents the church. This isn't exactly an unfair criterion, even if I don't use it; after all, slander laws IIRC don't distinguish between the criminally malicious person who starts a rumor and the criminally stupid person who perpetuates it. In the eyes of the law, they are both guilty of the same crime, which is measured in part by the harm or potential harm done to the slandered party. In that sense, someone might call up this reporter's boss with a libel suit and make it stick. Malicious or not, he's responsible for his words.

That's why I labeled it "anti." A responsible journalist would check his facts before submitting an article for publication. It's certainly not difficult to get accurate information on the Church and to make as many "mistakes" as this guy did is pretty good evidence that he couldn't have cared less whether or not he got it right. And comments like "long, bulky underwear" -- honestly! I'm sure this guy had a blast writing his article, but I wonder if he even looked at the Church's official website in the process.

 

[Comprehend]

Don't backtrack now. You said, "are you not a utah mormon." Doesn't that imply you believed I was? If so, why did you believe that way?

I didn't backtrack, you are being ridiculous.

It in no way implies I believed you were a utah mormon. I had never thought about it either way until you made that statement which seemed to imply that you were not a utah mormon, I asked the question to verify that was what you meant....

See, you implied that you were "not a utah mormon" so I asked in order to avoid any confusion.... "are you not a utah mormon"... not really all that difficult to follow.

It was just a straight-forward question. Rather than answer it, you decide to make something out of it.

 

[Comprehend]

Perhaps. I agree with Emmalee that this would have been different if the writer were in Utah. In Utah there's little to no excuse for misinformation about Mormons. His paper would have a link to the LDS.org newsroom, for one thing, and they'd have established protocols for dealing with the church.

I think Utah Mormons sometimes forget how ignorant people outside of Utah can really be about Mormons. I had a classmate in high school who literally thought I wanted to be a polygamist. He was neither stupid nor malicious, just confused.

Perhaps in Utah, everyone knows enough about the church to pick a side, and thus people are for it or against it. Elsewhere, there's a huge grey area between the two, and at times it seems to be populated almost entirely by lazy reporters.:slap:


Of course, I can see another reason why some folks might label this as "anti:" because it misrepresents the church. This isn't exactly an unfair criterion, even if I don't use it; after all, slander laws IIRC don't distinguish between the criminally malicious person who starts a rumor and the criminally stupid person who perpetuates it. In the eyes of the law, they are both guilty of the same crime, which is measured in part by the harm or potential harm done to the slandered party. In that sense, someone might call up this reporter's boss with a libel suit and make it stick. Malicious or not, he's responsible for his words.

I understand that you guys run into a lot of everyday people who don't have a clue about the church, that I completely understand. However, I bet none of those everyday people have written an article about "what the LDS church believes".

I don't know a darn thing about a lot of religions but you can bet that if I were to write an article about one, I would see what that religion said about itself. The difference here in my opinion is that you guys think that a reporter could be so stupid as to not check what the LDS church said about itself. Personally I find that hard to believe, particularly when every time they get something wrong, it seems to be negative. Also, in such a small article, they seemed to be able to cram in a lot of trivial negative information such as Joseph Smith have an armed group of rebels and having himself crowned king, etc. They also were able to mention how many wives Joseph Smith had and talk about the poor history with blacks in the church....

All that leads me to believe it wasn't some complete moron of a reporter who had no idea what they were doing and not enough sense to check the LDS website for information as well as a complete moron of an editor who also did not have the sense and also a complete moron for a fact checker, all of whom were unable to consider actually checking the LDS website....

I have a difficult time imagining such a "perfect storm" of stupidity.

It is a pretty fantastic story to believe if we want to pretend it wasn't written that way on purpose.

 

[DeepShadow]

I have a difficult time imagining such a "perfect storm" of stupidity.
It is a pretty fantastic story to believe if we want to pretend it wasn't written that way on purpose.

Begging your pardon but your alternative would be a "perfect storm" of maliciousness. After all, wouldn't the editor and fact checker have to be "anti-" in order to let something like this pass? Or if they were merely stupid, they could be stupid for a stupid writer as easily as for a malicious one, and that still reduces the errors in this article to one source--the writer.

I hear what you're saying, but I know plenty of people in the writing business who would look over an article like that and say that it merely repeated what they'd always considered pretty common knowledge about Mormons. An article like this isn't intended to break new ground.

Finally, while I agree that someone should have checked the church website, that wouldn't have covered all the historical and other data they needed. Even if it did, the (lazy) author already had an interview with the President of the Church as a source, so he may have figured he didn't need more of our side.

P.S. As others have said, we are all entitled to our opinions. I never intended my previous post to be the last word, nor this one.

 

[Comprehend]

Begging your pardon but your alternative would be a "perfect storm" of maliciousness. After all, wouldn't the editor and fact checker have to be "anti-" in order to let something like this pass? Or if they were merely stupid, they could be stupid for a stupid writer as easily as for a malicious one, and that still reduces the errors in this article to one source--the writer.

I hear what you're saying, but I know plenty of people in the writing business who would look over an article like that and say that it merely repeated what they'd always considered pretty common knowledge about Mormons. An article like this isn't intended to break new ground.

Finally, while I agree that someone should have checked the church website, that wouldn't have covered all the historical and other data they needed. Even if it did, the (lazy) author already had an interview with the President of the Church as a source, so he may have figured he didn't need more of our side.

P.S. As others have said, we are all entitled to our opinions. I never intended my previous post to be the last word, nor this one.

ok. I can live with that.

 

[Comprehend]

Well....

It looks like, me, katzpur, and Orson Scott Card all think this article was anti-mormon crap...

FULL ARTICLE



"It's started already. For instance, in the issue of The Week of March 17, 2007, we get a sneer and a hatchet job disguised as journalism.

While pretending to give an impartial look at Mormon beliefs and culture, they're really doing a smackdown, trying to kill Mitt Romney's candidacy with ridicule.

But, being journalists, they have to pretend they're just reporting the facts.

They try to leave the impression that the Mormon Church is racist, wacko, breeding like flies and obscenely rich..."

 

[DeepShadow]

Good to know! And of course, OSC is as entitled to his opinion as the rest of us are.

 

[Comprehend]

Good to know! And of course, OSC is as entitled to his opinion as the rest of us are.

yeah, I knew you would like it...

 

[jonny]

Imagine if everyone who offended members of the church with bigoted comments lost their job like Imus lost his. There would be a serious shortage of reporters out there...

 

[Bishka]

Imagine if everyone who offended members of the church with bigoted comments lost their job like Imus lost his. There would be a serious shortage of reporters out there...

Then perhaps we would get reporters that would report the facts, not their opinions!