Subscribe!
In an article published in today’s Washington Post (and re-published in various places online), William Booth inaccurately writes:
- “Mormon pioneer Alma Dayer LeBaron had a vision when he moved his breakaway sect of polygamists to this valley…”
- “…the Mormon enclave…”
- “These Mormons, some who swear and drink beer…”
- “The Mormons, led by an increasingly public and outspoken Benjamin LeBaron…”
He also refers throughout to members of the polygamist community as “the Mormons” and “Mormon men.” The only point of clarification comes at the end of the fourteenth paragraph, which mentions, “Polygamy was banned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the official Mormon Church, in 1890.”
Journalists and Latter-day Saints alike (especially those who are both) should instantly recognize the problem. Referring to such groups as “Mormon” is inaccurate by journalistic standards (according to my gold standard, the Associated Press Stylebook). It’s also unfair to the millions around the world whom the term accurately describes. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (official name) has worked hard to distinguish itself from such groups, with good reason.
Here’s part of an official statement about why (more available here, here and here):
The Associated Press style guide tells its reporters that the term Mormon “is not properly applied” to the other churches that resulted from the split after Joseph Smith’s death. It should be obvious why the AP has adopted that policy. It is widely understood that the word “Mormon” refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which sends out “Mormon missionaries,” sponsors the “Mormon Tabernacle Choir” and builds “Mormon temples.” Associating the term “Mormon” with polygamists blurs what should be a crystal-clear line of distinction between organizations that are entirely separate.
As a professional communicator, accuracy and clarity are my tools and my passion. As I’ve mentioned before, I believe that, as communicators, we “have a unique opportuntiy to build trust in the world.” So it saddens me when a high-profile publication like The Washington Post fails to live up to my high standards. I think we should do something.
Thankfully, the Post has a policy in place to address such mistakes:
The Ombudsman serves as the reader’s advocate. He attends to questions, comments and complaints regarding The Post’s content.
The current Post Ombudsman is Andy Alexander . You can reach him by e-mail at ombudsman@washpost.com or by phone at 202-334-7582.
I encourage you to contact Mr. Alexander now to express your disappointment in the Post’s inaccurate portrayal. Here’s a sample letter (which I sent):
Dear Andy Alexander:
As a journalist, I am beyond disappointed with the egregiously inappropriate use of the adjective “Mormon” in today’s Washington Post article, “Ambushed by a Drug War: Mormon Clans in Mexico Find Themselves Targets…”
“Mormon” is never appropriately used to describe polygamist sects. From the Associated Press Stylebook: “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other … churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.”
Referring to these people as Mormons, especially in a high-profile publication like the Washington Post, smears the reputations of millions around the world who proudly claim that title as part of a church that has worked hard to distance itself from such groups. You also do a disservice to your readers, who deserve clarity and accuracy.
Please take the necessary steps to correct this error as soon as possible.
Thank you,
David J. Garcia
(949) 891-2001
If you care about the reputation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–or just about journalistic standards, accuracy and clarity, please consider calling (202-334-7582) or emailing (ombudsman@washpost.com) Andy Alexander today! Thank you.
——————
Latest Twitter posts:
Amen!
The headline is even worse on MSNBC. I am glad I found it and Emily sent it to you. I really appreciated your letter. I am usually not someone who likes confrontation, but this really got under my skin. I have read many AP articles and they have been pretty fair, but this sounds like it was written last minute without checking any sources, etc.
Agreed: MSNBC’s was even worse. A big “thank you” to you and Emily for bringing this to my attention. I don’t believe in confrontation either, but I also know that the one way to hold publications to a high standard is to let them know that we notice when they fail.
From a journalistic standpoint, I suspect that the writer got his terminology from his sources, who, of course, embrace the term. Really, it’s the responsibility of his editor to push for the elimination of such bias and inaccuracy (if the writer doesn’t).
Update: I just received the following email.
David,
Thanks for writing. I’ll share you e-mail with Bill Booth, the author, and his editors.
Best wishes,
Andy Alexander
Washington Post Ombudsman
Have you checked to see what title the subject of the article prefers? I suspect they believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. What would you call such a group to be fair to them?
Hi, Cvb. Thank you for your comment. That’s a valid question that I’ll try to address in more depth.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, it’s my understanding that the subjects like the designation, which is probably why it was used. Journalisticly, however, it’s still incorrect.
I may prefer to be called “Dr. Garcia,” but if I’m not a doctor according to the understood meaning of the word, the writers and editors have a responsiblity to use a clearer, more accurate description.
As I writer and editor myself, it’s an issue I’ve dealt with many times (although not directly with this group). Just because I want you to call me something doesn’t mean you should, especially if it conflicts with clarity, accuracy or written policy.
My concern is similar to the statement I quoted in my article: “Associating the term ‘Mormon’ with polygamists blurs what should be a crystal-clear line of distinction between organizations that are entirely separate.”
It’s entirely possible to write a clear, accurate article that respects both groups. On the first reference, I would describe the community. Something like:
Simple. Clear. Afterwards, you simply refer to “colonists,” “community members” or “Colonia LeBaron residents.” Repeatedly referring to everyone and everything as Mormon is unnecessary and inaccurate.
The mainstream LDS church deserves to be mentioned as a seperate church, but subject of the article also deserves to be called what they believe they are.
I can understand the LDS church’s discomfort with confusion with polyamist Mormons. But I’m not sure that they should dictate policy on how other groups are referred to by the media.
The church isn’t dictating policy–journalistic standards of clarity and accuracy are (as expressed in the Associated Press Stylebook and my previous response).
I agree with Cvb. I am an active and faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I find church members’ and leaders’ expectations that they be allowed to dictate the terms of the usage of the word Mormon to be unreasonable. This word has gone way beyond their own usage to mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. The cat has been let out of the bag, so to speak, and no amount of quarreling is going to get it back in there. Better to just move on and focus on improving others’ perceptions of the church, instead of quibbling with a usage that, frankly, these media organizations are entitled to. Same thing goes for “The Mormon Church” in my opinion. This became standard long before the church’s current press policy.
In general, I think we should be a lot less anal about public relations and simply worry about being the best “Mormons” we can be (forgive the recursion :-).
Hi Carl,
Welcome, and thank you for your comment!
Though I am a Latter-day Saint, my discussion of this topic is not based simply on taking offense on behalf of a religion–I’m approaching this as a professional communicator.
I’m a writer and an editor. And I’d never let someone dictate how an article referred to them. But I also hold myself and those I edit for to a high standard of clarity and accuracy. My purpose here is to hold the Washington Post to a similar standard.
After reading the article a few times, and carefully considering my in-depth comments here, I remain convinced that the frequent repetition of the word “Mormon” throughout the article was unnecessary and inaccurate. If you’ve read the entire article and all my comments and still disagree, no problem.
Dave, I have real problems with the logic behind your claim and that made by the LDS Church PR office and even in the AP Style guide. The problem is that it is the same logic used to say that Mormons are not Christian.
As I understand it, traditional Christians suggest that the LDS Church is not Christian because we don’t fit their definition of Christianity.
Aren’t we, LDS Church members, putting these sects in the same situation?
Its kind of two-faced to suggest that they can’t also call themselves “Mormon” if they also blieve in the Book of Mormon and the restoration of the gospel by Joseph Smith.
Let’s drop this hyper-sensitivity to polygamy and concentrate on making distinctions in a way that the public understands.
Hi, Kent, and welcome!
You bring up a good point. Allow me to attempt to address it.
I believe, and I think most would agree, that journalists need to be careful about endorsing biases through language or tone.
I do not expect or even desire favoritism toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do expect clarity and accuracy. In this case, I believe that such standards would require the author to use alternative terminology.
The article refers to “Mormon” 20 times! Only once, in the fourteenth paragraph, is any mention made that these might not be the same “Mormons” that: knocked on your door last week, go to church around the corner, or sponsor the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
There’s clearly more than a little potential for confusion. In an earlier comment, I suggested that the author could introduce the group, including their beliefs (including “Mormon”), then simply refer to “colonists,” “community members” or “Colonia LeBaron residents.” This is a simple, clear way to eliminate bias and confusion. It’s how I address similar situations as a writer all the time: if the way you’re saying something is potentially unclear, then chose a different way to say it.
In the same vein, I take no offense if journalists choose to clarify our beliefs in a similar way: mentioning that members of the Church believe in Jesus Christ and consider themselves Christians, but that many mainstream Christians do not because of doctrinal conflicts. Afterward, refer to “Latter-day Saints” or “members of the church.”
As I said before, “Just because I want you to call me something doesn’t mean you should, especially if it conflicts with clarity, accuracy or written policy.”
There’s no double standard here.
David, I think your position only makes sense if you reject ANY unqualified use of the term Mormon as potentially confusing. SO, the LeBaron group can be referred to as “fundamentalist mormons” or “polygamous mormons” and not just “mormons,” while the LDS Church (best referred to by its full name or LDS Church) also should not be referred to as simply “Mormon Church” or “mormons,” but instead as “traditional mormons” or “non-polygamous mormons” or something along those lines.
My disagreement is simply with the idea that the term “mormon” can only refer to the LDS Church and its members, and with any suggestion that the LeBaron sect, or the FLDS Church or the United Brethren or even the Community of Christ (aka RLDS Church) can not or should not refer to themselves as “mormon.” [Although the CoC apparently doesn't particularly like or use the term "mormon" at the moment.]
As long as your suggestion is simply that the Post article, and journalists in general need to distinguish between the various types of Mormons for clarity and to avoid confusion, I have no quarrel with you.
Hi Kent,
While I fully appreciate your opinion, I disagree with the assertion that my opinion “only makes sense if” I use your approach. Accepted journalistic practice says otherwise. “Fundementalist mormons” (sic) are the exception to the rule. It is generally understood, unless otherwise stated, that “Mormon” refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
However, I personally avoid the term “Mormon” altogether (to refer to any group) as less accurate and clear than the alternatives, and my concern with the Post article has always been, as I’ve stated, clarity and accuracy.
In addition, as I’ve said before, I don’t disagree with anyone’s right to call themselves what they prefer. I’m simply addressing the issue as a communicator and editor: again, “Just because I want you to call me something doesn’t mean you should, especially if it conflicts with clarity, accuracy or written policy.”
Your last sentence sums it up: “journalists in general need to distinguish between the various types of Mormons for clarity and to avoid confusion.”
Thanks again for the lively discussion!
I agree with the last post. The hypocricy in your position is breathtaking in its audacity. I, as a Christian, am criticised for defining Christianity in what I regard a biblical and traditional way and then by that standard judge Mormons as not Christians. Foul! You cry. Anti-Mormon! you insist. By that standard you cannot insist that people who believe in Joseph Smith, the so-called first vision, the Book of Mormon and polygamy as practiced by Smith are not Mormons just because they don’t meet your peculiar definition of Mormon.
One thing is for sure. They are more like Mormons than Mormons are like Christians and there is an irony in that don’t you think?
Hi, Mike! Welcome to my website.
“Breathtaking in its audacity?”
Since we both posted at the same time, please read my response to Kent. If you still feel the same after, please re-post with a respectful tone, and I’ll be happy to address your concerns separately.
(My discussion of this subject is centered around standards of journalism and communication. This semi-professional blog is focused on public relations, multimedia, communications and technology, not religious issues).
David
Perhaps I have made the mistake of reacting to Mormonism rather than responding to your post and for that I apologise. Nevertheless, having had dealings with Mormons over many years I am quite used to the meal-mouthed excuses routinely offered by that church for their being a special case who should be dealt with in a special way. I stopped “respectfully” calling Mormons LDS about the time they insisted on being called “The Church of Jesus Christ in all subsequent references” etc. with no regard to the sensibilities of Christians. It is a policy of mine ever since to refuse to play “the great game” of Mormonism in the media.
I take your point about distinguishing between groups but take issue with your suggested method which robs people who regard themselves as Mormons of that title. I still insist that Mormons whose base is SLC have no right to exclusive use of the term and do regard as audacious their special pleading. I personally make the distinction, where necessary, by referring to “Salt Lake Mormons” as opposed to “polygamous Mormons” or “The Re-Organised Mormon Church” etc. In public speaking I do make the distinction between those guys who call at your door and what they represent and those other Mormons who practice some of the more colourful and traditional practices of Mormonism but they are all Mormons in the same way as an Episcopalian and a Baptist are Christians. I also stand by my assertion that “fundamentalist Mormons” are more like SLC Mormons than any Mormon group is like Christians.
Thanks for bearing with me
Mike
Hi Mike,
Thank you for returning and for your apology. I respect and appreciate your sincerity.
While we obviously have different opinions about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (I imagine that I’m more similar to my Baptist/Methodist family than to members of such splinter groups), I appreciate that you’re careful to distinguish between groups–so thank you.
As far as the specifics of how that’s done, we’ll take different approaches because our backgrounds are different and our careers our in different fields. I, too, stand by my earlier statements.
Sincerely,
David Garcia
The Seattle Times gets it. Here’s how the article should read: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009528086_mexmormon24.html.
Respectful to all parties, including the readers, through its clarity. This is what editors are for.
Congratulations David on a well crafted article. How ironic that the Seattle Times would be more accurate and professional than the Washington Post! As you have clearly stated, the issue is not religion - it is accuracy. Prejudice and bias are supposed to be abjured by the “journalists.” It will be interesting to see if the Post retracts its unfair and unjournalistic piece. I may have coined a new word there, but English is a fluid language and always changing! Good luck in your endeavors!
Thank you!
I really appreciate your comment and encouragement.
I also gained a significant amount of respect for the Seattle Times (and some anonymous editor there) thanks to this incident. The Washington Post editor let me down, but the Seattle Times editor really did a good job–it would have been easy to say, “Oh, it’s from the Washington Post, so we don’t need to worry about it.” Instead, they lived up to the standards of accuracy and clarity. Thank you, Seattle Post.
Good luck to you, too.
I didnt make it through the Post article, but the Seattle Times article was actually interesting. Did it seem kind of off-the-wall to you when they mentioned the Bishop was kin to Mitt Romney? Personally, I don’t think they should say I’m kin to someone if they can’t say how. lol.
I agree–it’s actually quite an interesting piece. The Seattle Times version is much easier to read, in my opinion.
That’s a funny point about Mitt Romney. I did find it a bit out of place, but I understand the writer’s interest in the trivia. I assume the relationship isn’t very close however, since, as you say, they couldn’t clearly say how.