Wednesday
Oct212009
On Journalistic Integrity
Many things have occurred in my life since I wrote this post. Some bad, some good. Nonetheless, it seems to have ignited a firestorm of controversy among journalists here in Salt Lake City. Which I believe is a good thing because it's a topic that should be addressed. So y'all, today I'm going to deviate from my usual meaningful and life-changing drivel about beer and wine and cheese and beer to address a very important issue. Old friends, excuse me while I talk to the new kids on the blog.
Hello new readers sent to me by my venerable colleague Joel Campbell. Are you here to discuss whether or not I can objectively report on the LDS church in light of posts like this, this, this aaaand this? Oooh, I left out this one and it's important. So, you want to discuss journalistic integrity, yes?
Wonderful! Let's begin.
Let me first ask you, new reader, can Mr. Campbell objectively report on whether or not I can objectively report on the LDS church, you know, considering he is a Latter-Day-Saint who writes for a Mormon paper which touts itself as "for and about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"? For that matter, can KSL news and The Deseret News objectively report on LDS-related stories considering they are Mormon-owned and in the Deseret News' case anyway, Mormon operated?
But wait. Let me take you back. Aaaallll the way back to 2008.
When then prophet of the Mormon church, Gordon B. Hinckley, died I stayed late at work, poring over dozens of archive tapes from LDS General Conferences over the years (do you know how hard that is? do you know how similar every, single conference looks? do you know how long conferences last?) to find this humorous quote of his, that famous saying about temples he made, the time he joked about a hospital visit and that other time he teared up discussing the death of his wife Marjorie. And then! Putting it all together cohesively in an eloquent Remembering Hinckley tribute for FOX 13 News. And then, my goodness, tracking down specific LDS hymns (learned as a child) for editors that I knew would be appropriate with the piece and I would not, could not rest until I found God Be With You Till We Meet Again with which we would emotionally fade to black at the end of the piece... I've also written dozens of stories about the LDS church sending disaster relief to third-world countries and I've often suggested reporters cover LDS conferences in Salt Lake City and what they mean to Mormon faithful. Living in Utah, those examples are just a drop in the bucket of LDS-related issues we've covered.
But the Mormon church doesn't always earn kudos, oftentimes it elicits outrage, most recently, about Elder Dallin Oaks remarks at BYU-Idaho. Please allow me to direct you to FOX 13's coverage of LDS Apostle Dallin Oaks' controversial analogy comparing the backlash against Proposition 8 supporters to the tortures black people endured in the south. An objective observer might find that FOX 13's coverage of this event is the most unbiased accounting in Utah media that day. I stand solidly behind our coverage, am PROUD of our coverage and I don't know that the same could be said for employees of other news outlets.
In the early evening newscasts KSL simply regurgitated Oak's speech, leaving out altogether his absolutely offensive and appalling analogy and the church's increasingly hostile stance toward gay civil rights. Later, anchor/reporter and LDS church member Carol Mikita (a veritable KSL institution) put together this piece. An objective observer might find KSL's piece nothing more than a rehash of Oak's speech rather than a journalistic parsing of the controversial comments. The only soundbite from Mikita's report? Elder Dallin Oaks. Ours? Oaks, of course, and we sought reaction from an NAACP spokeswoman and a spokesman from Equality Utah, a gay rights organization. The ONLY reason Oaks' speech made top story/front page news in the first place was the controversial comparison to blacks in the south. In light of that I'd go so far as to argue that KSL's piece is biased. But hey, that's just me. I'll leave that for other journos to debate.
I also strongly urge you to read Scott Taylor from The Deseret News' display of journalistic integrity. If you're anything like me you may feel as if you've just returned from a Sunday School lesson. I'm hard-pressed to find the hard news value of this article. Please, new reader, picture Jerry Mcquire in your head and hear me when I shout SHOW ME THE JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY!
Yet you're here, questioning me. Why? Because the LDS church bullied me into taking down a tweet and I wrote about it. ON MY PERSONAL BLOG. I happen to think this says more about the church than my journalistic integrity but again, I'll let you judge for yourself.
My outrage regarding Oaks' statements would have been the same had the exact comments been made by, oh, say, Jay Leno. Admittedly, I'm a Letterman girl, always have been, but my point remains: my reaction was not because of my distaste for the LDS church it was because the comments are deeply offensive.
"There are civil rights involved in this," Oaks said, "the right to speak your mind, to participate in the election," Oaks said. "But you don't have a civil right to win an election or retaliate against those who prevail." How dare this man speak of civil rights when the church he helps lead was instrumental in passing a Proposition denying civil rights to hundreds of thousands of loving couples. A civil right Oaks would have you believe is "alleged".
I find it ironic that Oaks suggested that atheists and others are seeking to intimidate people of faith and silence their voices in the public square even as an LDS spokeswoman called me to bully me into removing a tweet I made while covering this story:
LDS apostle gives speech at BYU-Idaho. The contents of which has my head exploding and FOX seeking a response from the NAACP. More at Five.
No embargo was broken. I did not divulge the contents of Oaks super-secret speech. Seems to me it was the LDS church seeking to intimidate people NOT of their faith and silence their voices from the public square.
The point I'm laboring to make, new reader, is this: My personal animosity toward the church doesn't affect my ability to objectively cover LDS-related stories any more than that of an LDS journalist, such as our good pal Joel Campbell or the lovely Carol Mikita over at KSL. Any perceived bias a news viewer might infer from my blog would be the exact same perceived bias a viewer might have reading BYU professor Joel Campbell's piece, watching KSL knowing it is church-owned or watching Mikita's report knowing she considers Oaks to be a beloved, spiritual leader of her church. Hell, a a quick look at Mikita's bio has me wondering why more of you aren't questioning her journalistic integrity considering how many special interest LDS-related stories she's churned out since 1979. And what about the very talented Dan Rascon over at KUTV? Wasn't he or isn't he a bishop in the LDS church? Someone who espouses doctrine that I and many other nonmembers find as disgusting as you find my "ten vulgarities", Joel Campbell? Should Rascon recuse himself from all LDS-related journalistic endeavors? I suspect he, like me, would say a good journalist doesn't let his personal opinions get in the way of the story. A solid journalistic standard which I think, in this particular case, makes me a better journalist than a BYU journalism professor.
EVERYONE who works in media has a personal bias about something. Several on-air personalities at FOX 13 are devout Mormons who remain wonderfully objective about LDS coverage. Would I be surprised if a few of them have personal blogs espousing LDS doctrine or fervently documenting their testimony that Joseph Smith was a true prophet? No. Am I personally biased against the LDS church? HELL YES! Are many, many other local journalists biased in favor of the church? HELL YES! Do my feelings about Mormonism affect my ability as a journalist to objectively report on crowds gathering for general conference, the church's wonderful efforts to help victims of the tsunami in Samoa or Dallin Oaks ridiculous speech?
In a word: NO.
Much like a defense attorney who knows her client is guilty, I set aside personal feelings and do my job. And I do it well.
Other local media on this subject:
Santa, Objectivity and the Easter Bunny
Tweet, Ye Shall Not
Hello new readers sent to me by my venerable colleague Joel Campbell. Are you here to discuss whether or not I can objectively report on the LDS church in light of posts like this, this, this aaaand this? Oooh, I left out this one and it's important. So, you want to discuss journalistic integrity, yes?
Wonderful! Let's begin.
Let me first ask you, new reader, can Mr. Campbell objectively report on whether or not I can objectively report on the LDS church, you know, considering he is a Latter-Day-Saint who writes for a Mormon paper which touts itself as "for and about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"? For that matter, can KSL news and The Deseret News objectively report on LDS-related stories considering they are Mormon-owned and in the Deseret News' case anyway, Mormon operated?
But wait. Let me take you back. Aaaallll the way back to 2008.
When then prophet of the Mormon church, Gordon B. Hinckley, died I stayed late at work, poring over dozens of archive tapes from LDS General Conferences over the years (do you know how hard that is? do you know how similar every, single conference looks? do you know how long conferences last?) to find this humorous quote of his, that famous saying about temples he made, the time he joked about a hospital visit and that other time he teared up discussing the death of his wife Marjorie. And then! Putting it all together cohesively in an eloquent Remembering Hinckley tribute for FOX 13 News. And then, my goodness, tracking down specific LDS hymns (learned as a child) for editors that I knew would be appropriate with the piece and I would not, could not rest until I found God Be With You Till We Meet Again with which we would emotionally fade to black at the end of the piece... I've also written dozens of stories about the LDS church sending disaster relief to third-world countries and I've often suggested reporters cover LDS conferences in Salt Lake City and what they mean to Mormon faithful. Living in Utah, those examples are just a drop in the bucket of LDS-related issues we've covered.
But the Mormon church doesn't always earn kudos, oftentimes it elicits outrage, most recently, about Elder Dallin Oaks remarks at BYU-Idaho. Please allow me to direct you to FOX 13's coverage of LDS Apostle Dallin Oaks' controversial analogy comparing the backlash against Proposition 8 supporters to the tortures black people endured in the south. An objective observer might find that FOX 13's coverage of this event is the most unbiased accounting in Utah media that day. I stand solidly behind our coverage, am PROUD of our coverage and I don't know that the same could be said for employees of other news outlets.
In the early evening newscasts KSL simply regurgitated Oak's speech, leaving out altogether his absolutely offensive and appalling analogy and the church's increasingly hostile stance toward gay civil rights. Later, anchor/reporter and LDS church member Carol Mikita (a veritable KSL institution) put together this piece. An objective observer might find KSL's piece nothing more than a rehash of Oak's speech rather than a journalistic parsing of the controversial comments. The only soundbite from Mikita's report? Elder Dallin Oaks. Ours? Oaks, of course, and we sought reaction from an NAACP spokeswoman and a spokesman from Equality Utah, a gay rights organization. The ONLY reason Oaks' speech made top story/front page news in the first place was the controversial comparison to blacks in the south. In light of that I'd go so far as to argue that KSL's piece is biased. But hey, that's just me. I'll leave that for other journos to debate.
I also strongly urge you to read Scott Taylor from The Deseret News' display of journalistic integrity. If you're anything like me you may feel as if you've just returned from a Sunday School lesson. I'm hard-pressed to find the hard news value of this article. Please, new reader, picture Jerry Mcquire in your head and hear me when I shout SHOW ME THE JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY!
Yet you're here, questioning me. Why? Because the LDS church bullied me into taking down a tweet and I wrote about it. ON MY PERSONAL BLOG. I happen to think this says more about the church than my journalistic integrity but again, I'll let you judge for yourself.
My outrage regarding Oaks' statements would have been the same had the exact comments been made by, oh, say, Jay Leno. Admittedly, I'm a Letterman girl, always have been, but my point remains: my reaction was not because of my distaste for the LDS church it was because the comments are deeply offensive.
"These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of violence and intimidation are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South".Dude. DUUUUUDE. Blacks were lynched and beaten and spit upon and denied the right to vote by the government. To compare that IN ANY WAY to criticism of Mormons for donating or voting for Prop 8 is ludicrous, offensive and quite honestly, a dumb move on the church's part. I don't care how many words of Oaks' speech Mr. Campbell counted that espoused church doctrine it was those words, no matter how few, that are outrageous.
"There are civil rights involved in this," Oaks said, "the right to speak your mind, to participate in the election," Oaks said. "But you don't have a civil right to win an election or retaliate against those who prevail." How dare this man speak of civil rights when the church he helps lead was instrumental in passing a Proposition denying civil rights to hundreds of thousands of loving couples. A civil right Oaks would have you believe is "alleged".
A second threat to religious freedom is from those who perceive it to be in conflict with the newly alleged civil right of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage.I smell damage control, but no, Mr. Oaks, despite what you'd like the world to believe, your church is not a victim of Proposition 8, IT IS THE PERPETRATOR.
I find it ironic that Oaks suggested that atheists and others are seeking to intimidate people of faith and silence their voices in the public square even as an LDS spokeswoman called me to bully me into removing a tweet I made while covering this story:
LDS apostle gives speech at BYU-Idaho. The contents of which has my head exploding and FOX seeking a response from the NAACP. More at Five.
No embargo was broken. I did not divulge the contents of Oaks super-secret speech. Seems to me it was the LDS church seeking to intimidate people NOT of their faith and silence their voices from the public square.
The point I'm laboring to make, new reader, is this: My personal animosity toward the church doesn't affect my ability to objectively cover LDS-related stories any more than that of an LDS journalist, such as our good pal Joel Campbell or the lovely Carol Mikita over at KSL. Any perceived bias a news viewer might infer from my blog would be the exact same perceived bias a viewer might have reading BYU professor Joel Campbell's piece, watching KSL knowing it is church-owned or watching Mikita's report knowing she considers Oaks to be a beloved, spiritual leader of her church. Hell, a a quick look at Mikita's bio has me wondering why more of you aren't questioning her journalistic integrity considering how many special interest LDS-related stories she's churned out since 1979. And what about the very talented Dan Rascon over at KUTV? Wasn't he or isn't he a bishop in the LDS church? Someone who espouses doctrine that I and many other nonmembers find as disgusting as you find my "ten vulgarities", Joel Campbell? Should Rascon recuse himself from all LDS-related journalistic endeavors? I suspect he, like me, would say a good journalist doesn't let his personal opinions get in the way of the story. A solid journalistic standard which I think, in this particular case, makes me a better journalist than a BYU journalism professor.
EVERYONE who works in media has a personal bias about something. Several on-air personalities at FOX 13 are devout Mormons who remain wonderfully objective about LDS coverage. Would I be surprised if a few of them have personal blogs espousing LDS doctrine or fervently documenting their testimony that Joseph Smith was a true prophet? No. Am I personally biased against the LDS church? HELL YES! Are many, many other local journalists biased in favor of the church? HELL YES! Do my feelings about Mormonism affect my ability as a journalist to objectively report on crowds gathering for general conference, the church's wonderful efforts to help victims of the tsunami in Samoa or Dallin Oaks ridiculous speech?
In a word: NO.
Much like a defense attorney who knows her client is guilty, I set aside personal feelings and do my job. And I do it well.
Other local media on this subject:
Santa, Objectivity and the Easter Bunny
Tweet, Ye Shall Not
Oct 21, 2009 | The Girl Who... | in Mormonism, Office Space, Press, Soap Box, Utah | 79 Comments | Share Article
Reader Comments (79)
Everyone's biased about everything. The honest ones try to make their biases known (as you seem to be doing). The LDS church and their ongoing attempts to control media are well-known and offensive to anyone who appreciates honesty. I find the idea of a church having and needing a cadre of spin doctors, press secretaries, and publicists utterly appalling. I'm cynic enough to understand why they do it, but spiritual enough to feel that if they REALLY believed in their message, they'd let the message stand without press conferences and commercials and all the rest.
Anyway. As you know, if they're pissing and moaning and bitching about what you said, IT MEANS THEY ARE PAYING ATTENTION. Good luck, and hang in there.
Your integrity as a journalist is obvious and something we should be championing. Keep up the truly excellent work. And late the dissenters' hateful comments speak for themselves...
Living in Utah and seeing the bias first hand - I applaud you whole heartedly. Makita et al let their zealotry pervade their careers and forget to leave relief society and obeying the masters at home.
I'm glad their are at least a few of us in Utah who can think -and speak - for ourselves!
Thank you for articulating what many people believe. Too often religion's bully to get their way. Whether it from the Vatican or the LDS, their view is always right and the only way. When intelligent conversation is stymied, one ends up with religious bigotry and war.
I encourage you to continue voicing your view because there are two sides to every story.
PS Quality beer and music rules...
See, you failed to be objective regarding a specific ISSUE, even if there are other times you feel you can report objectively on the church. If you have a strong bias on a specific issue I bet it becomes increasingly difficult to be objective.
"To compare that IN ANY WAY to criticism of Mormons for donating or voting for Prop 8 is ludicrous."
You've done your best here to paint "backlash" as "criticism", and this is where I think you're not being fair. I agree that the scope and scale of "backlash" is not comparable. But the principle of intimidation is-- you seem to be completely denying that any type of intimidation DID happen in California, regardless of how widespread or severe. Does anyone honestly believe that LDS contributors in California were persecuted nearly to the level of blacks? Surely Elder Oaks doesn't believe that, unless you believe in your mind that he's an old ignorant bigot... and I wouldn't be surprised if that's how people who feel most passionately about gay rights would personify the leaders of the LDS church.
My mom still thinks she can "save me" and that I'm just "misguided" right now.
I think you're 100% on the mark about this. I'm sick of the subtle, "We're not going to tell you how to vote, but remember you're supposed to believe this" crap.
I say keep doing what you're doing.
Wow. You may need to follow Dooce's lead and "monetize the hate". Unbelievable. Personally, I loved this post.
I'd leave something more thoughtful but like EDW said, as someone who has been reading you FOREVER (in blog years) I too am happy to see all the new readers. That is all.
Stuff like this makes me so grateful to have been raised Lutheran and yet liberal in the midwest. We can believe in God AND gay marriage. Yay us!
Keep on keepin' on -- you're doing the right thing. Every point of view has its polar opposite, and BOTH have to be respected if the term Civil Rights (in any way, shape, or form) is going to mean anything in this nation.
Kirsten, I absolutely hear what you're saying about the perception of objectivity. In this case, we're talking about objectivity regarding the LDS church. So let me flip it and ask you if an LDS church member should cover the church? It's the same bias, just at the opposite end of the spectrum. Everyone knows that a devout member goes to church every week, gives very public talks in front of hundreds, bares testimonies about how Joseph Smith is a true prophet and how much they love their leaders, leaders like Dallin Oaks, and how much they love THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH. They may go visiting teaching, which is essentially visiting members of their ward and talk about church doctrine and convince members to come to church. Explain to me how that is not a very public bias. The same as mine.
I agree that the church was out of line and completely out of whack (sorry that word is what I feel) in the statements made in regards to Prop 8. Everyone has the right to live as they choose as long as their actions do not bring harm to others. Two women getting married areBut honestly, there ARE people being hated on because they are christians and speak their beliefs. This scares me as much as those who try to impede others civil rights.
I have witnessed first hand individuals being verbally assualted for simply saying that although their personal spiritual beliefs do not accept nor codone homosexuality and their personal feelings were of the same- they felt that personal or religous beliefs have no bearing on peoples rights nor should it within the government and our laws. Of course, no one wants to hear the second part of that phrase, they simply latch on to the disagreement and the spiritual belief system.
We need need to seperate church and state- not people from church. When Christianity is bashed, what will stop the people from moving on to the next dogma? How long until any held beliefs are ridiculed?
Mainstream media is a business, not a selfless servant of truth or fair play. All business maximizes profit by minimizing raw materials cost (in the case of media truth, strict adherence to ethics, balanced views) so as to maximize the saleability of the product (controversy in the guise of information or fact). It is the controversy that makes both the market and the product. Many rock bands have gone big notwithstanding minimal talent by realizing this. Openly stating what one's interests (biases) are when commenting is the more ethical approach.
There is much force in Nietzche's maxim that "there are no facts, only interpretations." Obviously this quote, like the discussions in these comments, concerns socio/historical "facts" and events and not simple facts like the boiling point of water or the correct calculation of sums. Discussions of what someone asserts (the validity or meaning of those assertions, for example) are obviously not like the latter facts at all and anyone who suggests that a wholly unobjective comment on such things is, at best, wildly optimistic. People can not help but bring who they are into their views and comments-usually unconsciously-but always unavoidably. Even the most objective argument/position is only a scrupulous effort to be objective. To have a view is to take a side. The antidotes: present all views regardless of convenience and cost, state one's bias openly, and acknowledge that other people may have fair points to make even if you are not persuaded by them.
Just wanted you to know that I stayed at work late today to read practically the entire archive of your blog. LATE AT WORK. Who does that? You're an INCREDIBLE writer and today's better for having found your fantastic blog. I'll be staying tuned, no doubt.
Good for you!! Keep it up. xoxoxo
how would you feel about a brother and sister wanting to get married? what if gay couples could produce children and they had genetic problems like children that a brother and sister would have? would it still be popular to support gay couples?
mormons do not make up 52% of california...there are other churches that supported prop 8. what about catholics or other christian churches? the mormon church is not the only "perpretrator."
Well, I'm just up late enjoying a glass of wine....and I'm not a journalist....or much of a writer, but I HATE THE LDS CULT and LOVED this post.
I don't care if your biased. I'm so sick of the fake mormon face of perfection. It's a highly flawed organization made up of highly flawed human beings.
There's nothing wrong with being imperfect. It's a beautiful thing actually.
Get over yourself, LDS, Inc.
I think God is horribly offended at your costly temples....and yet you continue to build them.
How many children died from starvation while you were out buying shopping malls? When I can't sit at a bar and get drunk and then go back to my room to order a porn video at the Marriott, I **might** give this cult a slight amount of credit. Oh, they'll take that dirty money....they have no problem taking dirty money and then letting their own tithe paying members live on welfare....or letting children die from hunger...
I hate you, LDS, Inc.
Now, back to my wine.
"What about the other churches that supported Prop 8?....why are you only picking on us Mormons?!"
Hey Melony....are you even reading the facts here, or are you just speaking off the top of your Blessed Head? What is that called again....a Revelation? Aren't you a bit low on the Proverbial Ladder of Power to be spouting off God's Testimony? Shame on you. SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!! Enjoy hot hell.
The facts are this: The LDS gang is based here in Utah where other churches are powerless specks who live off the crumbs on the floor. That is why no one on either side of the debate is bothering to bring up "other" religions. They all pale in comparison under the light we are shining around.
Please don't comment anywhere in this world if you are not absolutely certain that what you are saying is at least a smidge relevant to the forum's theme; it's unbecoming to appear so ill-informed on top of all that self-righteous blind arrogance!
Well done. Good for you for standing up for yourself and for acknowledging that all journalists have personal bias but that doesn't mean they can't set it aside to do the job they were hired to do.
The Mormon church freaks me out.
Sorry, I should clarify. I'm a Christian but any church with as much power over a particular area and over the media of that area freaks me out.
It's okay Monkey. The Mormon church freaks me out without the clarification. If you read their doctrine, if you know what they actually believe it would completely freak you out.
Monica, keep it up, keep telling it how it is. It is about time someone started shouting this shit and I'm glad it's you, someone who can do it factually, humorously and elegantly.
I know Monica.
No, we're not pals that go out and get beers together.
She is my boss.
I watch her day in and day out run a newsroom.
I watch and hear her debate the issues to make sure both sides are covered. NO MATTER THE STORY!!!
She is a journalist and Fox wouldn't be half the station it is without her.
As for the blog...it gets me through the day. When I'm at home with my baby girl and feel alone, I just read "The Girl Who" and know I'm not alone in the frustration, guilt and happiness that is motherhood.
For those of you launching personal attacks...that is something you're going to need to work out with yourself. No one deserves that. Debate the issue, not the person. Because Monica is good and she is a great journalist.
We SHOULD get beers together, though. Or we can just take nips off my secret desk flask.
I've been digesting all of your LDS posts and while i'm not surprised at the church's zealotry in vilifying homosexuality, I'm amazed that they have so much control of Utah's media outlets.
I've never heard of an organization or church having the power to 'embargo' a story...did you ever have similar holds on news stories when you worked in NYC? I'm just curious to know.
Good for you for doing your work with integrity and objectivity while not compromising your personal beliefs and values.
Fight the good fight girl. I'm proud of
you! I'm staying out of the cat fight and small minded arguments....well that was a
bit of a jab I guess....but good luck on the radio. Kick some
ass Monica.
Xoxox Richelle
It's obvious that the Church knew that the comments in the speech were going to be controversial and thus (1) the embargo, (2) the proactive search by them for any sign of criticism (your tweet), and (3) the complete lack f acknowledgment of the comments in the LDS media. If anything, they should be thanking you for this because this whole controversy of objectivity in the media, and the LDS journalists "witch hunt" for you, takes the focus off the ridiculous comments in the speech.
I would love to see you completely ignore their attempts to criticize your integrity and objectivity and just continually put the focus back on the Elder's speech. It is the LDS Elder's comments that are at fault here, let's not forget that. All of the rest of this is taking the spotlight off of that. And it seems to me that is exactly what the Church wants.
With over 30 years as a journalist, including time overseas working for foreign publications, I have to agree with the post by "Kirsten" that your behavior is unprofessional. I can hardly believe your bosses would say that what you do in your spare time is your own business (i.e., writing hate-filled, crude and disrespectful rants about the same people you are supposed to be "objectively" covering). You criticize the church for being hate-filled and hypocritical, but your own post is so hate-filled that you appear as the one who's hypocritical. Your managers should reassign you to a different beat; one where you won't feel inclined to explode and vent in immature rants to every person within the blogosphere.
Thanks for this Monica - as another ex-Mormon who ran away to NYC and married my husband after a few weeks, I'm both jealous and proud. I wish I would have thought of this. HA HA.
What you've written here is great, and I know how hard it is to write something like that and live where you do. So huge kudos.
And, while living there, I know that the church can feel like it's all that matters. But it's not. Everyone who lives outside of Utah doesn't give a rat's...well, you know. I would say, with your talent, your brains and your audience - bring the real world to all of the people in Utah who are waiting for it. There is a lot more to the world than what some "prophet" or "apostle" said recently. I think it's great that you call it what it is when you need to - but there is a lot more to cover, and MUCH bigger fish to fry.
So I say go for it - write about ALL of it. Not just the church. I mean, really. How many times can you have the same fight, you know?
Thank you for doing what you're doing....
The LDS Church is homophobic.
Any journalist who feels they should "respect" that stance...is homophobic. There comes a time when decisions must be made according to unprecedented events, despite everyday protocol. Those who speak up and challenge oppressors are the ones God smiles upon. God isn't homophobic. How could he be? It wouldn't be God-like, would it?
Hate is hate. It ain't about traditional marriage. It ain't about family values. It is a pure unadulterated hate aimed at anyone who doesn't fit the church's narrow mold. This church is a vessel of wealth and power for a supreme select few; its members follow the lead of a few old rich white men from the cradle to the grave.
Perhaps that makes their life easier to live, being told how to think, how to pray, how to look at the world and its people. Turn off your brain when your a kid. Do what they tell you. And never ever dare doubt what you've been told.
Hi Monica,
Thank you for writing this piece. As a UCLA student, I was able to see all of the campaigning held to Stop Prop 8. I honestly never saw any supporter threatening a non-supporter or doing anything remotely dangerous. They gave speeches, handed out fliers, had art exhibits, hung up "No against H8TE" signs, etc.
I truly don't understand how Oaks can compare himself to the enslaved blacks. He is in no way enslaved and nobody is converting his thoughts. I remember watching Yes on 8 commercials that said gay marriage was going to be taught in school and how it was going to ruin our country. A) Our country is pretty screwed regardless right now and B) We already know about homosexuality in school. I don't need to learn it from a teacher or a textbook to know that it's there. I couldn't believe they were scaring people off this way. It's education. We learn to analyze both sides, to have an opinion, and to be tolerant.
I was also upset that the major monetary contribution for Yes on 8 came from Utah and not Californians themselves. This law affected Californians, not people in Utah. I see this as prejudice and unfair. I personally love California for opening its arms to all types of people. The LDS church tried to take this away for their sake, and they had gone way too far.
Some LDS members may do some really great things, but there are so many more that try to deprive others of their freedoms.