I saw a funny link on M* to this editorial called “Op-ed: Tribune should go on; LDS scripture requires it.” Of course this piqued my curiosity so I read through it. The scripture in question is that there must be opposition in all things. Had to laugh, since this scripture is about why evil is necessary in mortality. Well, actually that understates the unintended humor in this article. Check out 2 Nephi 2:10 for full context. This scripture is actually explaining why God must punish the wicked.
This op-ed is pretty poor for the most part. A confused throwing together of unsupported opinions. The article make the following, imo, humorous charges:
The SL Tribune is the only “Newspaper” in Utah because the Deseret News doesn’t qualify
His rational reasoning behind this charge? Because “the role of a good newspaper is to ‘comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.’”
Okay, silly me, but I thought all along the point of the news was to report what is going on. I’ve long been angry and upset that news medias don’t ever seem to do this and instead seem to have subtle but plausibly deniable political agendas. Well, at least for the SL Tribune, we have it straight in this op-ed that actually their purpose isn’t to report the news but to oppose the majority view in Utah.
Oh, come on, is the LDS view really the majority view in Utah? Probably not. And if not, then how is it a case of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable? Isn’t it sort of more like taking a minority that is hated everywhere and making sure they get kicked hard in their own home? Doesn’t that then mean that the Deseret News is the one actually comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable?
Oh, and isn’t this whole conversation sort of silly since who is comfortable and who is afflicted is largely subjective and arbitrary anyhow?
In this community, more than half the population will never subscribe to the Deseret News, on principle
Excuse me, but if the SL Tribune is going out of business, doesn’t that mean that even more than half the population will never subscribe to the SL Tribune on principle too? And how, exactly, is the LDS view a majority view if half of Utah won’t subscribe to Deseret News on principle? Doesn’t that sort of undermine the entire ‘comfort the afflicted’ argument?
The Tribune helps counter some of the political ignorance in our community and state. Malfeasance at the state attorney’s office would not have been corrected without Tribune reporting.
While I seriously doubt the second sentence… er, I sort of agree with the first.
Okay, let’s be honest. I’m a Popperian. I think conflict is good. I think it forces us to improve. I do, at times, so wish the SL Tribune was be even slightly fair towards the LDS Church. But frankly, I guess I do believe that news is biased and we have to just accept that and we should give up on the idea that it isn’t and just let the news honestly declare its biases. And this op-ed does this very well via really bad arguments. (Well the argument about advertising revenue was pretty good.)
Honestly, I think that this op-ed is so obviously biased is a good thing. That it had to use bad arguments to get there is — human.
What is the purpose of this op-ed? I mean why even bother to point out how the LDS church ‘benefits’ from the opposition and thus it will be bad if they go out of business? Are they hoping to get a subsidy from the Church? A government hand out? What are they after?
Well, it’s trying to get people who already don’t like the church angry, of course, to try to get them to subscribe. Of course that’s what it is! Thus the need for the emotional arguments devoid of rational content; because, you know, people don’t respond to rationality, they respond to moral outrage. Does anyone not see the irony of the Salt Lake Tribune attempting to survive by taking potshots at members of the LDS Church and while simultaneously basically coming clean and admitting they are totally biased, then using that as the reason you should support them?
And so what? Is that really so bad? Isn’t that what ‘freedom of speech’ is really all about? And by allowing two newspapers that have opposite biases, I suspect we are richer for having both.
I hope the Salt Lake Tribune does not go out of business. I think that would make me sad. Just not for the reasons given here.