The End of an Era

Katie Harmer, the current issues and ideas editor at The Daily Universe, was kind enough to ask if I wanted to draw a cartoon about the recent news about the news.

For those of you who don't know, by the end of this semester The Daily Universe will transition from a daily print newspaper available around campus to a weekly print paper, with the daily news appearing on the website and on mobile apps.

It's been very hard for me to reconcile my thoughts and feelings about this. What I say here is the best I can do, but really it's still a rough draft.

While I've been stewing over this, some colleagues have beaten me to the punch and said things better than I could. Most of my sentiments I can express by concurring with what Alex Hairston said in his two blog posts:

The End of The Daily Universe: An emotional response

The End of The Daily Universe: A less emotional response

And by concurring with what Erin Kulesus said on her blog (although with a caveat that I'll get to later):

Censoring censorship, Part I

Censoring Censorship, part II

Alex and Erin bring up two different issues, so I'll try to address each one.

I. A. ) When I first saw that The Daily Universe was going digital, it was a shocker.

I was sad to think of the paper edition no longer being there for BYU every day. Human beings in general have a lack of interest in the world around them, and not all BYU students are immune to the ignorance. A free newspaper ready to grab on the way to class could remedy that somewhat.

Are students going to think of the BYU student newspaper when they are curious about the news? Maybe for Police Beat or letters to the editor. You know, the parts people remember when they erroneously claim The Daily Universe is silly or irrelevant. (But that's a topic for another day.)

When news is only online though, here's a possible scenario: half of the student population will rarely even read the news online.

Half of the remaining population will get their news through late night monologues (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Half of what's left will get their news through a channel that already agrees with them, like Fox News or MSNBC.

Half of who is leftover will get local news from the Deseret News or the Salt Lake Tribune. (And by "news" I mean the comments section on BYU sports stories. In fact, maybe instead of Deseret News or Salt Lake Tribune I should just say Cougarboard.)

Half of who's left after that will get news from KSL or KUTV while they are waiting for the late night monologues to come on.

That leaves 937.5 people on campus who will think of The Daily Universe when they've got a hankerin' for news.

(Oh, except they won't think of it until their friend or family member who writes for The Daily Universe posts a link to his or her latest article on their Facebook news feed. And even then only half will click on it.)

I'm exaggerating, and maybe being a little facetious. And I'm sure efforts will be made to advertise the new website and apps, and of course, I hope students and readers do adapt their routines to check The Daily Universe online, even when there isn't a paper waiting for them in the newsstand. The Daily Universe won't be destroyed.

But I do think the overall readership will go down until the next outrageous Police Beat or the next ridiculous letter to the editor.

And haven't The Daily Universe's previous attempts at online only ideas fizzled out? "Beyond the Universe," anyone?

And will a weekly publication turn into something like the BYU Political Review or The Student Review? There's nothing wrong with either The Student Review or the BYU Political Review, they're both great. But their aim is different from The Daily Universe's original aim. They are both more similar to the average campus newspaper, and The Daily Universe model was something else.

I. B. ) I'm all for technology and innovation. And it's the only stuff saving the journalism industry so far. So part of me knew the change was necessary, whether I liked it or not. And, I admit, a smaller part of me was excited for the upgrade to the 21st century. But that was quickly quelled after some secondary news came out. (More on that later.)

I actually like the Wordpress system, and even defended it when the copy desk objected to the change. In theory, it was great to give reporters a way to write and publish an article right at the scene. But what The Daily Universe needed to do was put it into practice.

Even with the ability to update our website 24/7, we weren't taking advantage of that ability. Our basic schedule was still waiting until around 4 p.m. every day when the articles started rolling in, just like when we only had a print deadline.

Our sports reporters had some experience with getting articles in ASAP after a game was over, or the Arts and Entertainment reporter watching "The Sing-Off" on Monday night.

But mostly, the schedule revolved around late afternoon, because that's when the reporters set aside time from the rest of the credits they were taking, their jobs, their wedding planning and their family obligations.

It will be difficult to run a 24/7 news cycle as long as The Daily Universe reporters can't be reporters 24/7.

I. C. ) So The Daily Universe had some work to do to keep up with the times. But that means a change in philosophy and behavior, not necessarily a change in organization, and certainly not a change in personnel.

While I initially wasn't sure if the digital transition was ultimately good news or bad news, I could unhesitatingly rule a verdict after I knew the eight members of The Daily Universe's full-time staff would be laid off.

I think the fact that it never occurred to me that these digital changes would mean jobs would be lost shows how senseless these layoffs are. After the announcement of going digital, learning the full-time staffers would be laid off was still just as much of a surprise. In my mind the two things can be completely unconnected.

I never thought Rich, Kaye, Brandon, R.J., Ellen, Daryl, Warren or Shayne stood in the way of The Daily Universe becoming a 21st century newspaper. Never.

If this Daily Universe experiment is going to work, all the digital expertise in the world is nothing without journalistic expertise. I'm not saying all journalistic expertise will vanish after The Magnificent Eight do. But what made The Daily Universe a home away from home will vanish.

The DU newsroom will mean more to me than any classroom, CougarEat table, Marriott Center or LaVell Edwards Stadium seat ever will. For me it was the most comfortable place in the whole state of Utah except for home, the church and the temple. The Magnificent Eight and my many fellow editors and reporters made me feel like I belonged there. The full-time staff had a way of connecting with students and becoming their friends that can never be duplicated. And that sense of home even extended to my wife and baby. The DU Family made my family their family. I will forever be grateful to know them and to have spent time with them. And future generations of Daily Universes reporters will miss out.

It makes me miss them even more to see their gracious and positive attitudes after the bad news. Kaye is keeping an eternal perspective, and Rich is joking about a lifelong dream to be a mime. That they can be so happy, and cheer up other people who are dealing with their bad news, is another testament to how special these people are.

This is more than just saying goodbye to wonderful people though. This isn't high school graduation. The Daily Universe will be losing these people prematurely and I don't think it will be worth it.

II. ) One of the reasons for the change that BYU professor Dale Cressman (more on him later) cited was that The Daily Universe has been losing money. I'm not saying he's wrong, but I do want to say that in the two years I worked there I was never under the impression we were losing money. (In fact, the reason I got to go to Colorado twice for The Daily Universe was a direct result of an influx in advertising revenue.)

Last week's announcement was a sign that the decline of print journalism had reached even the university level. At school, you're supposed to be protected from any recession or economic trends. School should prepare you for the real world. School is meant to be the on deck circle. You aren't supposed to face 101 m.p.h. curveballs when you're on the on deck circle.

I believe even with the journalism world going digital, a reporter should have a background in old-fashioned print journalism. Above all, a reporter needs to know how to write. And the university should protect their investment in teaching reporters to write.

I'm not saying the art of writing is destroyed, or that the new system won't teach reporters how to write. But I think instead of contorting The Daily Universe to fit within financial restraints, the newspaper should be treated like the flagship that it is. I never understood why The Daily Universe was treated like a stepchild compared with the broadcast program (which, by the way, no one watches or even knows exists except for the five minutes before devotional, or Whitney Wonnacott) and the PR program. (Well, actually, I have some theories.)

Right now, everything going on in the field of journalism to try and make it a viable business is in the experimental stage. Nothing is tried and true yet. Let the real world conduct those experiments, and let the real world risk people's livelihoods in the process. Keep those risks out of the institutions of learning. They are institutions of learning, not of profit margins.

The Daily Universe shouldn't be given an infinite budget. But it shouldn't have to kowtow to something uninspiring like financial restraints. (Like Alex said, if the university was about making money there wouldn't be a religion department. Maybe journalism is more dispensable than religion. But then again we need journalism to have democracy, and we need democracy to have our religion.)

III. A. 1. ) The other major issue that has come to the surface has been brought up by "the old guard," namely Erin, McKay Coppins, Mike Curtis, Elizabeth Gosney and others. I'm not as qualified as they are to discuss the issue, but I'll put in my two cents.

About two years ago, The Daily Universe got in trouble for a few articles that, basically, made BYU look bad. The biggest one was probably our article that exposed the BYUSA budget. It's ironic that the article might be the closest BYU could get to a Bernstein/Woodward style, and yet that inspiring version of journalism is what got the newspaper in trouble.

Another one was a front page story about a fashion line started by a couple of BYU alumni. Although the article itself had nothing wrong with it, the website for the alumni's business included photos of models wearing see-through dresses.

The wake of the administration's wrath left a lot of rubble. BYU President Cecil O. Samuelson said The Daily Universe was a "disloyal" organization. Ranking faculty members were called in to supervise the copy editing process, and interrupted it on a nightly basis in order to pull stories, for incredibly silly reasons. A classic example was an article about Redbox and Netflix, which included a photo of a Redbox machine. Some of the movies advertised on the machine happened to be rated R, so the faculty member wanted the photo gone. Oh, so we're supposed to pretend like R-rated movies don't exist? (For more examples, see Erin's Tumblr.) Two of our editors were haphazardly and senselessly accused of being pornography users and were investigated by BYU.

After the immediate, horribly messy aftermath and some organizational changes, things calmed down to a normal BYU level. Of course, there is a bubble at BYU and there always will be. "A normal BYU level" will always have a more discriminating filter than the average newspaper.

But I didn't let that be an obstacle. I just made sure to make up for whatever lack exists with a commitment to lifelong learning. (It's part of the reason I wanted to go to New York City for my required internship, and part of the reason I consider BYU a "backup" law school on my list and would rather start an adventure in a new place.) In the meantime, I can laugh at the nuances of working at The Daily Universe.

So even though the trouble from two years ago was at worst censorship and at best annoying, bringing it up two years later, I feel, is an overreaction. It was bad, but it's been long enough now that I don't think it is a primary motivation behind these recent changes and layoffs. I don't let the frustrations from months ago (or the fact that the administration still doesn't seem to understand the mission of The Daily Universe, and would rather perceive it as an outlet for public relations packages than for hard-hitting journalism) affect my opinion of the BYU Department of Communications, BYU itself, and certainly not the Church.

Erin has decided to lead a charge against censorship and to demand answers. I don't feel it's the right fight to have. Maybe I would if my circumstances were different. I was never a copy editor like Erin was, so I was never in the newsroom at the deadline when a faculty member suddenly pulled an article arbitrarily and I had to change my whole layout. And I was never investigated for pornography use like other editors were. I didn't suffer through as much as "the old guard" did. If I had gone through all that, I might be just as vehemently up in arms. If President Samuelson himself fired me for no legitimate reason, I would lose probably all admiration for him. But I would like to think I could still sustain him as a General Authority.

Maybe I'm too eager to please and make peace. Maybe I'm a wuss. Maybe I just want everyone to get along. Maybe they got me and I'm brainwashed, haha.

III. A. 2. ) Although I am not as riled up as Erin and others, I don't mean to diminish what they experienced. What they experienced was real. And though I don't share Erin's sentiments whole-heartedly, I do share her understanding. And I still want to take some time to come to her defense.

Erin got into a Twitter debate with Dale Cressman, a member of the BYU faculty. (It reminds me of a Twitter debate McKay had with Professor Cressman almost two years ago.) He read her side of the Daily Universe censorship story, and in order to explain his side he called her account "stunningly naive."

Though Professor Cressman was right about some things, calling Erin "naive" was not one of them. Even if he thinks the decision behind every Daily Universe change was clearly the right decision and he can't comprehend how anyone can think differently, he doesn't need to belittle her opinion because she disagrees with him. He doesn't need to dismiss her contributions to the conversation.

(In reflecting on Professor Cressman's two Twitter fights I've observed, I can't help but wonder why he's made himself a spokesman for The Daily Universe. In the two years I worked there I never would have guessed he was involved enough in the newsroom goings-on to take that responsibility. I, for one, never felt his influence when I was there.)

III. B. ) All that said, I am sure the decisionmakers behind cutting The Magnificent Eight loose haven't forgotten those days when The Daily Universe was "disloyal." Giving the faculty tighter control over The Daily Universe's content is likely seen by them as an advantage. I won't go so far as to say the conversation behind closed doors went something like, "Now, we can get rid of Rich, Kaye, and everyone else, once and for all! Bwahahahahahaha [thunderclaps]." But I will say I wouldn't be surprised if the thought, "Hey, come to think of it, maybe a secondary effect of this is that we can keep a closer eye on this whole operation. Bonus!" crossed multiple minds.

Professor Carter, Professor Campbell and even Professor Cressman won't be stooges for some Thought Police. They still know what good journalism is and will promote it. I think they will be more "careful" than Rich and Kaye and everyone else would be (as the "powers that be" might put it), but that doesn't necessarily ensure doom and gloom for freedom of speech at BYU.

I just wish Rich, Kaye, Brandon, R.J., Ellen, Daryl, Warren and Shayne weren't seen as a liability. Even if no one says they are now, without a doubt they used to be a liability to some people.

They were only assets to The Daily Universe, and have been and always be assets in my life and the life of my family.

----------------------------------------------------------

At least I got my hard copy clips while I still could. Now I'll be able to show them to my grandkids, along with my cassette tapes and my 35mm camera.

Good, better, best

Here are some thoughts on the latest Daily Universe opinion page controversy:

It all started with a letter to the editor written by Alex Hairston, one of my old sports reporters and fellow sports editors. He wrote about a conversation he had with a friend about the TV show "Modern Family." One of the families on the show is a same-sex couple with an adopted little girl.

http://modern-family.maxupdates.tv/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/modern-family.jpg

Alex and his friend were sharing their opinions on whether we should support same-sex couples who want to adopt and raise children. His friend said he would rather his taxes go to build orphanages and prevent children from going to same-sex couples. Alex said he wasn't so sure.

But I thought Alex's letter was great, because it was totally benign and simply curious. He honestly was just wondering what people thought of the issue.

"I’m not sure the LDS Church has ever commented on this particular situation, although the proclamation to the world calls clearly for a mother and father in the home, if possible."


"Personally, I can’t say I’m opposed to a situation where a gay couple raises a child, but that could change if the Prophet marked it as a practice that should be avoided."

Certainly no rebellion or false doctrine. Alex was just being inquisitive.

Here's his letter:

Ways to raise

Of course, Alex's letter sparked a lot of responses. Of two that were published in the paper, one was supportive of same-sex couples adopting, one wasn't. But both of them were mostly thoughtful, and added to the conversation without resorting to insults or pettiness.

"Modern" immorality

Home-ophobia?

But then, a letter was published by someone named Taylor Petty (ironic enough). He sounded like someone who has never met a gay person in his life. He was very adamant, harsh, very zero-tolerance and downright heartless.

(I'll just interject myself here to remind all of you that just because a letter is published in the paper doesn't mean any of us in the newsroom or the university or the Church agree with it. And a letter is different from an article. An article would be the voice of the newspaper, a letter is the voice of some random guy.)

His letter is no longer available online, so I have to paraphrase, but the most striking point he made was something like "Would we let a baby be raised by a mother who was a prostitute or a father who was a serial killer?" (If you happen to have a Daily Universe paper from yesterday, you can find it there on page three.)

The letter was published in the paper and online, but was taken down last night. Here's the explanation by our managing editor Joel Campbell:

Letter removed

I thought Professor Campbell's statement was perfect and I totally agree with what he said. The letter did not reflect the opinion of The Daily Universe, BYU or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All three institutions (and myself) oppose same-sex marriage and oppose complete acceptance of homosexuality as merely an alternative lifestyle. At the same time, homosexual couples are not evil monsters. The Church has supported pretty much every right that homosexuals fight for except for marriage. (Here's an example.)

To anyone who cries censorship and says this is a violation of the First Amendment to take it down, I'll refer you to the U.S. Supreme Court case Miami Herald v. Tornillo. Basically, someone who writes a letter to the editor does have a right to speech, but a newspaper editor also has a right not to speak. If we don't want to publish something that's hateful and against the doctrine of our sponsoring organization (the Church), then we don't have to. (If you want to go somewhere that does publish things that might be newsworthy but against the doctrine of the Church, go here instead.)

The Daily Universe had a similar case last year, with a letter that I think was the opposite view of Taylor Petty's letter. I say "I think," because the letter was not clear whether it was rebelling against the Church and the prophet or wasn't. It was ambiguous to me, which is why I supported its removal last September.

Taylor Petty has every right to say what he wants to say. He even has the right to say that homosexuality is as bad as prostitution or murder. But he doesn't have the right to say so in The Daily Universe. If he demands his letter be republished or reposted online, or demands that other letters are taken down, then he is infringing on our First Amendment rights.

----------------------------------

For the record, I haven't totally decided my stance on this issue. But I lean toward what Alex and Katie Peacock said.

I remember one time having a conversation with a mission companion of mine while I was a missionary in Argentina. I don't remember how the subject came up, but we were talking about same-sex parents. I said this partly to annoy him, haha, but I also believed it, "I would rather live in a home with two dads or two moms who loved each other than a home with a mom and a dad who hated each other." I think same-sex parents are definitely better than abusive parents. And I think same-sex parents are better than no parents at all.

Any home without both a mother and a father is not what God would hope for His children. But, of course, many of us have been raised in other types of families, whether it was by a single parent, a grandparent, another relative, or two moms or two dads. I think someone raised in another type of family has just as much of an opportunity to be an upright citizen and a righteous child of God.

----------------------------------

And, by the way, I happen to love "Modern Family."

----------------------------------

UPDATE: This KTVX article gets some things wrong.

1) I don't know why this "Josh" kid thinks he would be expelled. I wonder where he got that idea.

2) The letter to the editor didn't actually criticize "Modern Family." Hey, ABC 4, if you want to actually do some research, read the original letter by clicking here. (Maybe you were thinking of this letter, but this isn't the one that started it all.)

This Time, a Response in The Daily Universe

The passionate reaction to my now infamous "Much Ado About Nothing" blog post continues on. Well, actually it seems to be dying down, which is fine by me. But there was a response in today's edition of The Daily Universe that I thought I would share.

The letter itself isn't on the DU website yet, but you can go here and look for it on page 3: http://newnewsnet.byu.edu/pdf/du20101014.pdf

I don't think Mackenzie Mayo is necessarily claiming that I think homosexuality, same-sex marriage, etc. is "much ado about nothing." I think what Mackenzie is saying that, in general, none of us should treat these issues like "nothing."

In case it was a criticism, I would answer by repeating what I said here.

Update - Church's Response

For anyone interested, here's the official statement from the Church on the outcry over President Packer's talk:

Church Responds to HRC Petition

My favorite parts:

"We join our voice with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason. Such actions simply have no place in our society."

"Our parents, young adults, teens and children should therefore, of all people, be especially sensitive to the vulnerable in society and be willing to speak out against bullying or intimidation whenever it occurs, including unkindness toward those who are attracted to others of the same sex."

"As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness."

"The Church distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand and behavior on the other. It’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation."

"There is no question that this is difficult, but Church leaders and members are available to help lift, support and encourage fellow members who wish to follow Church doctrine. Their struggle is our struggle. Those in the Church who are attracted to someone of the same sex but stay faithful to the Church’s teachings can be happy during this life and perform meaningful service in the Church. They can enjoy full fellowship with other Church members, including attending and serving in temples, and ultimately receive all the blessings afforded to those who live the commandments of God."

"We hope that any disagreement will be based on a full understanding of our position and not on distortion or selective interpretation."

Much Ado About Nothing

Another cartoon! Two in one week!


Has anyone seen the ridiculous brouhaha the Salt Lake Tribune is making of President Boyd K. Packer's talk in General Conference?

I didn't realize President Packer had said anything new or controversial when I was watching conference. But apparently the Tribune reporter covering conference (who happens to be a former member of the church) decided it was time to start a fire.

So what did President Packer say? His talk isn't written out on the LDS website yet, but it should be done today sometime. Check here periodically until you see it (he spoke in the Sunday morning session). There is audio and video already available on the website.

These are the quotes that the Tribune is using as ammunition:

“There are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature. A law against nature would be impossible to enforce. Do you think a vote to repeal the law of gravity would do any good?"

Some argue that “they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember he is our father.”

I'll get into my personal beliefs a little later. First I'll just describe the Tribune's response.

Here are their articles on the subject:

Apostle: Same-sex attraction can change

Although I would agree with that statement, President Packer never said that. I suppose it was somewhat implied, but it wasn't his point and wasn't a direct quote he made. I'm guessing the Tribune went with a more controversy-provoking headline, one that would anger people and lead them to believe that the Church wants to simply "fix" gays, with something crazy like electroshock therapy*. Not true.

Mormons divided on LDS apostle's speech on gays

This is one that tries to explain that President Packer's statements are somehow contradictory to other recent action from the church in response to same-sex issues. But they're not, something else I will get into a little bit later.

Besides, how can the Tribune say that President Packer is saying something new and shaking things up, and at the same time give a subheadline that says, "Apostle declares that church will 'stay the course' in opposing gay marriage despite opposition."

LGBT advocates criticize LDS apostle's remarks

Thanks to press like the Tribune, people are acting out against the church, holding rallies and protests, etc. Of course, discrimination against gays that leads to extreme bullying and even suicide (something that has been in the news quite a lot lately) is absolutely wrong. But if a teen struggling to figure out his or her sexual orientation really listens to President Packer's talk, he or she should not feel pressure. He or she should feel relief, and look to Christ's Atonement for comfort and guidance.

Now, for my own beliefs and testimony.

I firmly believe that sins of homosexuality go against God's plan of salvation, as does any sin. Whether or not same-sex marriage is legal, it will never fit with God's purpose of marriage and family.

Because homosexual acts go against the plan of salvation, it wouldn't make sense for God to create us in such a way that some of us are "born gay," at least not in a way that we have no other choice but to be gay. People are born with weaknesses and imperfections, and some may have a personality that makes them more susceptible to certain temptations. But any temptation can be overcome.

And it should be emphasized that temptation itself is not a sin. It only becomes a sin when it is acted upon. Whether it be cheating, lying, stealing, being selfish and proud, marital infidelity, sexual immorality or homosexual acts, no one should feel guilty for the temptations that come to them. They should only feel guilty after they decide to act on those temptations.

That said, just because homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle does not mean homosexuals should be persecuted, mocked or attacked. The church is against legalizing same-sex marriage, but in many instances the church has come out to say that gays should be treated fairly. Recently the church supported a law in Salt Lake City that would make illegal any discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

And just like Jesus Christ did, we can be intolerant of sin but still be compassionate toward the sinner. After all, we're all sinners.

(The Tribune brought up an example of Church's recent compassion to those struggling with homosexuality, describing a meeting Elder Marlin K. Jensen held with youth in California. But what Elder Jensen did and what President Packer said do not conflict.)

You might think all those ideas I just described are incompatible with each other. But it makes sense to me that we can have Christlike love for our fellow man and also be clearly against anything that goes against the gospel.

I hope what I have said does not come across too harsh. I do believe it all to be true, and I won't be changing how I feel about it any time soon.

Anyway, enjoy the cartoon.

*This video on Hulu expires soon!