Yes, it does make sense to confront attitudes we find wrongheaded. Obviously, you and I are in substantial agreement.

On the question of differentiating opinion pieces from news stories, my own view is informed fundamentally by years of working as a professional journalist. (Which, I presume, journalism students at the Y might aspire to become.)

Although the public often does not recognize it, and the lines are being blurred in today’s cable/blog/talk environment, the profession really has had a core ethic distinguishing news from opinion. That is why I cannot help but judge opinion columns by a different standard than I apply to straight news reporting, which is what the campus newpaper was purporting to publish. When “news stories” cross the line, my ingrained ethic is offended.

Your own thesis in the original post was not so much that the SL Trib column treatment was all right, but that the MormonTimes column was wrong in its criticism. I tend to agree in this particular case, but I think it is a closer call. In fact, because I am aware that some items out there in media — usually opinion pieces or Internet blogs — do cross the line in what they say about LDS stuff, it’s okay with me if opinion writers like Campbell, or the operators of Article6blog, push back. That is true even if I disagree on particular cases.

Actually, you seem to have the wrong idea of my opinions. I agree 100% with the above. Some media do err and include Mormonism when they should not. And I agree that the MT, Campbell, the Daily Universe, Deseret News, and even those of us here on Times & Seasons have every right to, and even SHOULD criticize those who mention Mormonism when they shouldn’t.

I just disagree with Campbell’s take on this article.

I think Campbell showed a thin skin, but his column did not make me cringe the way the BYU newspaper did. One test for me is that I would not be embarrassed to have my non-LDS friends read the MormonTimes column, but I would be embarrassed if they saw the BYU newspaper.

I see your point now. I’m not sure that I agree that the DU article is worse, but I can see how you might disagree. For me they are equally annoying.

I should add that articles getting picked up in aggregators is likely to happen more and more (as I’m sure you know), so we are all likely to get more and more embarrassed by articles like that in the DU and attitudes like that in the MT article.

Am I wrong in thinking that our only chance is to confront all of these wrongheaded attitudes?

We haven’t disagreed much about detail in the examples. We do differ fundamentally on our analytical approach to the media. It seems we really have been quibbling over two examples of what you called “the Mormon media” — MormonTimes and the BYU Daily Universe.

Your own thesis in the original post was not so much that the SL Trib column treatment was all right, but that the MormonTimes column was wrong in its criticism. I tend to agree in this particular case, but I think it is a closer call. In fact, because I am aware that some items out there in media — usually opinion pieces or Internet blogs — do cross the line in what they say about LDS stuff, it’s okay with me if opinion writers like Campbell, or the operators of Article6blog, push back. That is true even if I disagree on particular cases.

The BYU piece, by contrast, I consider to be wholly without merit. There, the author and editor (whose readers effectively knew all about Bybee’s religion even if it was unstated) actually disgraced the credibility of their own “Mormon media” outlet by corrupting their purportedly objective “news story” in a grossly opinionated way, while withholding the actual negative news from their readers. Thus they violated the core values of newspaper journalism.

I came upon the Daily Universe link in a respected national news-aggregation site focused on legal matters, and cringed. The Universe story made the “Mormon media” itself look bad, while the MormonTimes column you mention– presented as one man’s opinion of someone else’s opinion — seemed more defensible. (Just as your critique of Campbell’s critique is defensible.)

I think Campbell showed a thin skin, but his column did not make me cringe the way the BYU newspaper did. One test for me is that I would not be embarrassed to have my non-LDS friends read the MormonTimes column, but I would be embarrassed if they saw the BYU newspaper.

I’m not worried about the detail of whether I called the Tribune piece a news story or an editorial or a news analysis.

My point is simply that the Tribune item was reasonable, despite what the Mormon Times said.

I’ve agreed with you multiple times now that the Daily Universe editorial is also badly done, so I don’t understand why you keep bringing this up!

Apparently, we disagree on whether the Daily Universe article is relevant. It is clear to me that it has more to do with the details of the Bybee case than whether or not it is right to identify him as Mormon. But you seem to have trouble with this opinion.

So what. Let’s agree to disagree and get it over with.

Perhaps you should just correct your headline to say, “Was it okay for this Salt Lake Tribune opinion column to mention religious affiliation?” instead of the more general and quite different “When should the news mention religious affiliation?” (That would be a pretty narrow topic for discussion in a blog, when real-world news events beg our attention. But it would save you the trouble of policiing comments you consider to be off-topic.)

Once again, I am compelled to correct the nomenclature of your last comment. The original SL Trib piece did not purport to be a news “story” at all. It was an editorial columnist’s opinion, labeled as such. There also was a different Trib op-ed opinion column referenced by your linked item at Mormon Times.

But since your headline is what it is, to summarize the facts this blog post and the comments have discovered: Of the various published articles mentioned in this thread that did purport to be news stories, it turns out that none actually mentioned the subject’s religion except for a man-in-the-news profile of one public figure. It is not unusual for such a profile to mention someone’s religion if it centrally helps define them. (Imagine profiling an LDS bishop without mentioning what he spends half his time on.)

The one other exception purporting to be news was the Universe “story,” where the subject’s religion was so obvious from the context it really needed no mention. And that example, I suggest, did not follow professional standards of news reporting at all; it was more like an opinion piece masquerading as a news story. The most charitable excuse for such sophomoric editorial content is that it may have been edited by actual sophomores.

I do agree with your criticism of the Daily Universe, and I think it probably does show a lack of judgement in how the journalism program is run. But this isn’t what the post is all about.

If you look at the original post, you will see that the original post was not about the national news story nor the Daily Universe story, but was about the Salt Lake Tribune story and about the suggestion in the Mormon Times that the Tribune should not have mentioned the religious affiliation of Bybee and Peterson.

I don’t object to criticising the media. Often such criticism is deserved. I guess I don’t understand why you think “Mormon media” are left out of the scope of the thread. (And unlike the opinion columns in the original post above, the BYU newspaper story actually purported to be news reporting.)

It did make me wonder what sort of journalism they are teaching at BYU — which is, after all, subsidized by our tithing. That politicized story even failed to mention the key fact that the judge is under ethics investigation by the Justice Department for his actions there. Not did it mention that the major national media were reporting that very day that the draft DOJ report makes allegations to be referred to state bars for further disposition.

BTW, apropos the question in your original post, neither those national news stories nor the BYU Daily Universe story mentioned Bybee’s religion. (In the latter case, the unstated association was obvious, of course.)

But I guess this post is more of an objection to those that criticize the media, than a criticism of the Mormon media.

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/72400

There really was no news in the story, but there was palpable political spin. Repeatedly, the reporter focused on so-called “left-leaning” critics of Bybee, or other elements of “the uprising on the left.”

Sheesh. That swallows hole the false partisan talking point that the torture controversy is just a left-right political issue. Not so. For many of us across the spectrum it is a primarily legal issue — protecting the rule of law.

I am an independent with plenty of history supporting conservative candidates sometimes. (I have voted for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Heck, I campaigned for the elder Bush and Barry Goldwater many years before this kid reporter at BYU was born.) I have supported legal “conservatives” such as John Roberts and Samuel Alito. And I am appalled at Bybee’s actions precisely because I believe he subverted the rule of law during his tenure at the Justice Department.

A shorter version of the BYU story would be: “Left picks on LDS judge over torture. Go Cougars!”