Tuesday's Republic had an interesting story about SB 1070's effect on the missionary efforts of the Mormon Church. Well, I thought it was going to be interesting until I realized that the key assertion was simply made up. The headline was provocative.
Arizona immigration law fallout harms LDS Church outreach
In the body of the story, we read this interesting "fact."
Many Latinos who view the new law as unjust and discriminatory blame not only Pearce but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is making it hard for Mormons to proselytize to the state's 1.8 million Latinos, whom the church views as key to future growth.
Wow, really. That would be interesting. Of course since reporter Daniel Gonzalez doesn't site any sources for this "fact" we have no idea if it's actually true. Sure, he has a examples of Hispanics who oppose the law and direct their anger at the LDS church. But Gonzales provides no support for the assertion that is the essence of the article. He simply proclaims it to be true.
Is that what they teach in J school these days? If you really don't like a law, you can simply make up an angle, assert a fact and publish the story? Are there no editors? You know, the curmudgeonly guy in the stained shirt who makes the cub reporter go verify every assertion, balance every statement and eliminate every bias?
No, there's not. That guy--if he ever existed outside of the TV Show Lou Grant--has long ago been laid off and is now making $7.25 an hour editing garage sale announcements in the Supper Shopper.
Newspapers are not disappearing because they have lost their relevance. They are disappearing because they have lost their credibility.