[grimmfang]

Exactly, I'm surprised this post is even being upvoted here on HN. It sounds like NYT did their job, and did it well (considering so many people got pissed off).

We can not tolerate tiptoeing around subjects simply because someone's "faith" might be offended.

[rayiner]

You don’t have to tip-toe around a sensitive subject in order to give the reader a meaningful look at what’s going on. The article does a good job listing information that was important to help understand Monson in context. You can do that and also address the issues the obituary talked about. But judging everything in terms of a narrow set of political issues doesn’t educate the reader. It’s not good journalism. (I’d love to read the New York Times obituary of the founder of Bangladesh. I wonder what it would be like, viewed through the narrow political lens of a liberal New Yorker. Would it lead with his views on abortion?)

[_vertigo]

I had the same knee jerk reaction as you. But I think the question is not “should we tiptoe around subjects”.

The question is about framing and notability.

Pretend you have to make your own headline about the life of this guy. How do you frame his life?

You could focus on his achievements and his significance to Mormons and not mention the controversy until later in the article.

You could do what the Times did, which is mention only his controversies and say nothing of his significance to your average Mormon.

You could do a mix of the two (“celebrated within the Church, but mired in controversy without it”).

Either way you go, you are making a big decision on how to frame this guy’s life.

Which one is more fair? Which one is more profitable? Which panders the most to your readership? Which one is the least/most controversial? These are all questions the editor has to consider.

I have no small amount of distaste for the Mormon Church and Mormonism. I would prefer that any headline about Monson’s death mention the controversies that the Times mentions. But I also agree with the author that the Times’ headline is an extremely one dimensional view that just reinforced my already former opinion about Mormonism rather than giving me an alternative perspective from which to see it.

[gliese1337]

So, you can judge the quality of journalism based on how many people it pisses off?