Regardless of what you think of the politics, that’s quite the obituary for someone that is literally known for his service to widows and the poorhttps://twitter.com/neontaster/status/948647256172974082 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
There is no precedent of newspapers reporting on deceased religious leaders in a way that their followers would like. They usually report on how they were known by the world at large. Monson’s stances on the topics listed were more well known than his visits to widows.
That’s simply not true. Newspapers print obituaries of famous people who died every day.
They do notify the world that the person has passed. That does qualify as an obituary. But the focus is entirely different than the normal obituary from family. It usually discusses what made the person newsworthy.
What do you think the NYT will say when Pope Francis dies?
I think they will certainly discuss things that made him noteworthy to the world at large. Not simply his followers.
You really don’t see any bias in this?
I see bias in everything. We all have it in spades. The Times was reporting on the newsworthiness of his passing, not trying to honor his life.
I understand that. They’re doing it terribly.
That said, I loved hearing him speak in conference. His story about fixing up the apartment for an incoming immigrant family greatly touched my heart.
I think of an obituary as something that is written by family to honor the life a their loved one. Not a news paper updating people on someone’s passing. A family’s focus is the celebration of life. A general news update discusses what made their life newsworthy.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.