"The New York Times (a former newspaper)"
I laughed probably more than I should have when I first heard Andrew Klavan brilliantly describe one of the most powerful institutions of journalism using this moniker... but I appreciated the additional insights he offered as a former journalist and writer regarding bias and narrative driving that naturally occurs in reporting.
Consider this: if you ever come across an article or feature presented by news media about which you have knowledge (whether science, history, or a specific event), it is usually not very difficult to spot problems with the way they present the information, even if the facts they chose to include may be correct.
Unfortunately, even after seeing issues with reports about these issues, we frequently take news media as reliable sources on stories about which we do not have as much knowledge.
Recently, President Thomas S. Monson passed away. Many people remembered the numerous acts of compassionate service, the frequent and passionate pleas for people to be kinder, or the bold testimony of Jesus he devoutly demonstrated.
Having listened to many of his talks and read many of his teachings, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are familiar with what kind of person he was.
Enter the New York Times (a former newspaper).
Robert McFadden wrote an obituary regarding the President of the Church for the paper, highlighting what he thought were the most important perspectives on the life of the prophet, which seemed to be that he did not run the church the way the Robert McFadden would have.
Several paragraphs were dedicated to the lamentation that women could not be ordained to the priesthood, or that the church was still opposed to homosexuality. The greatest positives that could be mustered included the fact that he permitted people to access historical documents that exposed polygamous relationships of early church leaders.
A small paragraph at the bottom concedes that he "embraced humanitarian causes" in connection with other faiths. There is also a note that he visited widows and wrote personal weekly letters to servicemen while serving as a Bishop.
The name "Jesus Christ" was used only in the context of the name of the church.
I have many friends who have been, understandably, disgusted with this take on President Monson. Some of them have circulated a petition on change.org (which I will not link), to request that the New York Times apologize or rewrite the obituary to better reflect what kind of man he was.
I believe the reason we say this is because, in spite of the fact we recognize bias and narrative-pushing when they write concerning something on which we are experts, we still irrationally think that the rest of the paper is somehow good for something more than lining a bird cage.
Even if the Times were somehow convinced that they were wrong to ignore the great service and kindness of President Monson, they are still wholly opposed to the faith over which he presided. A correction or rewrite would be a hollow gesture, and to compel it via signature campaign would change 0 hearts to come closer to the one that President Monson spent his life serving... Jesus.
The Times is not the first mainstream organization to have a beef with a prophet. Abinadi, Alma, Nephi, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha, and many many others have been accused of being judgmental, non-inclusive, and antagonistic. The records that have endured from the times of these prophets are those written by people who tried to live what they taught.
So don't worry about what the New York Times says about Thomas S. Monson... care what Thomas S. Monson said about following Jesus.
