SL Tribune Does It Again

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But you seemed fairly certain before it was just a display of light-hearted humor — like your own remark about working among university professors. I gather you are not so certain now. 

You are now asking me to pass judgement on a person, not a comment. The comment alone is fine; I stand by that assessment from earlier. Please don't badger me to pass judgement on a person I've had virtually no interaction with.

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You are now asking me to pass judgement on a person, not a comment. The comment alone is fine; I stand by that assessment from earlier. Please don't badger me to pass judgement on a person I've had virtually no interaction with.

No badgering intended. You are welcome not to respond to me, and I will not think the lesser of you either way. 

I just think 2BizE’s response here confirms my earlier impression, as does his/her comment on a separate thread about having a coffee maker on an Amazon wish list and apparently expressing hope that changes to be announced at the upcoming general conference will include the ending of the Word of Wisdom prohibition of coffee consumption. 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

On 8/31/2019 at 2:56 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I understood the distinction at the age of 10. I find it hard to believe that college educated adults can’t grasp it. 

When you were 10 the distinction was probably mostly followed in the media. It's hard to believe you watch and read the media and don't notice the strong breakdown of that division - particularly in television news. People aren't being stupid when they disregard the distinction. The link I provided to Deseret News has no clear division in it. Unless you know the figures there's no way to know what's news and what's opinion. So blame editors and producers not the readers.

Edited September 3, 2019 by clarkgoble

[2BizE]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But you seemed fairly certain before it was just a display of light-hearted humor — like your own remark about working among university professors. I gather you are not so certain now. 

I actually reply this way in interviews. I’ve found most members really don’t know what DC 89 says. I’m the type of person, like many, that believes in following the rules.  When my kids play soccer, I expect they follow the rules as well as the other kids. When I drive, if the speed limit says 80 kph, I drive 80 kph or less. That’s just the kind of person I am.  Now, let me share an analogy.

Suppose you drive down to city hall and parallel park outside on the street like you always do. Then,  when you come out of city hall, you see you have received a ticket for parallel parking.  You are upset, naturally.  You refuse to pay the ticket, and go to the court hearing with the judge.  Opposing you is the city police, who enforce the rules.  You start the proceedings with presenting your argument that parallel parking is legal. You produce the city regulations that clearly state in 1923 the ordinance was passed allowing parallel parking outside city hall.  You show the ordinance has never been updated, thus parallel parking is clearly legal on the street outside city hall.  The city then begins presenting its case.  The city produces a letter from 1952, from the mayor, stating that he didn’t care very much about people parallel parking outside city hall.  The city produces a more recent letter from 1976 from a mayor stating that cars shouldn’t park outside city hall at all because it blocks the mayors office window view of the mountains.  The city rests its case. Now, the judge must  decide who is abiding the law?  You or the city.  Who do you think is in the right? What regulations should be followed.  The legal, documented ordinances, or the letters sent out on occasion from the mayor?

 

 

Edited September 3, 2019 by 2BizE

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

When you were 10 the distinction was probably mostly followed in the media. It's hard to believe you watch and read the media and don't notice the strong breakdown of that division - particularly in television news. People aren't being stupid when they disregard the distinction. The link I provided to Deseret News has no clear division in it. Unless you know the figures there's no way to know what's news and what's opinion. So blame editors and producers not the readers.

I have assuredly noted a disturbing decline in professional standards among journalists, notably some associated with cable news networks and mainstream broadcast networks and national print media. But that doesn’t mean those journalistic standards have ceased to exist. Nor does it argue against championing them, following them and teaching them. Hence, my care in seeing to it that my daughter, the freshman high school journalism student, understands them and follows them in the work she submits. 

And I reject your premise that a reasonably intelligent reader/viewer can’t tell the difference between reporting and editorializing, whether they are explicitly labeled as such. 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I reject your premise that a reasonably intelligent reader/viewer can’t tell the difference between reporting and editorializing, whether they are explicitly labeled as such. 

It's been a rather widely discussed problem. Only 43% of people would even say they could easily tell the difference. Admittedly for traditional news the rate was much better, but that's for what people admit. The bigger issue (IMO) is the actual blurring of news with more opinion within it. As I mentioned, DesNews current layout doesn't clearly distinguish opinion from reporting. One study from a couple of years ago found only 40% of news organizations label article types.

I think it's a much bigger problem than you do - particularly articles that people discover via social media rather than perusing the main page of a regularly read site. Honestly I think it's a major contributing factor for why people trust the news less and less. And none of this is even getting into the problem of actual opinion appearing in what is more straightforward news stories.

Edited September 3, 2019 by clarkgoble

[longview]

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

People aren't being stupid when they disregard the distinction. The link I provided to Deseret News has no clear division in it. Unless you know the figures there's no way to know what's news and what's opinion. So blame editors and producers not the readers.

 

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have assuredly noted a disturbing decline in professional standards among journalists, notably some associated with cable news networks an mainstream broadcast networks and national print media. But that doesn’t mean those journalistic standards have ceased to exist. Nor does it argue against championing them, following them and teaching them. Hence, my care in seeing to it that my daughter, the freshman high school journalism student, understands them and follows them in the work she submits. 

And I reject your premise that a reasonably intelligent reader/viewer can’t tell the difference between reporting and editorializing, whether they are explicitly labeled as such. 

Several years ago I started noticing a peculiar pattern in news articles (both local and syndicated) in which several paragraphs would begin with the word "BUT".  So I would read the previous paragraphs again to see who it was that is making the "wrong" assertion and then try to understand the objections outlined in the "BUT" paragraphs.  Frequently I came to the conclusion that the "offending" person is identified with conservatism, Republicanism, traditionalist, or what have you.  The objections will list various reasons such as the person being politically incorrect, mean spirited, nationalistic, unresponsive to problems that have been articulated in the public square, etc.

The dominant media (meaning NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc) have become less and less circumspect in "pretending" to be objective in news reporting and more uncaring about exposing themselves as being partisan hacks in advocating for the "politically correct narrative".  Thankfully conservatives and traditionalists have other outlets besides the Dominant Media such as AM radio and various websites.  I have recently subscribed to the "The Epoch Times" (a conservative, anti-communist newspaper) that publishes online 5 days a week and delivers hardcopy newspaper once a week.  This gives me better coverage or insights to the news of the day or events ignored by certain media.

[Tacenda]

There's a big problem in my area with drinking "Fizz" drinks. You should see the line up at the drive through. Interesting that KSL posted this article from CNN, especially since it's owned by the church and counters our WoW somewhat. https://www.ksl.com/article/46631415/want-to-live-longer-you-may-want-to-ditch-these-drinks

"If you've not been drinking caffeine-free soda, then a good part of your addition to that soft drink is the caffeine buzz you're getting. Try substituting green or black tea instead, Al Bochi said."

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There's a big problem in my area with drinking "Fizz" drinks. You should see the line up at the drive through. Interesting that KSL posted this article from CNN, especially since it's owned by the church and counters our WoW somewhat. https://www.ksl.com/article/46631415/want-to-live-longer-you-may-want-to-ditch-these-drinks

"If you've not been drinking caffeine-free soda, then a good part of your addition to that soft drink is the caffeine buzz you're getting. Try substituting green or black tea instead, Al Bochi said."

So you think the Church should exert heavy-handed control over the content on the KSL website, then? Because that’s what you seem to be insinuating. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you think the Church should exert heavy-handed control over the content on the KSL website, then? Because that’s what you seem to be insinuating. 

Just the opposite, I said it's interesting, come to think of it, a nice suprise.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Just the opposite, I said it's interesting, come to think of it, a nice suprise.

I don’t know why you should think it a surprise that KSL has some degree of autonomy. You must not follow it very closely.