Mormon mindset....

[_Daniel Peterson]

Now now, Daniel. I stood corrected on the ownership of the Trib long ago; however, the church does own half of the Trib's publishing company, so it's not like they aren't connected at all.

By calling it a publishing company, you misrepresent the role and function of NAC. It handles printing, subscriptions, and advertising -- the business functions. What it does not handle is editorial decisions. And those are the relevant decisions to the question of whether the Church controls the flow of news in Utah.

It has been shown to be false in every respect.

Only in your mind, Daniel. I'm still waiting to be convinced...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNKSzmM44gE

me and Mr. Barberi. Oh but he doesn't count either, does he? He's just the most popular talk show host in Salt Lake, or something like that.

If he's really the most popular talk show host in Salt Lake as you say, then he stands as a counterexample to your claim. If you're speaking ironically and he's an insignificant figure, then he adds little support to your claim.

The Church doesn't own the Salt Lake Tribune.

So? They own half of it's publishing company.

They own the Deseret Morning News, which, with the Salt Lake Tribune, set up a third company that handles the business functions of the two newspapers in order to create efficiencies of scale.

A little flex of that muscle and the Trib doesn't get published.

A little meteor shower, and the editor of the Tribune dies. A few shifts of some subatomic particles, and carbon becomes Kryptonite. A few layers of tin foil, and the Church loses its grip on the United Nations.

I'm not saying the church controls the editorial content though.

Then what exactly is your claim now? That the Church's easy listening channel, coupled with the Deseret Morning News, reaches more people than the CBS television affiliate in Salt Lake minus two easy-listening stations and a string connecting two tin cans, multiplied by some Boy Scouts trying to send smoke signals, provided it happens on a Thursday in a month whose name ends in an "r"?

Jello and walls.

Would you please try to stay on the subject?

It's difficult, when you keep trying to change the subject.

I showed why I think that, in combination with the radio stations, the television stations, and the Deseret News, the LDS church owns enough of the media market in Utah to say it can, even if it does not, control the media market. No other media group owns as much media as the LDS church, in the state of Utah. No other media group has such significant ownership in all three segments of media. And that's all I'm saying.

That's all you're saying now.

Assertion does not an argument make.

Bravo!

[_why me]

What is the purpose of this thread? I see no purpose in it. Perhaps PP would be happy if the LDS church would return to its original log cabin where the first meeting was held in the early 1830's. The church is successful in business and posters like PP just can't stand it. Unfortunately, we live in a capitalist world and business is a part of daily life. This is no different for religious organizations. The LDS church has an interest in keeping Salt Lake vibrant. As one who experienced Salt Lake during Reagan's recession of 1981, I can tell you that downtown was bleak then and depressing.

I say Hooray for the LDS church for keeping the city beautiful and successful.

Sorry, but you do not qualify as a defender.

And if any of you believe the City Creek plan is not up a creek with out a paddle, just wait a few years.

I think that I qualify veryf well, thank you. I applaud what the LDS church is doing in Salt Lake. The church is keeping the city vibrant and full of vitality. It for after all, the headquarters of the church. It has an obligation to keep the city beautiful and successful. With cities in decay (New Orleans before the flood) and other cities in need of a transfusion, I see the actions of the LDS church in a positive light.

And I might add, PP, that you should also.

[_why me]

And to those who are harping about church ownership of the media...well, I can only say that I would rather have LDS ownership than good ol' Rupert Murdock. The media is an important tool for news, news that at this very moment is becoming corrupted by the likes of sensationalist mega media giants.

Lets all hope that the LDS church will begin to control more media outlets in Utah. I see nothing wrong in that.

[_aussieguy55]

I think in society we need some irreverant characters who take the mickey out of some people in leadership. Jon Stewart is a good example, while I sometimes cringe over the language he certainly showed how incompentent Gondazles was in his footage of his appearance before the committee. I saw similiar on video in the Washington Post but then I suppose you think that's just a liberal rag. For example say there was a discussion about the life of Joseph Smith. Would LDS media interview BOTH Bushman and Vogel? If there was a discussion about the MMM would Bagley be included in the story? If there was a discussion about the Book of Abraham would Ritner be interviewed for his view as well as Gee? We don't like to see either our favourite political party or our religion bagged in the media and scream bias whenever that happens.

[_harmony]

I think in society we need some irreverant characters who take the mickey out of some people in leadership. Jon Stewart is a good example, while I sometimes cringe over the language he certainly showed how incompentent Gondazles was in his footage of his appearance before the committee. I saw similiar on video in the Washington Post but then I suppose you think that's just a liberal rag. For example say there was a discussion about the life of Joseph Smith. Would LDS media interview BOTH Bushman and Vogel? If there was a discussion about the MMM would Bagley be included in the story? If there was a discussion about the Book of Abraham would Ritner be interviewed for his view as well as Gee? We don't like to see either our favourite political party or our religion bagged in the media and scream bias whenever that happens.

Well, you know that won't happen in Utah, at least in the church's media.

[_harmony]

And to those who are harping about church ownership of the media...well, I can only say that I would rather have LDS ownership than good ol' Rupert Murdock. The media is an important tool for news, news that at this very moment is becoming corrupted by the likes of sensationalist mega media giants.

Lets all hope that the LDS church will begin to control more media outlets in Utah. I see nothing wrong in that.

Somehow I doubt Daniel will be taking you to task about your comments. He's not the equal opportunity type.

[_why me]

And to those who are harping about church ownership of the media...well, I can only say that I would rather have LDS ownership than good ol' Rupert Murdock. The media is an important tool for news, news that at this very moment is becoming corrupted by the likes of sensationalist mega media giants.

Lets all hope that the LDS church will begin to control more media outlets in Utah. I see nothing wrong in that.

Somehow I doubt Daniel will be taking you to task about your comments. He's not the equal opportunity type.

At times I think that posters of the exer type just like to be down right negative about the LDS church. I see nothing wrong with church ownership of media outlets. I think that with all the perversion and sensationalism out there in the media, it is a good idea for the church to start to take control of certain outlets. Likewise for the downtown salt lake plan of regenerating the district. Thank heavens that the lord has blessed the LDS church with funds to grow and to prosper.

[_harmony]

Now now, Daniel. I stood corrected on the ownership of the Trib long ago; however, the church does own half of the Trib's publishing company, so it's not like they aren't connected at all.

By calling it a publishing company, you misrepresent the role and function of NAC. It handles printing, subscriptions, and advertising -- the business functions. What it does not handle is editorial decisions. And those are the relevant decisions to the question of whether the Church controls the flow of news in Utah.

I thought about this last night, during one of my many bouts of insomnia. Your argument, such as it is, makes no sense. Of course the church controls the flow of news in Utah. They control the stations they own, the newspaper they own, the reporters and broadcasters they hire. Any entity that owns media controls the flow of information through that media, if by no other means than by the personnel they choose to hire. Clear Channel also controls the flow of news to Utah. They just don't control as much of it as the church does, because they don't own as much media as the church does.

You're being deliberately naïve again, Daniel. All media owners control the news through their policies, their personnel choices, what they choose to report. I don't see why this is so difficult a concept, just because it's the church we're discussing.

The church has an agenda. It shows in their media. It showed in the OP of this thread. They control enough of the media in Utah to significantly impact the flow of news to the citizens. And that is no doubt the reason they own so much media.

[_Daniel Peterson]

"Your argument, such as it is, makes no sense.

Ah, but is the defect in my argument or in at least a part of its audience? Opinions, presumably, will vary.

Of course the church controls the flow of news in Utah.

For a brief shining moment, a kind of "Camelot," I thought you had made a real breakthrough when you announced that "Assertion does not an argument make."

They control the stations they own, the newspaper they own, the reporters and broadcasters they hire.

Assertion does not an argument make.

An owner could be hands on or laissez faire. No evidence has been adduced here to demonstrate that the Church is either one or the other, but the burden of proof would have to be on the person making an assertion about this. If you have evidence to demonstrate that the Church exercises tight or relatively tight control over Bonneville International in such a manner as to exercise tight or relatively tight control over the editorial and news decisions at its small handful of broadcasting stations, you're welcome to share that evidence. If you possess evidence to demonstrate that the Church exercises tight or relatively tight control over the editorial and news decisions made by the Mormon, non-Mormon, ex-Mormon, and disaffected Mormon journalists at the Deseret Morning News, you're perfectly welcome to supply that evidence.

Any entity that owns media controls the flow of information through that media, if by no other means than by the personnel they choose to hire.

If you have any evidence to show that the Church exercises tight or relatively tight control over hiring decisions made by the radio and television stations owned by Bonneville International, feel free to share it. If you have any evidence to demonstrate that the Church exercises or has exercised direct control over the hiring of the Mormon, non-Mormon, ex-Mormon, and disaffected Mormon journalists at the Deseret Morning News, I hope you will provide that evidence.

Clear Channel also controls the flow of news to Utah.

Ah. Now you're engaging in equivocation. I control the flow of news to Utah too, in that trivial sense. When I choose a channel, or switch off the radio, or leave a newspaper unread, I control the news to that extent.

If all you're really saying is that the Church influences the flow of news more than Clear Channel does, and much more than my neighbor's fourteen-year-old daughter does, but that the Church and Clear Channel and Amy (not her real name; my two pathological stalkers need not hyperventilate at this point) also do, then you're saying something that is profoundly unnewsworthy but also quite uncontroversial. I was taking the verb to control in the sense of actually being able to dictate, while you are (now, at least) using it in the sense of merely "having an effect on."

harmony: "Little Timmy is controlling the boat."
Mens Sano: "No he isn't. Cap'n Andy is controlling the boat."
harmony: "Uh uh. If Little Timmy goes to the bow or sits in the stern or leans to the left or the right or jumps up and down, he affects the boat."
Mens Sano: "Good grief. Is that all you're saying? In that sense, the proverbial butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo 'controls the boat'!"
harmony: "You're just being naïve. You just don't want to admit the truth because it's Little Timmy we're talking about."
Mens Sano: [Sigh.]

You're being deliberately naïve again, Daniel. All media owners control the news through their policies, their personnel choices, what they choose to report. I don't see why this is so difficult a concept, just because it's the church we're discussing.

I realize now that I've been wasting my time. What you've been saying has merely been a mixture of the false and (at least as you define it now) the trivial. And you confessed the falsehood sometime back, so we've just been discussing trivia.

Zzzzzzzzz.

[_Who Knows]

KSL does not broadcast saturday night live.
KSL broadcasts general conference, and their news program puts it as the first news story every time.
Last year (or was it a couple of years ago), there was a sitcom that KSL refused to broadcast (because it was too racy?). I think it was called Couples or something like that.