This makes me scratch my head: "...and care for the underprivileged in
their honorable self-betterment as a duty for all individuals." The Deseret News editorially doesn't care about shifts in distributions
of wealth and income favoring the wealthy. These shifts are stressing all those
who are not wealthy. You seem to imply: "the capitalist system knows best,
and that system is not to be questioned - ever." Do I state this correctly?
It seems like something's missing. Although not exclusive to the editorial
section, the reader comments in the online edition are an important part of the
editorial dialogue - else why the focus on "most commented?" Voices from
across the nation weigh in on nearly every issue. The problem is they are
anonymous voices.Not allowing anonymity could make the Deseret
News' comment feature better reflect the paper's and its owner's
proclaimed commitment to civil dialogue. A registration process that requires
contributors to own their comments, as in your Reader's Forum, would make
life easier for your moderators, raise the level of the dialogue, and make the
Deseret News as unique as it claims to be in today's divisive media.
With several notable exceptions, Deseret News editorials typically take hard
Right political views, and many times they show an real lack of research on the
part of the writer. Many of them seem to be inspired by a single article, or
study, that takes a view that affirms the Deseret News conservative world
view.That being said, the DNews has taken a courageous stance by
only gently moderating comments that disagree with their editorials.
Thank you for the "Explaining Editorial Elements" article! It answered
several question I have had, but the statement "Although neutral on matters
of partisan politics" was a little more than even the most gullible could
swallow! Thanks again for the inside look on your Editorial
Please don't take my criticism and deny this comment. Take it as
constructive criticism.The dnews rarely "analyzes" anything.
They simply copy and paste articles, many which are outdated or discredited by
peer review, from Heritage and the Cato Institute. The editorial page is a
hodgepodge of cut and pasted articles, often, they contradict each other, in an
effort to support their right wing agenda. I remember a few weeks
ago an "analysis" offered by the dnews which attacked democrats and
stated that democrats were discouraging people from having children. That
somehow smaller families was a bad thing and the state could support unlimited
growth. This was on their editorial page (copied from Heritage).Then, literally a day later, in another section of the paper, there were
scientists sending out warnings about the lack of water in the state. A day
later, a report on our worst in nation air quality. A day later, a landslide in
north salt lake which destroyed a home.So after all of this, I felt
like the "analysis" offered in the editorial section was debunked by the
Dnews's own reporting in other sections. We cannot support unlimited growth
in this state.
@Owen"Not allowing anonymity could make the Deseret News' comment
feature better reflect the paper's and its owner's proclaimed
commitment to civil dialogue. A registration process that requires contributors
to own their comments, as in your Reader's Forum"Honestly,
I think that it risks other problems that discourage discussion. Like an LDS
member that disagrees with something church/BYU related might want to have the
discussion but not want to be known. A business owner who disagrees with minimum
wage increases might not want any negativity to come about (I've seen some
posts that were of the vein of "what business do you own so I know what to
never visit").I think they do a good job. Sometimes I'm
confused as to why a comment of mine didn't make it through but hey if
that's the price to pay for the good system they have, I'm fine with
Liberal Larry.I agreed with your comment until the line. "only gently
moderating."How would you know the scope of moderating? I know from
personal experience that, too often, the moderators deny comments which adhere
to stated their guidelines. I once had a comment denied because, according to
the moderator, i had overused "all caps" when in fact i only used caps
twice in referring to California as CA.
I agree with Owen in principle, but not in practice. Some of us
have positions in business, or government, where our personal opinions are not
part of the job. Strongly stating our religious, or political preferences, could
be a huge detriment to our careers, or more importantly, to the livelihoods of
members of our families. Requiring full names for the comment
section would cut out a huge swath of us who are vested in the community, and
who would simply cease reading, and commenting, if our names where required. The Deseret News is doing a huge service to the community by reasonably
moderating, and allowing anonymity on its comment section.
At some point in the near future you will have to change your statement of
advocacy as follows: "Although neutral on matters of partisan politics,
...it boldly advocates for the protection of the environment as a fit place for
I read news publications from around the world, but I prefer Deseret News above
them all because of the online reader comments. When I submit a comment, I am
genuinely interested in hearing the alternative views they spark, and
occasionally these comments change my point of view. That makes it a great
learning experience, which is why I read the news in the first place.That is also why I enjoy the anonymity that this publication inspires. It
would be embarrassing if everything I wrote could come back to publicly display
Anyone concerned about helping the poor need to realize that "handouts"
don't help the poor in the long run. Teaching someone how to take care of
themselves would be the better way.
My position on anonymity should be obvious from my screen name. I live in a
community where there are only so many members of the church and I prefer not
conflating my political points with my church life.
I have enjoyed reading and participating, through moderated comments, the
editorial pages of the Deseret News. I liken the moderated comments and the
debate that ensues to the days of John Adams when men would meet in taverns to
discuss and debate topics of concern and interest. Thank you,
Deseret News, for providing an excellent forum.
@marxist,I don't believe your statement is correct. The
Deseret News, like its readers, want shifts in the distribution of wealth. They
just don't believe it is best done by the force of government. And I bet
they would disagree about capitalism as well. Capitalism does better than any
other economic model at efficiently distributing goods in a society. Yes, it
has its weaknesses, but compared to socialism, it does a far better job. This
means there is more wealth for PRIVATE individuals to distribute. When private
citizens, in the form of churches and non-profit organizations do it. It
carries FAR more meaning to the receiver.
The governing philosophy of the Deseret News emphasizes personal responsibility.
I have no problem with that. People need to act as if everything depends on
their own discipline and initiative. But the system they live in is
of consequence. The current recession was triggered by the housing bubble on
whose subprime mortgages a fantastic array of financial instruments were built
and are being built many of which are of questionable value. When the housing
bubble popped the world was caught holding securities worth at most 10 cents on
the dollar.The Deseret News has not once, to my knowledge,
questioned the ethics of the banking industry or the system of which they are
the center piece. This demonstrates ideological bias of an extreme kind.BTW, one third of American households are in collections. Does your
term "underprivileged" include them?
I would like to offer my opinion on the matter of "wealth distribution."
First, it isn't distributed by some single source; wealth is created, it
is acquired, it is earned. There isn't some person or committee somewhere
that decides who gets what in our economy. The problem is that people
don't know how to allocate their money or wealth, so they don't
accumulate it. They overspend on convenience items, they make poor decisions
with credit so they pay higher interest, they don't understand how it
works. You cannot become rich punching a timeclock, you must save and invest to
increase your wealth. If you view money as only to be spent, you don't get
it. If you think someone else having it means you won't get any, you
don't get it. If you think taking it from someone else to give to you is
the way to "even things out" you don't get it. Societies that try
that way never succeed, because you always run out of other peoples money.
@Liberal Larry:"With several notable exceptions, Deseret News
editorials typically take hard Right political views, "Could you
mention any of those rather than being vague. I consider the Deseret News to be
a liberal voice in Utah. They support education, families and traditional
marriage which are powerful forces to fight poverty. They condemn gambling and
pornography. Again these are liberal positions. They are promoting religious
freedom which is THE human rights issue for our time.I disagree with
their stand on their support for Israel, but it isn't blind support.They are liberal, without being dogmatic.
Deseret News is non-partisan... who knew. Or is that they are non-partisan when
it comes to conservatives versus tea-party... that would make a whole lot more
sense. I mean, look at the coverage of ACA. I get that the DN
Staff doesn't approve of the act, and that is fair when it is an issue
based objection. But if it were truly based solely on the "issue", the
paper would hold the conservatives as equally responsible for lack of providing
a solution that would work, that most Americans can get behind. But alas, the
critic only extends to one side, moving the discussion from issue based to party
support.DeseretNews non-partisan... about as much as FoxNews and
Rush Limbaugh are. I don't think so.... but thanks for trying.
The Educator's comment was off-base and erred by generalization. I see the
point of the editorial page differently, it is not to validate facts presented
in the news section, it is an independent opinion written to appeal to the
readers of the paper. That's important because the comment section is the
only counterpoint that some DN readers are ever likely to see. I often comment
on same-sex marriage issues because I am same-sex married, I live in Colorado
(also 10th circuit), and I also have married same-sex friends in SLC. Will I
change anyone's mind? Not likely, but my comments may help open a necessary
dialogue. Also, if my comments were not semi-autonomous, I could not comment
because my views would potentially represent those of my employer. My words need
to stand on their own merit.
Not sure how I got cut; must have exceeded 200 words again. I appreciate the DN
explaining more or less where they're coming from on the editorial page. I
did post, expanding on how this stance manifests itself. It's too bad you
all didn't get to see it.
Hey Owen -"Not allowing anonymity could make the Deseret
News' comment feature better reflect the paper's and its owner's
proclaimed commitment to civil dialogue."But there's a huge
trade-off to that.If a person cannot post anonymously, then he or
she cannot speak freely of the powers that be.That is the reason
that so many our our founders used pseudonyms when publicly criticizing the
British government prior to the Revolutionary war. And now the
powers that be are quite wide ranging.The dedicated
"patriots" and Cliven Bundy supporters who murdered those cops in Las
Vegas and then draped their bodies with a Swastika banner and a Tea Party flag
represent a growing malevolent power in this nation that must be challenged.And yes they are a power that is. They obviously have the power to
Hey Phil Allred -"This means there is more wealth for PRIVATE
individuals to distribute."You are speaking of
trickle-down-economics, low taxes for high earners, that was supposed to create
jobs. Where are the jobs?Trickle-down
economics/Reaganomics/Supply Side economics obviously does not work.The alleged eagerness of private individuals to distribute wealth is a
completely unsupportable, half-baked "Conservative" notion.It has no counterpart in the real world.
" Personal attacks against Deseret News personnel — including comment
moderators — will not be tolerated."What exactly does this
mean?I used to be a regular reader of DN, but am no more, for a
variety of reasons. But one reason is the heavy-handed comment moderation. My
goal was to adhere to stated guidelines, but weekly i had comments rejected, for
no apparent reason. Finally, it became just too frstrating and appeared to be
just blatant censorship. I'm guessing this comment won't be posted
The Deseret News editorial board?Care for the poor?...Non-partisan?...HaHaHa -- yo can't possibly be serious?!BTW -- the 1st step to any problem is to stop the denialism, and
acknowledge there IS a problem.
@liberal larry"by only gently moderating comments"I have to laugh, the moderating of the comments on deseret news is completely
inconsistent. I have have followed every single rule and still had my comments
denied or put into the magical hold status where they never get released.I
have to wonder why the deseret news is so scared of the truth, it allows one
side of the story and thats it.
Re:Jack"Societies that try that way never succeed, because you always
run out of other peoples money."When capitalism becomes crony
capitalism--where the system is rigged so that all the profits accumulate for a
few at the top, societies fail. Furthermore the U.S. Ranks pretty high on
the level of inequality when compared to other industrialized countries.
Northern European countries are doing just fine."The problem is
that people don't know how to allocate their money or wealth, so they
don't accumulate it. "It is a problem for people when they have
to choose between eating or car repairs, education or paying rent. Research
studies have shown that just being poor impairs cognitive skills.
Agreed with many other comments -- The DN publishes an entire
"list" of criteria to which comments are supposed to be met and
measured.- yet - 50% of my comments are routinely "denied"
for absolutely NO appearant reason, based on that published criteria.All I can figure is a pointed, biased on a seperate, UN-published
set of criteria.I have e-mailed examples and asked DN staff -- as to
"why", and never been given a valid reason.Hidden
agenda, censorship, or yellow journalism is all I have to go by...
DesNews: "Although neutral on matters of partisan politics, it boldly
advocates for the free exercise of religion as an essential liberty..."Is this paper an advocate for free exercise? Certainly. But bold?
Hardly. The statement would be credible if this paper allocated even 10% of the
column inches it has devoted to Hobby Lobby editorializing to defending the
North Carolina clergy who are facing imprisonment for merely performing the
sacred rituals their religion allows in accordance with the dictates of their
consciences. Bold advocacy of religious liberty means supporting the rights of
everyone to freely exercise their religion, even those whose faiths you may have
doctrinal differences with. This paper takes a very selective view of religious
liberty aligned with a narrow political stance and by doing so demonstrates that
it is clearly not "neutral on matters of partisan politics."
Has anybody else noticed that it seems mainly one side is getting angry about
this?And they claim the "Right" are the angry/bitter
types... Seems like some self-reflection is needed today.==============@LDS Liberal,I've had comments
rejected (rare, but a few times)... Every time there's been a good
reason.If 50% of your posts get denied... you need to think about
what you are posting. There's usually a GOOD reason they get denied. I
actually think the editorial department does a great job (even though they
reject some of my posts). If 50% of what I posted violated the
rules... I'd start looking at myself (not the people at the DMN).The 1st step to any problem is to stop the denialism, and acknowledge there IS
a problem"...===========People can say most articles
support Capitalism, or Republicans, etc. but it's mostly because we are
subjective and see what offends us (if we WANT to be offended). My wife thinks
DMN covers BYU and ignores the Utes.... I think we see what we EXPECT to see,
and ignore the rest.
Hey, its a little upsetting when my pearls of wisdom are denied by the
moderators, but have you ever posted on a website that doesn't moderate?
In my limited experience the site is soon over run with trolls who make it their
goal to irritate everyone they can for no apparent reason.The
moderators are doing the best they can to maintain civility, and although I
rarely agree with their editorials, the DNews has created a forum that allows us
to express ourselves as long as we play by their rules of engagement.Sounds fair to me.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTIf 50% of your posts get denied... you
need to think about what you are posting. There's usually a GOOD reason
they get denied. I actually think the editorial department does a great job
(even though they reject some of my posts). If 50% of what I posted
violated the rules... I'd start looking at myself (not the people at the
DMN).======== You are a flaming right-winger, and
since your opinions agree with theirs, so naturaly yours [or MR, RedS, J
Thomp, et al,] will rearley ever be "denied".I simply ask
that IF the published criteria IS the critera, then it be should be
applied with integrity.
@LiberalLarry"a forum that allows us to express ourselves as long as
we play by their rules of engagement."I could provide numerous
examples of comments I wrote which were denied for no apparent reason. They
adhered to stated guidelines. Sometimes, a comment would be denied one day
(with notification it was denied) but then, the next day when i tried to re-post
it would be acceptable. It became so frequent, I finally gave up. I wondered
if a particular moderator(s) just had a particular dislike for me. I could go on, to no avail. My comment won't get posted and it
won't change DN practices.
And yet, LDS Liberal, the vast majority of comments anymore that are published
have a flaming left wing point of view. They routinely reject my comments;
certainly if they were only "Right Wingers" then my posts would come
through a lot more than they do. I see your posts get approved all the time.
I don't even think of myself as particularly right wing,
either. So cry "Right wing bias!" all you want, but if anything the
moderators lean leftward. Well, maybe not as left as the Tribune or
the NYT, but then, those publications are left of Stalin, so no wonder.
They're non-partisan in the sense that they don't endorse candidates;
I don't believe the statement is meant to suggest that there's no
conservative lean in their overall sum of editorial work.
Could the paper clarify: Are the "What Others Say" editorials chosen
because they reflect and reinforce the DesNews editorial position or because
they offer an opposing counterpoint?On online comment moderation,
I'm generally content with the DesNews policies. Unmoderated forums can
get lost to the trolls, haters, and endless "me, too" comments (try
reading The Blaze comments sometime). I'd like to see the comment and word
limits raised a bit (though they do force conciseness) and html tags allowed
(italics and block quotes, anyone?). There could be stronger enforcement of the
obvious sockpuppets used to evade the four comment limit. The submission
software frequently rejects my comments for excessive length when the counter
says I still have words left. That's especially frustrating after taking
the time to compose a thoughtful response.I feel like I have a
pretty good sense of the allowable limits of taste here, but like other
commenters on this thread I am occasionally baffled as to why some of my
comments (maybe 3-5%) get rejected when cattier or stupider comments are
allowed. Certain kinds of snark are apparently not appreciated (or
understood?). Some consistency in application of moderation standards would be
"Although neutral on matters of partisan politics". Seriously?
That's about as humorous as MSNBC making a similar statement.
@FTRe "Although neutral on matters of partisan politics.
Seriously? That's about as humorous as MSNBC making a similar
statement"....So... you acknowledge MSNBC and others are totally
biased... that's new!Do you write to MSNBC complaining about
THEIR bias as often as you do the DMN?? Or is one bias OK, while the other
must be denounced?I acknowledge that FOX is totally biased.
That's why I don't watch it (unless I'm at my in-laws who watch
it non-stop). I've seen a few "No Spin Zone" episodes, and it
looks pretty fair, but the rest is totally biased. I haven't seen
ANYTHING on MSNBC that isn't biased (yet). Beck also totally biased... but
more interesting than nonstop traffic/weather/fluff.The Tribune is
also not a totally unbiased paper you know... IMO they are more bias than DMN
(but that's totally subjective).As for accusations DMN reject
comments if they aren't "flaming-right-wing"... I seriously doubt
it. There's usually a valid reason (outlined in the rules) when you get
rejected.If 50% of your posts getting rejected... there's
obviously a problem (with your posts).
Final PostAs an LDS member, my biggest gripe with the Deseret News
is that it is owned by the Church, presents nearly exclusively a right-winged
point of view in the selection of articles and editorial page, serving as a
defacto endorsement by the Church for right-winged/conservative politics. Maybe
that is the intent, which makes it more difficult to participate in Church. As for not endorsing political candidates, of course it does--Mitt
Romney for instance--on a daily basis. I don't have a problem with the
editorial page of newspapers endorsing a particular candidate if they continue
to cover other candidates and if they admit they do. But it is confusing at
best to claim political neutrality but own a newspaper which presents only one
side of the political spectrum. @LagamorphMy goal was always
to engage in a civil, reasoned dialogue, but noticed as you did, that often my
comments would get denied while comments from a conservative point of view,
containing name-calling, somehow passed the moderators.
@TruthseekerRe "my biggest gripe with the Deseret News is that
it is owned by the Church"... "which makes it more difficult to
participate in Church"...Sounds like a excuse to me. Paper
ownership doesn't prevent anybody from participating in church!!... Only
YOU can keep you from participating in church! This is just an excuse.I would not blame the Tribune for MY choices... Take responsibility for
your own decisions.=============You should not call
people names in your posts (they should get rejected regardless of the
point-of-view that goes along with the name calling).Don't
complain that people with Conservative point of view can call people names...
just clean up your own.. and report the other ones. If the moderator missed it
and agrees... they will remove it. If you're just being overly
sensitive... they won't.I'm pretty sure they will post
things with a non-flaming-right-wing point-of-view... I see several of them
every day.My suggestion... avoid name calling... even if OTHER
people get away with it. That's what I do.
"Sounds like a excuse to me. Paper ownership doesn't prevent anybody
from participating in church!!... Only YOU can keep you from participating in
church!"I would totally agree with your last point 2 Bits....
but I also have to agree with Truthseeker that members should have every right
to be concerned with how tithing money is being invested, or how the church
makes its money. You can't separate ownership with responsibility for what
that entity does. I am sure the church tries very hard to ensure its
investments are consistent with its standards... but there are times when
statements here seem inconsistent with that stewardship, or messages we hear
from the pulpit at conference.Like it or not, how the church spends
its money speaks very loudly on what it stands for. As being 100 percent church
owned, the Deseret News is a very visible beacon of what its owners values are.
My guess is the primary reason the Church claims "political neutrality"
is to protect its tax exempt status. The next biggest reason is the Fox News
model of pandering to a particular audience. Otherwise it would make more
sense to include a broader range of opinions and articles.
@UtahBlueDevil,No tithing money goes to the Des News I can assure
2 BIts... please then detail where the money came from?
"The Deseret News editorial page strives to be a dignified moral voice to
people of faith and conscience throughout the world. Through careful analysis
and thoughtful commentary, it seeks to dispel ignorance, enabling readers to
make a positive difference in their families and communities"-- Then
why continually publish half-truths, distortions, and unkind comments about the
President of the USA?"Although neutral on matters of partisan
politics"-- Others have shot down this hilarious delusion."While the editorial page is a place for its own opinion and perspective,
the Deseret News regularly shares thoughtful insight from individuals who
augment our effort to be a dignified moral voice to people of conscience
throughout the world."-- But 90% seem to be in support of the
DN's political position-- As for the Comments Policy: usually,
if I write something slightly critical of mormons or the lds church, it gets
rejected for all caps, or not to the point, etc. Foolish me, I
expect an outlet of a great church to be more scrupulous about the truth, and
about how Jesus would handle whatever situation is being brought up.