Salt Lake Tribune to be Sold to Huntsman Family

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Newspapers still exist? How quaint!  

Heh. Exactly.

The plaintiffs in the law suit don't get it. The newspaper was already floundering. In approaching Deseret News management and offering a deal, Digital First Media was trying to chart a course for sustainability going forward with, well, media that are "digital first."

 

Edited April 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Both objectivity and fairness are important things.  

The Deseret News is incapable of complete objectivity on these issues.  I agree that they can be professional, but that's a different measurement.  I think that its impossible for a news outlet that is owned by an institution to be 100% objective about news impacting that institution.  Its not a slight on the Des News or the church, I'm just pointing out what I thought was obvious.  

Now I'm wondering why I've spent time debating what is obvious.... Ugh...  This is one of those moments where I get frustrated with myself.  

No one is capable of complete objectivity. The very notion is a myth.

On the other hand, professionalism, fairness, balance, accuracy, common-sense perspectives are all attainable goals.

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Wait, I thought Google searches were dangerous to faith and to be avoided?  :-)

I know the above is tongue-in-cheek, but I hope there's not an underlying message here about Mormons being pressured not to look for information on the Internet. I don't see such directives emanating from the Church leadership, although they do encourage us to be wise in our consumption of information, including, where we can, balancing what we hear or read against what we are able to find from reliable sources.

 

Edited April 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No one is capable of complete objectivity. The very notion is a myth.

On the other hand, professionalism, fairness, balance, accuracy, common-sense perspectives are all attainable goals.

I agree to some extent, but I still think objectivity is an important principle to strive for.  Its also important to use critical thinking skills and understand connections that influence objectivity like ownership, vested interests, past history, relationships, etc.  

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know the above is tongue-in-cheek, but I hope there's not an underlying message here about Mormons being pressured not to look for information on the Internet. I don't see such directives emanating from the Church leadership, although they do encourage us to be wise in our consumption of information, including, where we can, balancing what we hear or read against what we are able to find from reliable sources.

 

You know what they say about humor having an element of truth to it.  Oh what a tangled interweb we weave.  

Lots of messages from church leadership to avoid the internet on a regular drum beat lately, including Elder Clayton's talk at BYU yesterday to avoid talking to people who've left the church.  Lots of scare tactics out there, I think they come from a place of fear and misunderstanding for sure.  Sometimes the balanced elements are included, often they are not contextualized well.  Elder Ballard's talk to the CES leaders had a lot of good things in it, that was probably the best attempt I've heard lately, but even his talk had some negative elements that were inconsistent with other messages in the same talk. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

You know what they say about humor having an element of truth to it.  Oh what a tangled interweb we weave.  

Lots of messages from church leadership to avoid the internet on a regular drum beat lately, including Elder Clayton's talk at BYU yesterday to avoid talking to people who've left the church.  Lots of scare tactics out there, I think they come from a place of fear and misunderstanding for sure.  Sometimes the balanced elements are included, often they are not contextualized well.  Elder Ballard's talk to the CES leaders had a lot of good things in it, that was probably the best attempt I've heard lately, but even his talk had some negative elements that were inconsistent with other messages in the same talk. 

Is this available online anywhere?

[hope_for_things]

I'm not sure, I read this article this morning, but couldn't find a link to a transcript of the talk.  Anyone have a link? 

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3805769-155/byu-grads-encouraged-to-keep-an

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure, I read this article this morning, but couldn't find a link to a transcript of the talk.  Anyone have a link? 

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3805769-155/byu-grads-encouraged-to-keep-an

This part?

"The faithless often promote themselves as the wise, who can rescue the rest of us from our naivete," Clayton said. "We should disconnect, immediately and completely, from listening to the proselytizing efforts of those who have lost their faith, and instead reconnect promptly with the holy spirit."

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree to some extent, but I still think objectivity is an important principle to strive for.  Its also important to use critical thinking skills and understand connections that influence objectivity like ownership, vested interests, past history, relationships, etc.  

The problem arises when an attack-dog mentality is mistaken for an "objective" approach when it is anything but objective.

Then we get into the sticky problem of defining what is objective and what isn't and according to whose metric.

That's why I say the goal that should be sought -- more so than the nebulous and difficult-to-define concept of objectivity -- is a standard of fairness, balance, reasonable perspective, accuracy, etc.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, ttribe said:

This part?

 

 

It's a bit difficult to evaluate this without seeing it in context, but it seems to me he is talking here about those who have allowed themselves to become so immersed in negativity, sophistry and propaganda that they have lost any inclination to seek or be guided by spiritual promptings and direction and they won't entertain reasonable rebuttals to what they are embracing. That's hardly the same thing as saying "Google searches are dangerous to faith and to be avoided."

Edited to add: In trying to find context for the quote, I looked at the Deseret News report of the same commencement speech. For what it's worth, I found this:

Quote

The connection that matters most, Elder Clayton said, is the one shared with God. “Whatever we do that may tend to weaken our connection — our binding — with heaven should be assessed with wariness. Everything we do that tends to reinforce faith and promotes keeping our covenants should be embraced. Our connection with heaven is the most valuable blessing we have and the most important one we can secure. It strengthens every other worthy connection in our lives.”

 

Edited April 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You know what they say about humor having an element of truth to it.  Oh what a tangled interweb we weave.  

Lots of messages from church leadership to avoid the internet on a regular drum beat lately, including Elder Clayton's talk at BYU yesterday to avoid talking to people who've left the church.  Lots of scare tactics out there.

Any other examples besides the snippet from the Whitney L. Clayton commencement address? If there are lots of messages lately telling us to avoid the Internet, it ought to be fairly easy to cite two or three examples.

Quote

I think they come from a place of fear and misunderstanding for sure.  Sometimes the balanced elements are included, often they are not contextualized well.  Elder Ballard's talk to the CES leaders had a lot of good things in it, that was probably the best attempt I've heard lately, but even his talk had some negative elements that were inconsistent with other messages in the same talk. 

Are you sure your view of the messages in the talk being inconsistent is not a matter of your own misperception of them?

For reference, here is a transcript of the talk.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You think I'm not seeing the forest for the trees; I think you are being myopic and provincial in failing to recognize how ownership of a newspaper in its headquarters community fits into the structure of keeping the Church of Jesus Christ strong and viable as it fulfills its mission in the latter days to prepare the world for the Second Coming of Christ.

 

Are you actually saying that the Deseret News is somehow a necessary condition precedent to the Second Coming?

I'm not seeing it.

Maybe I am too "myopic and provincial." 

 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Heh. Exactly.

The plaintiffs in the law suit don't get it. The newspaper was already floundering. In approaching Deseret News management and offering a deal, Digital First Media was trying to chart a course for sustainability going forward with, well, media that are "digital first."

 

Question Scott, just wondering if personally due to our "new age" are you concerned about your words in print.  That is, do you see the day where everyone will just link up to you and not have the fresh smell of paper?  Would that change a lot for you?

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

This part?

Yep, that's the part.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The problem arises when an attack-dog mentality is mistaken for an "objective" approach when it is anything but objective.

Then we get into the sticky problem of defining what is objective and what isn't and according to whose metric.

That's why I say the goal that should be sought -- more so than the nebulous and difficult-to-define concept of objectivity -- is a standard of fairness, balance, reasonable perspective, accuracy, etc.

Yes, I can see how that is a problem as well.  I think both are important, but you make fair point, and in practice its difficult to apply any of these standards, but they are worth striving for.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Any other examples besides the snippet from the Whitney L. Clayton commencement address? If there are lots of messages lately telling us to avoid the Internet, it ought to be fairly easy to cite two or three examples.

The Ballard talk to the CES leaders that I like, unfortunately he also said this "Teach them about the challenges they face when relying upon the Internet to answer questions of eternal significance. Remind them that James did not say, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him Google!”

 

Wise people do not rely on the Internet to diagnose and treat emotional, mental, and physical health challenges, especially life-threatening challenges. Instead, they seek out health experts, those trained and licensed by recognized medical and state boards. Even then, prudent people seek a second opinion."

I don't like this advice, it treats the internet as a dangerous medium, where in reality I think wise people do consult the internet for medical advice, and also get second opinions from doctors.  The church would be better served to teach critical thinking and analysis of ideas and content.  There is a lot of really good information on the internet, why paint a google search as valuable when you can get a lot of value from trusted professional online as well.  This shows Ballard's ignorance.  

Another talk from Oct 2015 conference by Uchtdorf (usually one of my favorite speakers) where he gives a similar story to Ballard: "Consequently I decided to expedite the healing process by undertaking my own Internet search. I suppose I expected to discover truth of which my doctors were unaware or had tried to keep from me.

 

It took me a little while before I realized the irony of what I was doing. Of course, researching things for ourselves is not a bad idea. But I was disregarding truth I could rely on and instead found myself being drawn to the often-outlandish claims of Internet lore."

Those are just off the top of my head.  I could find more examples, but i think you get the idea.  

 

Quote

Are you sure your view of the messages in the talk being inconsistent is not a matter of your own misperception of them?

For reference, here is a transcript of the talk.

I liked the Ballard talk on the whole, shared a copy with my Bishop.  The avoid the internet rhetoric message is a common message, it goes hand in hand with the fear the outsider, fear the world messages.  Unfortunately for the church leaders, I think they are trying to stretch forth their puny arms and stop the course of the internet moving upstream.  The internet is ubiquitous in the younger generations.  You can't effectively demonize it, no matter how hard you try.  Hence, many are called, but few are chosen.  :-)

Edited April 22, 2016 by hope_for_things

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Question Scott, just wondering if personally due to our "new age" are you concerned about your words in print.  That is, do you see the day where everyone will just link up to you and not have the fresh smell of paper?  Would that change a lot for you?

My words are already online, often before they ever show up in print. Perhaps already, more readers get them that way than in the printed version.

As the man said, "The future is now."

And a good thing too, when one considers global and virtually unlimited reach compared to what can be accomplished with words on paper.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My words are already online, often before they ever show up in print. Perhaps already more readers get them that way than in the printed version.

As the man said, "The future is now."

I figured that.  But if you are like me, nothing like the real thing..kind of like if you have kindle, it doesn't replace the smell of fresh books in a liibrary. 

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The Ballard talk to the CES leaders that I like, unfortunately he also said this "Teach them about the challenges they face when relying upon the Internet to answer questions of eternal significance. Remind them that James did not say, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him Google!”

 

Wise people do not rely on the Internet to diagnose and treat emotional, mental, and physical health challenges, especially life-threatening challenges. Instead, they seek out health experts, those trained and licensed by recognized medical and state boards. Even then, prudent people seek a second opinion."

I don't like this advice, it treats the internet as a dangerous medium, where in reality I think wise people do consult the internet for medical advice, and also get second opinions from doctors.  The church would be better served to teach critical thinking and analysis of ideas and content.  There is a lot of really good information on the internet, why paint a google search as valuable when you can get a lot of value from trusted professional online as well.  This shows Ballard's ignorance.  

Another talk from Oct 2015 conference by Uchtdorf (usually one of my favorite speakers) where he gives a similar story to Ballard: "Consequently I decided to expedite the healing process by undertaking my own Internet search. I suppose I expected to discover truth of which my doctors were unaware or had tried to keep from me.

 

It took me a little while before I realized the irony of what I was doing. Of course, researching things for ourselves is not a bad idea. But I was disregarding truth I could rely on and instead found myself being drawn to the often-outlandish claims of Internet lore."

Those are just off the top of my head.  I could find more examples, but i think you get the idea.  

 

I liked the Ballard talk on the whole, shared a copy with my Bishop.  The avoid the internet rhetoric message is a common message, it goes hand in hand with the fear the outsider, fear the world messages.  Unfortunately for the church leaders, I think they are trying to stretch forth their puny arms and stop the course of the internet moving upstream.  The internet is ubiquitous in the younger generations.  You can't effectively demonize it, no matter how hard you try.  Hence, many are called, but few are chosen.  :-)

Thanks for this response.

But on the whole here, I don't see any endeavor to stop the Internet river or to forbid anyone from going onlne, just a caution about how to receive and process the information once one accesses it

Again, a far cry from "avoid the Internet."

Edited April 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

Scott..words live.  No matter what. I think you are lucky that you get to do what you love,  Inspite of the fact that my sentences don't make much sense sometimes..(I think faster than I can type)..and I sometimes use "aint got none" from my little home town.  I went to Jr. College wanted to be a journalist.  I had won honors in poetry, short stories and stuff.  But my professor said unless I could get my opinion out of the storie..all I would be able to do is editorials.  Best to you.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Are you actually saying that the Deseret News is somehow a necessary condition precedent to the Second Coming?

 

Just a means to an end. If it won't be the Deseret News, it will be something else.

Because of residual affection and historical equity, however (in existence since 1850, oldest business in Utah, one of the oldest newspapers in the nation), I hope it stays around a while longer in one form or another.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thanks for this response.

But on the whole here, I don't see  endeavor to stop the Internet river or to forbid anyone from going onlne, just a caution about how to receive and process with the information once one accesses it

Again, a far cry from "avoid the Internet."

Beware of the internet would probably be a more fair interpretation, than avoid the internet.  Its not that there isn't some wisdom in that, but it would be much more effective to teach skills for using the internet instead of the same old drum beat that you can't trust everything on the internet and then don't provide education on how to use the internet wisely.  How to evaluate content, how to fact check, how to look for original sources, how to determine what is valuable and what is not.   That's what would provide value for church members, not the beware the internet mantra.  

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I figured that.  But if you are like me, nothing like the real thing..kind of like if you have kindle, it doesn't replace the smell of fresh books in a liibrary. 

I hear that all the time.

And yet newspapers (the traditional kind) continue to die at an alarming rate. And book publishers are struggling to cope as well.

 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I hear that all the time.

And yet newspapers (the traditional kind) continue to die at an alarming rate. And book publishers are struggling to cope as well.

 

And I hate that!  I love my papers..my books..my magazines.. and don't give a rat's hoot about app's and stuff. 

[Gray]

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The Ballard talk to the CES leaders that I like, unfortunately he also said this "Teach them about the challenges they face when relying upon the Internet to answer questions of eternal significance. Remind them that James did not say, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him Google!”

 

Wise people do not rely on the Internet to diagnose and treat emotional, mental, and physical health challenges, especially life-threatening challenges. Instead, they seek out health experts, those trained and licensed by recognized medical and state boards. Even then, prudent people seek a second opinion."

I don't like this advice, it treats the internet as a dangerous medium, where in reality I think wise people do consult the internet for medical advice, and also get second opinions from doctors.  The church would be better served to teach critical thinking and analysis of ideas and content.  There is a lot of really good information on the internet, why paint a google search as valuable when you can get a lot of value from trusted professional online as well.  This shows Ballard's ignorance.  

Another talk from Oct 2015 conference by Uchtdorf (usually one of my favorite speakers) where he gives a similar story to Ballard: "Consequently I decided to expedite the healing process by undertaking my own Internet search. I suppose I expected to discover truth of which my doctors were unaware or had tried to keep from me.

 

It took me a little while before I realized the irony of what I was doing. Of course, researching things for ourselves is not a bad idea. But I was disregarding truth I could rely on and instead found myself being drawn to the often-outlandish claims of Internet lore."

Those are just off the top of my head.  I could find more examples, but i think you get the idea.  

 

I liked the Ballard talk on the whole, shared a copy with my Bishop.  The avoid the internet rhetoric message is a common message, it goes hand in hand with the fear the outsider, fear the world messages.  Unfortunately for the church leaders, I think they are trying to stretch forth their puny arms and stop the course of the internet moving upstream.  The internet is ubiquitous in the younger generations.  You can't effectively demonize it, no matter how hard you try.  Hence, many are called, but few are chosen.  :-)

People with illnesses absolutely should turn to the internet for answers, going to reliable sources of information like WebMD. No single physician knows everything about every illness. Use all avenues of expertise available to you. 

So yeah, those were some poorly chosen examples in those talks.