| OCR Text |
Show 191 ln later news, boosterism was subtle or nonexistent. As it faded, the language of national park news - particularly descrip1ions of the land - changed from breathless praise to more detached descriptions based on acreage and elevations. The strictures of objectivity were evident in stories that reported divergent views with little to no analysis. For example, in debates between Utah's Senator Bennett and Secretary of the Interior Udall, stories dutifully reported the accusations and assertions of each side but failed to examine the truth of their claims. Newspaper editorial pages also evolved from the establishment of Utah's first parks and the debates that surrounded those of the 1960s and '70s. The state's newspapers were much more involved editorially with the last three parks than with the first two, and The New York Times editorialized against mining in the proposed Canyonlands National Park."569 Editorials in The Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News related to Zion and Bryce had praised the national park designations, predicted economic boons, and basked in the prestige of claiming first one, then two, national parks. The later cdi1orial positions in the state's newspapers were still aligned with promo1ing economic growth but sided with mining, grazing, and other uses. ln the 1960s, news of Utah park proposals was most often reported with stories crafted around arguments from those opposed to moves that would "withdraw" and "Jock up" land. Political figures along with mining, grazing, and hunting interests dominated local coverage. When Arches and Capitol Reef faced imminent strip mining, stories were again focused around opposition but a different opposition from the "park purist" or "preservationist" perspective. The New York Times was more likely to give voice to 5'9 New York Times, ··canyon!ands and Mining,"' July 13, 1963 |
