The Gospel in Words: Life's learning curve teaches us some lessons

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Anonymous
    Nov. 20, 2007 8:02 p.m.

    In journalism one must understand all sides of things. All he was trying to do was understand the side he hadn't had experience with.

  • Nick Guzik
    Nov. 20, 2007 7:56 p.m.

    I am a journalist for the newsletter of Typica, and i believe that you should not keep any secrets in journalism. The people must know the full story. It is our job to inform the public of what they can not hear. We must be there ears in this world. We must lead them in all things. Peace out!!!!!

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 20, 2007 7:44 p.m.

    I think that for the most part journalists try to be unbiased, but their opinions and views are muddled by past experiences and their upbringing. Most of them do a good job of laying out the events, and so they deserve some credit for trying.

  • JeanLouise
    Nov. 2, 2007 3:23 p.m.

    I just read this, having followed the news stories in other media about your appearance at the meeting in question. For you to say "if this had been about a meeting at we wouldn't be having this conversation is complete hooie.

    You shouldn't be doing such stuff with any organization--liberal, conservative or in between. And furthermore, Dick Cheney was at your meeting. To go to a meeting where the vice president of the U.S. is in attendance and to walk away from it as "not a journalist" is absurd.

    I'm always amazed at how everyone thinks they can be a journalist. If I'm not trained to be a lawyer, as you are, why would I try to pass myself off as one? Or a doctor, or even a manicurist?

    You're not a journalist, and I truly doubt you will ever learn it on the job.

  • Douglas
    Oct. 15, 2007 9:18 a.m.

    Mr. Cannon should resign if the Deseret Morning News expects to hold any shred integrity.

  • Mary Mostert
    Oct. 14, 2007 9:24 p.m.

    Gerrie is right. Just because Joe Cannon is editor of Deserest Morning News does NOT mean he should be denied normal human rights - such as the right to a private life or a private meeting. Furthermore, he promised that he would not make public what he heard - and now we have so-called journalists urging him to reveal what he heard - when he was not at the meeting on assignment from Deseret News?

    As a journalist for more than 60 years and as a columnist for the Gannett Newspaper chain in Rochester New York in the 1960s, I am appalled that Joe would be "advised" that he should write about a meeting after giving those at the meeting his word that he would not.

    What ever happened to honor? Whatever became of "background" meetings held to inform editors and reporters that were not EVER to be made public?

  • Gerrie
    Oct. 14, 2007 8:59 p.m.

    Oh, please! Mr. Cannon did not cave. This was a private meeting of a coalition of individuals and organizations concerned with various issues in our nation. Mr. Cannon was asked to speak; he apparently did not attend as a representative of the DMN. That he has issued an apology where one was not needed simply illustrates his interest in injecting integrity into journalism. Perhaps we should commend him rather than condemn him for his efforts.

  • Mark B
    Oct. 14, 2007 7:11 p.m.

    You pair the words "secret" and "Cheney", and it's just natural that people want to know what's happening. But Mr. C gets another chance to get it right. I just hope he's not on the stand at the next Stadium of Fire seated alongside Sean Hannity.

  • paintmequick
    Oct. 14, 2007 6:51 p.m.

    --for you, our readers, for our owner and for the great journalistic tradition that the DMN has helped to forge through nepotism!!!

    Bob in Petaluma

  • No Credibility
    Oct. 14, 2007 5:54 p.m.

    Joe Cannon has no business (let alone professional experience) being the editor of The Deseret Morning News. This is just one of many examples that will illustrate that. I'll stick with The Tribune!

  • Joe Moe
    Oct. 14, 2007 4:14 p.m.

    @Kevin: Secret was the word I so most, as well, and it continues. But who started that? The media -- the national folks (AP) in particular, if I'm not mistaken -- and a few local critics picked up on it and ran (oh no, the conservative-minded folks are having a "secret" meaning and won't tell us what they talked about). The meaning of 'secret' and 'private' are very similar; it's the images and feelings the words evoke that are very different, and it appears that some journalists were trying to evoke certain feelings (apparently with great effect).

  • Kevin
    Oct. 14, 2007 3:00 p.m.

    Joe Moe seceret were the words used in all I read

  • Grady
    Oct. 14, 2007 2:12 p.m.

    As they say, it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, and I think Joe knew this going in.

  • Joe Moe
    Oct. 14, 2007 1:36 p.m.

    @Joe Cannon: I appreciate your candidness in this as well as other previous editorials. But I think Paul J. makes an interesting point, that most of us don't believe, let alone assume, that journalists are unbiased. We all know that everyone has unique perspectives, backgrounds, values, and assumptions, and that all those play into everything we say and do. I frankly read everything, whether the NY Times, Newseek, US News, or DMN, with a grain of salt and an assumption that the writer is just another human being. And interestingly, I think what they write often says more about them than it does about their topic.

    @paintmequick: Your comments made me reflect on this question: What is difference between "private" and "secret"? Might the answer to that question affect how someone might interpret your request to know what Cheney said? The word "secret" conjures up images of shadow and darkness, probably what you and some others are looking for in this meeting. The word "private" might allow people to conclude, omigosh, that it's their business, not mine!

  • paintmequick
    Oct. 14, 2007 12:35 p.m.

    If you were invited to Moveon, I doubt that you would be sworn to secrecy and if you had been, I believe that you would have reported it quickly because of a journalistic principle that supercedes secrecy.

    And we would all be happily ever after.

    Sadly, you still have more loyalty to secrecy than to journalism!

    Why don't you just report on what you saw and heard, especially what Cheney had to say?

    Bob in Petaluma

  • Paul J.
    Oct. 14, 2007 8:23 a.m.

    Joe---You caved. No one besides the cadre of reporters at your paper and a handful of others cares. And here's why: we don't believe journalism is neutral now nor ever could be. And the gloss that Jay Evensen puts on the subject of journalists going into each story with an open mind is not credible. For example, when you went to the Council for National Policy meeting few people on your staff were about to see it with an open mind.---Paul