“It’s true that major parts of the 2010 law are clearly troubled,
but others are working fairly well.” That sounds like a factual statement
to me, so I do not understand the writer's insistence that it is somehow an
example of editorializing. If she disputes the factual nature of the comment,
then fine. But she should come forward with whatever evidence she has to
Thank you, Deseret News and others of the press for organizing and separating
information into groups by content rather than by supposed authenticity. Radio, TV, live meetings don't have the breadth of authenticity as
hard copy multiple versions of the same story.
I read the Deseret News as one of several sources for national and international
news because they are solidly center-right with a focus on good reporting. I prefers a good mix of center-right and center-left news, as well as
specialized outlets for focused issue reporting, and professional journals on
specific topics. I also follow individual specialists for their opinions -
mostly doctors, a handful of lawyers, a defense analyst, and so-on. I appreciate DN as a reliable source.
Donald Trump would NEVER make the news then....
Yet another example of people believing in "alternate facts".It is an inconvenient truth, but the AP is a solid news gathering
organization. Sadly the writer appears not to want to hear news, but a 24/7
laudatory paean to our President.Sad
And if the facts contradict what you believed? Would you change your mind?
Which part of the quoted article is objectionable?
You mean more stories with facts, like from their stories where they quote the
Sutherland Institute and BYU professors?
Someone doesn't like news that contradicts her personal views. The example
presents both sides of the issue. By her standard, everything Trump says would
be on the opinion page, or more likely, in the comics section.