After I said no punches were pulled, I wondered if I had been too generous. Perhaps. But as the story broke it was (and still is I suppose) unclear what was going on. It’s hard to fault the D News for not reporting more at the time. It’s not like the Tribune had a lot more information. Having said that, I would appreciate a follow up article filling in some of the blanks.

Can you please link to the Jessop story you are talking about? The one I read doesn’t seem to have any punches to pull. Unless you count the tidbit in the third paragraph mentioning that some members didn’t understand that Jessop was reading his resignation letter as a punch.

The Deseret News could have at least given Jessop the chance to address the speculation that his resignation is in some way connected to the Danzig story.

The problem with using a wider definition (say “all weblogs that post about LDS issues”) is that the wider definition implies some sort of common enterprise or shared perspective. In fact, any such wider pool of blogs would include many blogs and bloggers who disagree strongly about Mormonism and even about how one should go about publicly discussing it.

This is not a new issue for the Bloggernacle. But as a new player in the online discussion, you should be aware of the issue and give some thought to how you identify, label, and discuss the community or communities of LDS weblogs.

By the way, Sanford, I agree with your assessment of the Deseret Morning News regarding its coverage of the Church. I would add that the same is true of the paper in general. Of course, if you’re a Mormon living in Utah and you want to look cool or liberal or open-minded, you take the Tribune. But that decision is usually based more on perception than reality.

Actually, queuno, the rss feeds at lds.org (including the newsroom) are quite good.

;)