Deseret News covers up legislator's misdeeds

It was a bad decision in 2002 to spike the story, a bad decision in 2004 not to revisit it when he resurfaced in politics, and a bad decision today to continue to defend it.

Has bias all over it. Doesn't come close to passing the smell test. He came to your office and admitted it, was crying about it, then asked you two years later if you were pursuing it any more. What's the matter, he didn't provide pictures to you?!

Editors like this need to get out of the business. They put all of us to shame by association.

 

To be fair, there are plenty of papers that aren't owned by the Mormon Church that have been less than aggressive when it comes to this kind of thing. The Oregonian is still blasted for getting beat on scandals involving current mayor Sam Adams, former Sen. Bob Packwood and former Gov. Neil Goldschmidt. It didn't hurt that all three were pretty well tied in to the paper.

 

"We didn't want to influence the election" has got to be the ultimate expression of corruption. We didn't want to clutter up our readers' beautiful minds with relevant facts before they made an important decision. I wouldn't believe the Deseret News' weather reports or crossword puzzles after this.

 

The only way the DN could have been more complicit? Be the bag man for the cash drop.

 

He's announced his resignation.

 

Here's another question: Since he has no problem doling out hush money, how much did the DN get for spiking the story? As a friend of mine said, zebras don't change their stripes.

 

Very true. And the LA Times will always have the taint of Harry and Norman Chandler's Machiavellian shenanigans, chief of which being turning loose one Richard Milhous Nixon on the world.

And did I mention the rape of the Owens Valley, the squashing of anything resembling sane and decent public transportation in SoCal or about a hundred other byproducts and souvenirs of the Chandlers and their posse for the first two thirds of the 20th century?

That said, c'mon Dan. You're better than that. The LAT's aforementioned shenanigans and the Oregonian's escapades do not mitigate what happened here. As lone star scribe pointed out, this doesn't begin to pass the smell test and all involved need to fall on their swords.

 

I feel bad for the DN's subscribers. This is a very serious breach of the covenant between reader and newspaper, and I doubt they can take their paper seriously anymore.

 

Not that it matters, but the Tribune knew about it and covered it up, too.

Filthy on both ends

 

Do you have a link that shows the Tribune knew, Idaho? I haven't seen that.

 

From the one at the top of this thread.

The Deseret News' only saving grace is admitting its massive screw up in this - and it came under mostly-departed leadership (not that I don't pretend that it wouldn't/couldn't happen with the new bosses). Other than that, it's pure garbage