Reader comments
Is angst about editor valid or overblown?

I agree that it would be best if the papers, editors and publishers were more involved in the community.

With the recent passing of Gov Rampton we got a glimpse of what used to be. Jack Gallivan, then publisher of the Tribune, was a close personal friend of the Governor. Gallivan used the newspaper to heavily promote the original Olympic bid, the building of the Salt Palace, airport expansion and liquor by the drink.

Was this inappropriate? I'm not sure but I'm confident that Rampton got a better shake from the Trib than he otherwise would have received. However, the paper pushed for projects that benefited the community.

The media complains about polorization but I believe it has been the biggest contributer to it. Publishers, editors, reporters have biases. Joe Cannon has never hid behind his opinions but has certainly tried to be fair and accomodating. I'll even bet Joe would talk to a liberal group (gasp) about the media - and probably has.

Agreed, Interesting. Good comments from both Frank and LaVarr. One thing to note, however, is that while Joe is a Republican, he's certainly not a conservative. 'Course this state is full of RINOs. It's the best way for a Democrat to get elected - just wear the title of Republican and then vote how you want.

The staffing of the Deseret Morning News is that paper's own business, not mine, but Joe Cannon's appointment as editor fuels my speculation as to why the paper performs no critical analysis of Bush foreign policy.

Yawn. Who cares? The traditional media's well known and documented tilt to the left has resulted in readership (and viewership) dropping like rocks. As a life-long newspaper reader, I had hoped that Joe Cannon's leadership would reverse the DMN's leftward bias, but alas, it has not. Actually it seems to be getting worse, although still not as rabid as the "other" paper in town. I reluctantly continue to subscribe to the DMN but only for local news and advertising. National and international news has much much more reliable and balanced coverage in the "new media" on line.
I can see the day when Frank and Lavar will be bloggers. After the long run of the printed Deseret News ends, which it must if it does not regain credibility by shedding its leftward bias.

Frank, I'm not a fan of either Joe or Chris
Cannon, and I agree with the points you have made today. But I almost laughed out loud when I read what you wrote about, "an editor's opinions" being "secondary to a higher calling" and "that all political parties, special interest groups, public individuals, etc.," should "be held to the same level of scrutiny." It would be nice if it were true, but in most cases, it is not, and probably never has been.

The point is made well by Frank .People in public offices give up certain freedoms and The Vice President of the United States is one of those who does.
I remeber well the uproar over President William Clintons suposedly private affair . "He is on duty all the time he has no private time" I belive also Presidential Candidates can and should speak to any group they wish,private or pulicly.

"The staffing of the Deseret Morning News is that paper's own business, not mine, but Joe Cannon's appointment as editor fuels my speculation as to why the paper performs no critical analysis of Bush foreign policy." - Lew Jeppson

Lew,

Are you by chance a tithe-paying Mormon? No, no, don't answer - just nod if you are. Because if you are, who runs the News is your business, because you're a financial supporter of the church that owns this paper.

If you don't like it then feel free to let your church leaders know. They may have no legal obligation to listen to you, but they have a moral one.

Wilkey - The DMN has it's own P&L, and is not subsidized by the church. By the same token, I was never able to 'let my church leaders know' that the interest rates at Zions Bank were not favorable to me as a member, and that the prices at ZCMI were too high. They are run separately from tithe collecting operations.

I just read on the trib website that "smoking" joe cannon (I didn't inhale) apologized to his staff and others for his attendance at the secret right wing forum. Kudos to Frank for commenting on the gaffe of editor Cannon. Lavar should apologize too for defending Cannon. Kudos to Cannon for having the professional integrity to recognize a poor decision when called to his attention. It is his obligation to avoid the appearance of impropriety. They teach you that the first two weeks of law school, and I'm sure in journalism school, but he gave up the legal profession years ago to be political and probably forgot his ethics like most other politicians.

LaVarr seems to have missed the whole point -- he never acknowledges in his piece that the real issue here was that this was a secret meeting. Indeed, as Frank puts it, it was a "supersecret" meeting. We are entitled to expect better of our journalists than that, and I'm glad that Joe has seen the light. Now if LaVarr only had the sense and decency to do the same -- but I'm afraid he's too ensconced in his suck-up mentality.