Redux: Media coverage of Elder Oaks's talk

[Scott Lloyd]

I was dismayed when I logged on here this morning to find that sometime last evening, my thread had been closed. Since I originated the thread, and since I wasn't involved in the fracas that presumably got it shut down, I feel justified in revisiting the topic for the express purpose of responding to a post from Analytics. Here is a copy-and-paste of his comment:

Whether or not the Tribune took Oaks's words out of context isn't determined by comparing the word-count of the Tribune article to the word count of the speech as Campbell seems to think. Rather, it depends upon whether or not the 137 words it used are sufficient to acurately describe the part of the speech the article was talking about. If somebody talks for 30 minutes about how people should be free to worship God as they see fit, and then talk for 1 minute about how "in their effect" (whatever that means), supporters of proposition 8 suffer from the same thing that blacks in the South did, the latter-one minute is more newsworthy than the other 30 minutes, and a newspaper has no moral obligation to make sure that 97% of the text of the story deals with the 97% of the speech that wasn't newsworthy.

If this 3% argument is the best Campell has, then the answer to his question is that the Tribune can't be charged with taking his words out of context because it didn't.

What I take exception to here is the implied supposition by Analytics that a media-orchestrated, politically correct backlash over the wording in a limited comparison used by Elder Oaks is more "newsworthy" than the substance of the highly important speech he delivered at BYU-Idaho.

With a degree in mass communications and nearly 30-years of post-college professional experience, I can claim some background in the matter of what is and is not newsworthy. A popular dictionary provides what I think is a pretty good capsule definition: "having the qualities of news; timely and important or interesting" (boldface emphasis mine). Thus, newsworthiness entails more than merely what is sexy or sensational enough to draw a plethora of readers or viewers or, in today's context, Web site hits. The concept of importance is a very substantial part of the mix.

Elder Oaks gave a very important, well-reasoned and articulate message about a current condition in society in which a powerful advocacy movement is endeavoring to intimidate -- and thereby silence the voice -- of their political opponents. If non-Mormons or anti-Mormons or ex-Mormons or people who stand aloof altogether from the gay marriage controversy don't regard that as an important matter, I can assure you that the Latter-day Saints who make up the bulk of the news-consuming public in Utah do. Alas, outlets such as the Tribune and Fox 13 News elected to shove the important substance of the speech way into the background and, effectively inject their own editorializing into the news coverage by deciding in advance that some folks ought to be offended by Elder Oaks's choice of words and then seeking out and deliberately fomenting ill will among individuals they deemed most likely to take such offense.

Thus, in this instance, the public was ill-served by a segment of the news media in Utah and elsewhere. One can be grateful that verbatim transcriptions of the apostle's words are available on line. But you can't force people to read them, and, as Daniel Peterson has pointed out, it seems that all too few of the more strident speakers in the public debate are taking that opportunity.

[Daniel Peterson]

Excellent post, Scott.

[Analytics]

Hi Scott,

Unlike that awful Joel Campbell article you quoted in the other thread, you make a fair point here. While I emphatically disagree regarding your assertion that his speech as a whole was well-reasoned, I do agree that the public would have been better-served had the coverage and debate been about his message as a whole rather than that one awful comparison.

I haven

[Confidential Informant]

I haven

[Scott Lloyd]

Why do I continue to fail to see the irony? Yes, I know all about those rascally Mormon polygamist and their fight w/ the U.S. government back in the 19th century. However, what every fails to realize is that what the gays activists are fighting for now, and what the Mormon polygamists were fighting for back then, are two totally different things.

Mormon polygamists were not seeking normilazation and (morm imporantly) official sanction. They merely sought decriminalization so that they could continute to practice what they considered to be a religious right. They never, ever sought to have polygamy receive co-equal treatment with monogamous heterosexual marriages (though the real irony is that polygamist relationships would deserve that recogniztion long before same sex marriages received it).

IMO, this presumed irony really doesn't exist.

C.I.

The only way the comparison could be valid would be if Mormons were seeking to have practicing homosexuals imprisoned; seeking to dissolve their domestic arrangements; seeking to deprive them of the right to vote, run for public office, and other privileges of citizenship; seeking to curtail their right to assemble as a religious body and thereby incorporate, hold property, etc. It only takes a moment of cursory reflection to see the sophistry in this comparison.

I agree: no irony here.

[Analytics]

Why do I continue to fail to see the irony?

My guess is because you are being intentionally obtuse.

The Mormon Church and its teachings have gone from being a huge threat to traditional families to a huge champion of traditional families. They

[Scott Lloyd]

My guess is because you are being intentionally obtuse.

The Mormon Church and its teachings have gone from being a huge threat to traditional families to a huge champion of traditional families. They

[Analytics]

So where's the irony? In what instance is the LDS Church calling for the imprisonment of gays, depriving them of their rights of citizenship and the other things I mentioned above?

The irony is in the fact that the Mormon Church and its teachings have gone from being a huge threat to traditional families to a huge champion of traditional families. They

[jwhitlock]

The only way the comparison could be valid would be if Mormons were seeking to have practicing homosexuals imprisoned; seeking to dissolve their domestic arrangements; seeking to deprive them of the right to vote, run for public office, and other privileges of citizenship; seeking to curtail their right to assemble as a religious body and thereby incorporate, hold property, etc. It only takes a moment of cursory reflection to see the sophistry in this comparison.

I agree: no irony here.

An excellent point, and a significant difference in what really is / was happing with SSM and plural marriage.

[jwhitlock]

The irony is in the fact that the Mormon Church and its teachings have gone from being a huge threat to traditional families to a huge champion of traditional families. They

[Confidential Informant]

My guess is because you are being intentionally obtuse.

That must be it. It certainly can't be because there actually is no irony in the situation.

[Scott Lloyd]

I was dismayed when I logged on here this morning to find that sometime last evening, my thread had been closed. Since I originated the thread, and since I wasn't involved in the fracas that presumably got it shut down, I feel justified in revisiting the topic for the express purpose of responding to a post from Analytics. Here is a copy-and-paste of his comment:

What I take exception to here is the implied supposition by Analytics that a media-orchestrated, politically correct backlash over the wording in a limited comparison used by Elder Oaks is more "newsworthy" than the substance of the highly important speech he delivered at BYU-Idaho.

With a degree in mass communications and nearly 30-years of post-college professional experience, I can claim some background in the matter of what is and is not newsworthy. A popular dictionary provides what I think is a pretty good capsule definition: "having the qualities of news; timely and important or interesting" (boldface emphasis mine). Thus, newsworthiness entails more than merely what is sexy or sensational enough to draw a plethora of readers or viewers or, in today's context, Web site hits. The concept of importance is a very substantial part of the mix.

Elder Oaks gave a very important, well-reasoned and articulate message about a current condition in society in which a powerful advocacy movement is endeavoring to intimidate -- and thereby silence the voice -- of their political opponents. If non-Mormons or anti-Mormons or ex-Mormons or people who stand aloof altogether from the gay marriage controversy don't regard that as an important matter, I can assure you that the Latter-day Saints who make up the bulk of the news-consuming public in Utah do. Alas, outlets such as the Tribune and Fox 13 News elected to shove the important substance of the speech way into the background and, effectively inject their own editorializing into the news coverage by deciding in advance that some folks ought to be offended by Elder Oaks's choice of words and then seeking out and deliberately fomenting ill will among individuals they deemed most likely to take such offense.

Thus, in this instance, the public was ill-served by a segment of the news media in Utah and elsewhere. One can be grateful that verbatim transcriptions of the apostle's words are available on line. But you can't force people to read them, and, as Daniel Peterson has pointed out, it seems that all too few of the more strident speakers in the public debate are taking that opportunity.

Since I wrote the above post, the Salt Lake Tribune has redeemed itself to some degree with a generally thoughtful piece in this morning's (Saturday) religion section, "Was Dallin Oaks Right?" It is critical in some respects of Elder Oaks's speech at BYU-Idaho, but at least it deals with the substance of his remarks instead of offering up kneejerk responses and obsessing over the trivial matter of whether Mormons have the right to compare themselves to black voters of the '60s.

I believe credit should be given where credit is due; hence I am making this post.

[Zakuska]

Got a link?

[Scott Lloyd]

Got a link?

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13611733

[Mighty Curelom]

I agree. The news media has latched on to a relatively minor statement. They're missing the real story--the substance of Oaks's talk--which is a kind of manipulative hysteria the church is attempting to induce in its members. You may recall that the church's primary argument in denying civil rights to gays was "religious freedom," making the disingenuous and patently absurd argument that if gay marriage was legal, the church could be forced to perform gay marriages. In temples. While quoting the Humanist Manifesto and wearing multiple piercings. Which, of course, is absolutely ridiculous. The church was never forced to grant the priesthood to blacks, even after the civil rights era had come and gone. No church in the history of the nation has ever been forced to perform a marriage of any kind. Churches in this country are afforded extreme legal deference. In many cases a church can participate in actions that would be criminal if engaged in for non-religious purposes.

It's clear that the banner of "religious freedom" was raised in a disingenuous, manipulative manner when it was used as a rationalization to discriminate against gays. In raising that same banner in response to a few overheated vandals, it seems the church has found a new rally cry. When "family values" don't motivate the troops, you can always rely on fear.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree. The news media has latched on to a relatively minor statement. They're missing the real story--the substance of Oaks's talk--which is a kind of manipulative hysteria the church is attempting to induce in its members. You may recall that the church's primary argument in denying civil rights to gays was "religious freedom," making the disingenuous and patently absurd argument that if gay marriage was legal, the church could be forced to perform gay marriages. In temples. While quoting the Humanist Manifesto and wearing multiple piercings. Which, of course, is absolutely ridiculous. The church was never forced to grant the priesthood to blacks, even after the civil rights era had come and gone. No church in the history of the nation has ever been forced to perform a marriage of any kind. Churches in this country are afforded extreme legal deference. In many cases a church can participate in actions that would be criminal if engaged in for non-religious purposes.

It's clear that the banner of "religious freedom" was raised in a disingenuous, manipulative manner when it was used as a rationalization to discriminate against gays. In raising that same banner in response to a few overheated vandals, it seems the church has found a new rally cry. When "family values" don't motivate the troops, you can always rely on fear.

Actually, "family values" has worked quite well as a motivator so far, if the success of Prop 8 is any indication. The hue and cry and occasional violent and criminal outbursts from the gay rights movement in the wake of the Prop 8 fight should tell you that.

But religious freedom, like all civil liberties, cannot survive and thrive by default. The history of the United States, and of the Church of Jesus Christ in particular, shows that it needs defending, preserving and championing. Expect to see more of that. And opposition to the legal redefinition of marriage does not amount to discrimination, though it does object to the granting of special privilege, which could conceivably work against the free exercise of conscience by those who disapprove of the special privilege. The Trib article cites some real-world examples.

By the way, was it you who tried to damn this thread with faint praise by introducing a rating and then giving it only one star with yours being the only vote? Rather amusing.