Should Have Gone Deeper | Letters | Salt Lake City | Salt Lake City Weekly
We need your help.

Newspapers and media companies nationwide are closing or suffering mass layoffs since the coronavirus impacted all of us starting in March. City Weekly's entire existence is directly tied to people getting together in groups--in clubs, restaurants, and at concerts and events--which are the industries most affected by new coronavirus regulations.

Our industry is not healthy. Yet, City Weekly has continued publishing thanks to the generosity of readers like you. Utah needs independent journalism more than ever, and we're asking for your continued support of our editorial voice. We are fighting for you and all the people and businesses hardest hit by this pandemic.

You can help by making a one-time or recurring donation on, which directs you to our Galena Fund 501(c)(3) non-profit, a resource dedicated to help fund local journalism. It is never too late. It is never too little. Thank you. DONATE

News » Letters

Should Have Gone Deeper



The May 17 article “Split Personalities” [City Weekly] is troubling. There’s a sensationalistic attitude in the way the interviewees are presented with such limited perspective. Two of the pieces demonstrate this in particular sharpness: those about Phoebe Berrey and Deborah Dean. Both involve gender issues but lack any fundamental context whatsoever. What is the writer trying to say? Why does she focus on these individuals? There’s no way to know.

Without knowing, not just these two but all the stories have the feel of being offered up for snap judgment. We have only the title and subtitles for clues, and both are problematic. The title itself is, as I said, sensationalistic, and it draws an inappropriate connection between the interviewees and a psychological disorder. The interviewees are whole, sound individuals. They are not leading dual lives. They are each one person moving between or uniting different aspects of their lives or identity. And the subtitle implies that the interviewees and anyone who has something in common with them is to be pitied, is only “getting by,” through or despite living with meaning that is unique to them.

Every one of these portraits has a full-length story behind it. Some have been explored before, such as being LDS and gay. Perhaps there’s more to be said on that subject, but there’s also much to say in the less-traveled subjects of evolving gender concepts or challenging the rules of religion. The author speaks to two individuals who address gender and identity yet somehow misses the possibility for more depth. Is this avoidance intentional or accidental? What is the author really trying to say?

Isaac Hoppe
Salt Lake City