(initial, now-closed thread at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1140952)


"A New Beginning: Our Primary New Year’s Resolution for DeseretNews.com is to Encourage Civility"

[released by the "Deseret News" on 17 January 2014]


"Dear DeseretNews.com Commenters,

"We are grateful to each of you who participate in on-topic and engaging conversations on the DeseretNews.com comment boards.

"Many comments are civil and add insight and perspective to the content we publish online. Some comments are less civil than others. And even though a moderator approves every comment before it’s published, we occasionally let a comment through that violates our own guidelines.

"A New Beginning

"Our primary New Year’s resolution for DeseretNews.com is to encourage civility.

"To that end, today marks a new beginning for the DeseretNews.com comment boards. We have revised our comment standards and guidelines and conducted additional training with our moderators.

"Our refined comment policies clearly explain how we expect civility to endure. Please take time to familiarize yourself with them.

"Read the new comment policies [quoted below]:

"'DeseretNews.com Comment Board Rules and Guidelines'

"DeseretNews.com comment boards are a forum for thoughtful commentary and civil dialogue intended to enlighten readers with additional insights or counterpoints.

"We encourage thoughtful comments that:

•have a positive and constructive tone

•are on topic, clear and to the point

•are respectful toward others and their opinions

"All comments are reviewed by moderators before they are posted. Each user may post four comments per news article. Additional comments are permitted on sports stories. Some users submit comments that make a valid argument or statement but violate one or more of our guidelines, and their comments are rejected. To avoid this, please carefully read and follow the guidelines below:

"1. No personal attacks, excessive criticism or sarcasm, or comments meant to solely provoke — meaning comments that are both personal and antagonistic toward individuals and/or groups. Do not call another commenter a derogatory name, tell someone to “get a life,” mock someone, or express a desire to hurt a suspect, accuse someone of crimes they have not been convicted of or are under investigation for (drug use, illegal immigration, etc.). Personal attacks against Deseret News personnel — including comment moderators — will not be tolerated.

"2. No obscenity, vulgarity, profanity, or implied profanity, acronyms that are shorthand for profanities, name-calling, epithets or racial slurs. Occasionally a user will attempt to use symbol swearing (using #*$) in place of profanity. The best comments make an articulate point without using intended or implied crude language.

"3. No ALL CAPS shouting, overuse of punctuation or short 'ditto' comments.

"4. Overly speculative comments or comments containing information not included in the story are generally rejected, especially in cases of crime or tragedy. If you have information that you feel is critical to a story, please contact the reporter who wrote the story.

"5. Be sensitive in comments about death and injury, especially in stories that involve children.

"6. Off-topic comments will be rejected. Comments must tie directly to the associated article. This is especially true on sensitive topics. Complaining about comment policies and moderation of comments is considered off topic and will result in your comment being rejected. Comments and questions regarding comment board procedures can be emailed to comments@deseretnews.com.

"7. Links to outside URLs are discouraged and will delay the posting of your comment. Comments with email addresses, links to personal blogs, websites or Facebook accounts also are discouraged and will generally be rejected. DeseretNews.com does not endorse the content of external websites and has no liability as to their content in any event. We reserve the right to remove any external link.

"8. We want to hear YOUR opinion. Your comment must be created and owned by you. If you copy and paste from another source, please give proper attribution. Posting copyrighted material is not permitted.

"9. Commercial promotion or solicitation is not allowed. Our colleagues at KSL.com have a great classified ads site for that.

"10. Please do not submit charity donation information (as in the case of individual tragedies). Those who would like to request charitable donation information be posted to a news article can do so by emailing support@deseretnews.com.

"If you see an objectionable comment please click the 'Report abuse' button that follows each comment posted on the site.

"ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

"'What kinds of comments are posted?'

"We are looking for intelligent, on-topic comments that add value and insight to a story. We hold those who submit comments to the standards you've come to expect from the Deseret News. We accept a wide variety of viewpoints that add value to a reader's experience. These comment boards are offered as a public forum for a wide audience and should not be confused with a message board or instant messenger service.

"'OK, I met all of the above guidelines and my comment still didn't get approved! What gives?'

"Our moderators work hard to ensure a civil atmosphere and increase the quality of dialogue. However, because we are human, moderating decisions are subjective and occasionally we make mistakes accepting or rejecting comments. Unfortunately, we are not able to restore rejected comments or respond to requests asking for explanations as to why a comment was rejected. If you believe your comment was rejected in error, feel free to submit it again.

"'Haven't you ever heard of freedom of speech? That's censorship!'

"Commenting on DeseretNews.com is a privilege, not a right. If you continually abuse that privilege, you may have your account suspended or banned. But we want your comments and added insight, so keep it civil and we can continue a long and meaningful online relationship.

"'What if I spot an error in a story?'

"Comments regarding story errors - whether grammatical, typographical or factual - should be sent to the reporter who wrote the story or to support@deseretnews.com. Reporter emails are generally found near the bottom of article pages. The moderation staff has no control over editorial content.

"'My comment was rejected. Can I try again on the same comment board?'

"Yes. At this time, you are only able to post four comments per story. If one is rejected or placed on hold for an editor to review, that comment counts as one post.

If you have a question or comment about this policy, please contact us via email at comments@deseretnews.com.

"DeseretNews.com reserves the right to reject or remove comments that do not conform to these criteria or for any other reason.

"By submitting a comment on the DeseretNews.com comment board, you are agreeing to the DeseretNews.com terms of use and the DeseretNews.com comment board rules and guidelines."

["DeseretNews.com Comment Board Rules and Guidelines," at: http://www.deseretnews.com/policies#comment_policy]


Now, back to the original notification for a cheery wrap-up:

"We have some great things planned for our comment boards this year. We look forward to your continuing participation.

"See you in the comments,

"Burke Olsen

"General Manager, DeseretNews.com"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2014 04:24PM by steve benson.

Welcome to the Deseret News. Utah's answer to the Daily Worker.

............oh sh+t.

Translation:

"Bow your head and say: Yes."

It looks like KSL has adopted the same policy. I didn't often comment on KSL articles, but the comment section was always livelier there than on DN.

KSL's near word-for-word copy, here:
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=160754&nid=250

Neither ksl or DN are legitimate news sources. They are owned by the LDS church and can not allow information critical of the Mormon church to be published.

This isnt aimed at the OP, just how i feel generally when i read about church owned media properties...

Why visit them? I don't understand how people who know what they are and how they use their funds (supporting bigotry, malls, ranches, oil etc) can help support them.

Their news sites and tv channels rely on advertising. When we become a viewer we are helping to support them with the advertising money they earn. And the more eyes they get the more the advertisers will want to do business with them.

Maybe i'm overlooking something but I just wont visit their sites or tv channels.

Peace to you all.

The Mormon Church would love nothing more than for informed critics to ignore their bogus operations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2014 08:16PM by steve benson.

So what's the answer to solve this situation? You can complain and they can promptly ignore you. It's like anything else the church does. As the owner of the web forum, it's their legal right to control what is said. Do I like it? NO! What could possibly be effective at making them decide that their choice to censor the comments is not such a good idea?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2014 09:20PM by azsteve.

. . . its potential ones may not (and often do not).

You don't beat the cult by ignoring it. You expose it for others to see, then let them make up their minds based on evidence the Mormon Cult wishes you would ignore. (And, by the way, the Mormon Cult is not ignoring its critics. Its recent anonymous essays, posted on its official website, are acknowledged by it as having been put up in response to internet criticism of its claims).



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2014 09:38PM by steve benson.

The best response to speech one disagrees with is more speech.

The Internet has significantly lowered the barrier to accessing information. 20 years ago, you had to visit a medium or large research library to figure out Mormon history. 10 years ago, RfM was available, as was UTLM, but they still were somewhat lacking in terms of hard historical data published online.

Today, we've got mormonthink.com, a ton of blogs, this site, postmormon.org, and many others.The information has become cheap and accessible.

So, to answer your question -- more information is how fight against bad info. Start a blog. Write and document your experiences. Discuss what worked with *you* so that others can learn from it. Keep records so that chronological bias doesn't impact your recall.

My point is: people have a right to their speech (whether churches or individuals). It's not necessarily the loudest voice that prevails, but the clearest.

I visit KSL because my alternatives are:
-- Deseret News
-- Daily Herald
-- Salt Lake Tribune

KSL also has the best classifieds in Utah County. For a variety of reasons, these other news outlets won't work for me.

It's worth noting that there are a lot of media outlets owned by organizations we wouldn't expect. The Washington Post is owned by the owner of Amazon.com. The New York Times is majority-owned by Carlos Slim, a Mexican cell-phone magnate with ties to organized crime in Mexico. And on and on the list goes. For the most part, it doesn't matter. Something like the quadruple-murder suicide that recently occurred in Spanish Fork will be reported the same regardless of the outlet. Same goes for the weather. There are some places where a cultural or political bias will creep in -- I don't read KSL's religious reporting, for example, nor will I read the Post's reporting on online marketing -- but it's not that big of a concern for my day-to-day local news consumption.

Carlos Slim lent some money to the New York Times which was subsequently repaid. As far as I know, there is no ownership or control resulting from that transaction.

Slim may have been hoping for equity options in return for renewing the loan, or for some kind of debt-for-equity swap. However, the New York Times recovered well enough to repay the loan, so none of that was necessary.

Slim still owns about 10% of the NYT via Class A Shares (and has options on an additional 5-10% of the Class A shares available), and has invested about 300M-500M in it. The original 250M loan to the NYT has been repaid, but Slim still owns a large chunk of the NYT.

That said, I did make a mistake in my posting; he's not the majority shareholder. But he still is, arguably, the most influential shareholder currently affiliated with the NYT.

Thank you. That's good to know.

Let's setup a web site for rejected DN posts.

I am sick and tired of meeting all their criteria and still having the post rejected just because it came too close to the truth.

They need a feedback surge.

Earlier today I posted a comment in the deseret News in response to a poster who called Tom Phillips an 'excommunicated, disgruntled ex-Mormon, I responded thus:

"Possibly you’re not in full possession of the facts; the plaintiff is NOT an ex-Mormon & he has NOT been excommunicated. Due to his receiving the second anointing, something that few members of the LDS are aware of he CANNOT be excommunicated & as he refuses to resign he remains a member of the church.
I’m quite sure that this comment will not remain here very long, after all, the church has to be protected at all costs, but what I say is the absolute truth. If you have a genuine interest in the facts you can easily confirm what I have said but be warned, you could be in for a rude awakening.”

I saw nothing in my response that could be interpreted as failure to comply with the rules & after receiving this notification
“Thank you for your comment! Your comment is awaiting moderation and will appear once approved”
sat back & waited for it to appear.

A few hours ago I received an email from deseret news & I quote
“Your comment has been flagged for further review by an editor. In some situations, this can significantly increase the amount of time it takes for a comment to be accepted or rejected.”

I can hardly believe that my post would be censored or rejected for telling the truth, especially when the church is under fire for misleading its members. More ammunition for the cause?

Update
I have just received the followin email from Deseret News in respect of my comment which I quoted in my previous post.

"Unfortunately, your comment was not approved for the following reason:
* Comment included personal attacks, name-calling, epithets, racial slurs or other derogatory statements."

Pardon?
Can someone, anyone, explain to me how my comment can be described in that way?

I don't intend to let the matter rest there, I'm looking for a way to show that in spite of the claims of dishonesty in a pending fraud hearing a subsidiary of the Mormon church is still keeping the truth from its members.

Well, you know what you're dealing with. :/ I'd try keeping it simple: "The fact is that the plaintiff is still a member of the LDS church. He has not resigned nor been excommunicated."

Let *that* bend their minds.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2014 07:27PM by summer.

Another update
I have just posted a revised version of my original comment, I said this:

"Those who say that the plaintiff is an excommunicated disgruntled ex Mormon are not in possession of the full facts. He has not been excommunicated due to the fact that he has received the second anointing, a ritual that few members of the church are aware off. As Mr. Philips has not resigned & cannot be excommunicated he therefore remains a member of the church."

Within one minute, certainly not enough time for it to have been considered I received this email

"Unfortunately, your comment was not approved for one of the following reasons:
* Comment included personal attacks, name-calling, epithets, racial slurs or other derogatory statements.
* Comment included obscenities or vulgarities.
* Comment included ALL-CAPS shouting, overuse of punctuation, extreme length or violated other formatting rules.
* Comment included overly speculative thoughts or information not included in the story.
* Comment included insensitive thoughts that were not appropriate in the context of the story.
* Comment was off topic or disruptive.
* Comment included one or more URLs, which are usually rejected.
* Comment included copyright infringement or plagiarism.
* Comment included advertising or other promotion.
* Comment included charity donation information or solicitation.
* Comment included personal information.
* Comment was a duplicate.
We invite you to edit and resubmit your comment using the following guidelines:
* Comments should be thoughtful and helpful to your fellow readers with additional insight or counterpoints to the article.

It seems to me that they left something out perhaps the guidelines should also say:
*comments should avoid being honest as it tends to upset the church

I take you point summer & was trying to do that with my second comment. I thought it important to make people aware of the second annointing but it looks as if honesty counts for nothing where the LDS is concerned.

Too bad Utah is communistic and theocratic. Welcome to the People's Republic of Utah. May I introduce you to your czar, Monson.

"tends to upset the church" - you know what? F*CK THE CHURCH!
I am so sick of Utah acting like there is ONLY one church in the state. GAWD, I'm sick of it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2014 07:33PM by verilyverily.

I'm so not offended. I lived in Utah for many years and I was treated like crap by TBMs. I even didn't get a job (at a state run college, NOT church owned) because I didn't have a Temple recommend. Yes, they checked on this in a college that was state owned. It is illegal but the church rules. We mustn't offend the F*ucking church now mustn't we? I was told this by a very reliable source. That is when I applied out of Utah and moved the crap out of that state. And if I thought it was weird while there, I really realized it after I moved.

It was such a breath of fresh air!!! Not being shunned, belittled, questioned about being a member etc. There is one that I always hated and that was when TBMS asked directly "Are you a member?" They don't say a member of what because by the way they ask (with their arrogant snotty look) you know a member of what. But I always used to piss them off and say "Of what?" when I was asked if I was a member. People here DO NOT ask what religion I am because they know that it is not their business. GAWD I am glad to be out of there..... I am so glad.

The law makers are TBMs too so it really is a theocracy. It is truly sickening.

What are the folks in England saying about this? You said you are English. Are you actually in England? Are they paying attention?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2014 09:29PM by verilyverily.

Some of you may be aware that I'm English but most are probably not. So to those who don't know this I would like to say that I have no beef against Americans, normal ones that is, not the Mormon variety. I've spent a lot of time in the states, especially the south East & have loved every minute of it.
But I have to say this, I have never, in the UK, come across the kind of things that I understand to be normal in Utah. The judiciary, the Police, the censorship that I've just experienced, all seemingly controlled from the COB is beyond my comprehension.
I hope I haven't upset anyone by saying this because I truly love your country & its people. Well, most of them. :-)

You won't offend anyone, it's the Mormons who offend us.

Utah has a different culture from any other state - it's a culture of secrecy, theocracy, exclusion, and hate of anyone different.

You can feel it the minute you enter any Utah town and engage with anyone, practically. A few towns are less that way (Park City, Moab..well, not many), and if you're not Mormon, watch your back.

Put an extremely benign, even pro sounding comment, and then edit it after it is approved to include the relevant information.