Talk about burying the lede.

The mainstream press has been on a tear ever since President Barack Obama announced that his liberal Christian faith had inspired him to change his beliefs on the definition of marriage. One of the most common stories, produced by news outlet after news outlet, has focused on the ways that this doctrinal issue has divided various groups of believers.

This is a totally valid story to be covering, since believers on both sides of this issue are separated by centuries of doctrine and tradition. Here are the pivotal paragraphs in a typical New York Times report. However, when reading this passage, prepare yourself for the stealth blockbuster:

Mr. Obama’s declaration last week that he supports same-sex marriage prompted ministers around the country to take to their pulpits on Sunday and preach on the issue. But in the clash over homosexuality, the battle lines do not simply pit ministers against secular advocates for gay rights. Religion is on both sides in this conflict. The battle is actually church versus church, minister versus minister, and Scripture versus Scripture.

The dividing lines are often unpredictable. There are black churches that welcome openly gay couples, and white churches that do not. Some Presbyterian churches hire openly gay clergy members, while others will not. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin, but there are Catholic priests who secretly bless gay unions.

Did you catch that last reference? If, in fact, the Times has factual material about Catholic priests blessing same-sex relationships and unions then this is clearly the most important news angle in this piece. This is a major news story, buried deep in a related news report.

However, note that this claim (which I do not doubt, by the way) appears with absolutely no context, no attribution, no clue as to the source of this information. The Times does not even claim to be printing this information based on anonymous sources who requested protection from the Vatican. This is most strange.

I don’t know about you, but this passage immediately made me think of the following quotation:

Readers of The New York Times demand to know as much as possible about where we obtain our information and why it merits their trust. For that reason, we have long observed the principle of identifying our sources by name and title or, when that is not possible, explaining why we consider them authoritative, why they are speaking to us and why they have demanded confidentiality. Guidance on limiting the use of unidentified sources, and on informative description of those we do use, has appeared in several editions of our stylebook, including the current one, and in our Integrity Statement, dating from 1999.

This is, of course, the top of a report on The New York Times Company’s policy on the use of confidential sources. The key is that, when editors approve the use of a confidential source, reporters are still supposed to provide readers with as much information as possible in order to explain why they should trust this news story.

But wait, since we are dealing with a story that is about religion, linked to a “social values” issue on which all urbane, intelligent citizens would be in agreement, this may be one of those cases in which — under the Bill Keller revelation — that the Times no longer needs to play by conventional journalism rules about bias and fairness. That’s the ticket.

You remember the Keller doctrine, right? Here’s a reminder, with the recently retired editor discussing (video source here) whether his newspaper now openly plays an advocacy role on behalf of liberal policies and beliefs:

“We are liberal in the sense that we are open-minded, sort of tolerant, urban. Our wedding page includes — and did even before New York had a gay marriage law — included gay unions. So we’re liberal in that sense of the word, I guess. Socially liberal.”

Asked directly if the Times slants its coverage to favor “Democrats and liberals,” he added: “Aside from the liberal values, sort of social values thing that I talked about, no, I don’t think that it does.”

Now, there are other passages in this recent Times story that merit discussion. When describing a visit to a pro-gay rights Lutheran congregation in Wisconsin, the story fails to identify the church’s Lutheran denomination — which is an important issue in the heavily Lutheran Midwest. Pro-gay rights scholars compare scriptural references to sexuality with those describing slavery, yet the story offers no material describing traditional Jewish, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant viewpoints on that issue.

You know, the usual stuff. Once again, however, one must ask it — post Keller confession — the leaders of the Times believe they have any responsibility to accurately report the views of those who dissent from the newspaper’s approved religious doctrines.

Still, this story does appear to include a major innovation, one that appears to violate the newspaper’s policies. So let me ask: “What is the source of the information reflected in the following statement? I refer to this sentence: ‘The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin, but there are Catholic priests who secretly bless gay unions.’ “

Is this statement based on anonymous sources? If so, how can they best be described, so that readers have a chance to evaluate the validity of this claim?

Since it’s Nuns Day at GetReligion …

Seriously, one of my bookmarks for religion news is the New York Times’ Religion and Belief section. While browsing that section today, I came across a feature on “Sister Dolores,” the principal of an all-girls Catholic high school in Brooklyn, N.Y.

I clicked the link and found myself enjoying the story of this strict but trusted nun:

One of the first lessons a Fontbonne girl learns is that no good can come from crossing Sister Dolores.

Sister Dolores, the principal of Fontbonne Hall Academy, an all-girls Catholic high school in Brooklyn, once jumped out of her 2004 Toyota Corolla, confiscated a girl’s beer, emptied it into the gutter, explained that as a certified alcohol counselor she could have the girl arrested, then waited while the shellshocked child called her parents to report herself.

By the time the girls are seniors, they understand that when Sister Dolores says they are free to choose their own graduation dress, she means if it passes inspection.

Starting in early May, they bring them to the principal’s office and change in the bathroom.

“Let me see you,” Sister Dolores said to Alessandra Fodera, who will be attending Georgetown University in the fall. “Turn around.”

The dresses cannot be strapless. Straps must be at least one and a half inches wide. Hems are to be one and a half inches off the floor. Shoes must be white and can be high heels, but not too high.

Gowns will absolutely not be off-white, diamond white, or eggshell white. Only white-white.

After reading the entire story, though, I had a different perspective.

I found myself frustrated at the giant religion ghost that the writer allowed to haunt the 1,200-word profile.

Two crucial questions about Sister Dolores go unasked (and, of course, unanswered): What does she believe? And why does she do what she does? Here is a story about a Catholic nun and a Catholic high school that mostly ignores the Catholic part (except for a jab or two at the end … more on that later).

As I reviewed the online presentation closer, I noticed an “On Education” designation at the top. That explains a fair amount about the approach. Here we have an education writer presenting the story through that lens. That makes sense, I suppose. At the same time, our mantra at GetReligion is that ghosts linked to the power of religious faith haunt all kinds of stories, from education to business to sports. That certainly appears to be the case here.

This profile skirts right at the edges of Sister Dolores’ faith, without ever delving into the big questions of her life and ministry:

For 39 years she has taught the fourth grade Sunday school class at St. Francis Xavier in Park Slope and runs the annual Christmas pageant there. The night before the play, she irons all the costumes, Joseph’s headpiece, Mary’s veil, the angels’ white robes.

When the final curtain goes down, Sister Dolores goes up and collects the straw scattered around the baby Jesus’ manger, stuffing it into a plastic bag to use again at the next year’s pageant.

On Monday nights, she has a private counseling practice. Any money she takes in — for her therapy sessions or the 60-hour weeks at Fontbonne — she turns over to her religious order, the Sisters of St. Joseph. In return, she receives a few-hundred dollar monthly stipend, which is what is meant by an oath of poverty.

At the end, the writer — whose format appears to be more of a column than a straight news account — reflects on Sister Dolores entering the convent “just as the church was being turned upside down.” Unfortunately, that little bombshell is dropped into the profile/feature/column/whatever without any explanation.

Then there’s a quick, unexplored mention of “the church’s glass ceiling”:

Given the range of possibilities available to women today, and the thickness of the church’s glass ceiling, it is unlikely that there are many more Sister Doloreses on the way.

Which makes it hard to imagine who there will be to iron Mary’s veil, inspect the seniors’ gowns, balance a multimillion-dollar school budget, look deep into boys’ souls and graduate 132 educated girls of good moral character, all for just a few hundred dollars a month.

Hmmmmm …

Top image via Shutterstock

Time to catch up with a recent story that got buried in all of the coverage of President Barack Obama’s evolution on the definition of marriage and Mitt Romney’s adventures in Moral Majority territory.

When I started reading this Associated Press report, I found it rather liberating. It was nice to read a story about Catholic nuns that was unrelated to the whole uproar about the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and the Vatican’s attempt to pull that organization’s leaders out of the world of beyond-Jesus experimentation. It was good to read another story about how Catholic religious are coping with recruiting issues in the digital age.

BIDDEFORD, Maine (AP) — When Sister Elaine Lachance devoted herself to a religious life straight out of high school in 1959, her religious order had more than a dozen convents in the U.S. with nearly 260 sisters.

Today, the Good Shepherd Sisters of Quebec, based in Canada, has just five convents in Maine and Massachusetts with 56 sisters. The youngest is 64 years old, and it’s been more than 20 years since a new member joined.

Rather than leave the future of the convents to prayer and chance, Lachance has turned to the Internet. She’s using social media and blogging to attract women who feel the calling to serve God and their community.

However, as I kept reading the story I had second thoughts.

Things were fine as long as the focus stayed on this one order and its challenges. The problems, for me, began when the AP team tried to broaden the scope of the story to look at the current crisis facing nuns, in general.

The number of nuns and sisters has plunged through the decades as more career opportunities for women opened, parochial schools closed and sisterhood became less visible. … In the U.S., the count has fallen from about 180,000 in 1965 to 55,000 last year, a drop of nearly 70 percent, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. In 2009, their median age was 73, with 91 percent of them 60 and older.

GetReligion readers who are active Catholics will immediately spot the key issue and, unfortunately, it does have something to do with the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

It appears that the team behind this story does not seem to realize that, in addition to that large body on the progressive side of the spectrum, conservative Catholics have formed their own network for religious orders that are dedicated to more traditional, even contemplative, forms of religious life. That group is called the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, which was founded in 1992.

To understand what is happening, the AP really needed to answer some basic questions: Are some orders declining, while others are growing? Are some orders declining at a more rapid rate than others? In particular, I wanted to know if the numbers in that 2009 CARA study can be tweaked to separate the LCWR orders from the CMSWR orders.

In other words, the story assumes that all of these religious orders face the same challenges and the same bleak prospects. That may not be the case.

This does not mean that the hook for this story — the fact that some orders are using the Internet to seek recruits — isn’t invalid. This is a timely subject for a news feature, and the AP report contains some fascinating details:

… (T)here’s been an uptick among women showing an interest in pursuing a religious life, said Patrice Tuohy of the National Religious Vocation Council, a Chicago-based group representing vocation directors for religious organizations. The NRVC launched a website called VocationMatch.com seven years ago that links young people interested in leading religious lives to religious communities. The site gets about 6,000 inquiries a year. The Internet is useful for such questions because it offers instant information and is anonymous, Tuohy said. …

Audra Turnbull, 23, turned to the Internet when she felt the calling in college. Inside the chapel at Quincy University in Quincy, Ill., she pulled out her laptop, Googled “nuns” and found a website called A Nun’s Life. In time, she checked out dozens of other websites, YouTube videos and social media before getting touch with a motherhouse in Monroe, Mich., where she plans to join the ministry.

Those tools are invaluable for “nunnabes” — wannabe nuns — like her, she said.

“It’s hard to find nuns these days to talk to them,” she said. “So a sister being interviewed or giving ministry on YouTube has been huge because you put yourself in that place and visualize what you want to be doing.”

Turnbull expects to become a sister in two to three years. She’s also created a blog of her own called The Awkward Catholic, which takes readers through the process of entering religious life.

Read it all and check out some of the links.

Again, let me stress that this is a valid story on a fascinating topic. The problem is that it omitted one additional fact that readers needed to know in order to understand the current realities — the fact that not all of these orders are in decline. Some are growing. As Sinsinawa Dominican Sister Laurie Brink stated in her now infamous 2007 keynote address (.pdf here) at a national LCWR assembly:

“They are putting on the habit, or continuing to wear the habit with zest. … Some would critique that they are the nostalgic portrait of a time now passed. But they are flourishing. Young adults are finding in these communities a living image of their romantic view of Religious Life. They are entering. And they are staying. …”

In other words, this AP story needed one or two more voices, to capture another point of view on this crisis.

If you take the future of journalism seriously, you might consider reading a new piece on how journalism isn’t just being overlooked, it’s being replaced.

Follow the right people and organizations on Facebook and Twitter, and you’ll find out what’s happening close to you, straight from the source. LocalWiki, Pinwheel, Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare clearly do not replace a good local newspaper, but they offer a combo that is increasingly becoming good enough.

We saw the trend back when Craigslist began killing newspaper’s classified ads, and now we’re seeing increasing competition over content. Honestly, why would I read your book review when I can see my friends’ Goodreads ratings, Facebook recommends and Amazon reviews? Why would I read your story on President Obama and gay marriage, when I can read any old blog, twitter or comment thread about it? What new piece of information are you adding to the table that competes for my valuable time looking at puppies on Pinterest? As Stijn Debrouwere writes, “[T]here’s a limit to our appetite, and every minute spent on Facebook is one not spent on a news site.”

There are organizations and websites everywhere that are taking over newspapers’ role as tastemaker and watchdog and forum. These disruptors don’t replace investigative reporting, but they replace the other 95% of what made professional news organizations important.

What does this have to do with religion journalism? Fred Clark (thank you!) started me on a rant about how the media needs to think more carefully about how they spend their resources. Discussions about the future raise the question of whether outlets are currently spending valuable time and money in places that could be allocated elsewhere. I brought up two case studies connected to President Obama’s announcement on gay marriage.

For another case study, let’s consider Mitt Romney’s commencement speech at Liberty University over the weekend. Yes, it was symbolic, but people who care were probably watching via web stream anyway, following on Twitter and commenting about it to their Facebook friends. I’m not saying reporters shouldn’t cover it. I’m generally pleased to see a religion story make national news.

I’m questioning whether we need a number of national journalists flocking down to Lynchburg to cover a speech that’s widely available to the public. It’s why I spent the beautiful morning at the zoo with my niece instead of glued to my computer, watching the speech later. From what I understand, Romney didn’t convert from Mormonism, so I didn’t see much breaking news. Why don’t news outlets at least post a link to full video and text, instead of just their take on it? You would think after several years of blogs now, outlets would catch up.

I heard some lamenting about how fewer reporters are covering the presidential campaigns and I can’t help but wonder: why are there so many reporters on the campaigns to begin with, when they all seem to cover the same story every day? There are exceptional reporters, of course, but Middle America often sees one narrative coming from the Beltway, trust me. I could see an exception for outlets like wire services and a few national publications, but everyone doesn’t have to pretend to be the New York Times, right? Besides, isn’t it a bit paparazzi-ish?

If anything on the Liberty story, the political reporters might consider stepping aside and letting religion reporters take the ball on this one. For political reporters, all that seems to matter is the vote count. Religion reporters can dig deeper into why theological differences matter, as Terry pointed out. In a recent chat I had with Sarah Posner on Bloggingheads, we talked about how Romney dropped names of well-regarded figures among evangelicals, such as Bonhoeffer, C.S. Lewis, William Wilberforce and others. Would political reporters pick up on those names enough to know that he was signaling something?

Would a journalist (reporter or editor) with religion sensibilities write, as The New York Times did, Pat Roberts instead or Pat Robertson, or describe Liberty University as “the spiritual heart of the conservative movement.” Are political journalists willing to dig for background on President Obama’s note of the Golden Rule for his support for gay marriage? Those who focus only on votes risk losing an audience that wants a bigger picture.

Remember the piece I mentioned at the beginning of this post? Here’s one of his big tips:

Write to people’s passion, and they will gobble up just about anything.

Hey, you know what people are passionate about? You guessed it: Religion! (ba-dum-ching!)

Leading media gurus might want to put their heads together to figure out what they can produce that is truly unique to the Internet, TV, print, or however else people are consuming information. Otherwise, we might all be working for Wikipedia some day.

Image of sleeping puppies via Wikimedia Commons.

Here we go again.

If you are interested in religion news (as opposed to pure politics), and you are willing to look at Mitt Romney’s Liberty University commencement speech from the point of view of the audience, then it’s pretty clear which paragraph deserves the most attention. Here it is:

People of different faiths, like yours and mine, sometimes wonder where we can meet in common purpose, when there are so many differences in creed and theology. Surely the answer is that we can meet in service, in shared moral convictions about our nation stemming from a common worldview. The best case for this is always the example of Christian men and women working and witnessing to carry God’s love into every life. …

Focus on that first sentence. Romney tells the audience — packed with evangelical, Pentecostal and even fundamentalist Protestants — that he knows that they are believers in “different faiths.” Not different churches, different denominations or different movements. He also says that he knows they are divided by doctrinal differences that are so basic that they are, literally, creedal. They are divided, in other words, by theology.

Romney then goes on to say, however, that they are united by “shared moral convictions” and a “common worldview.” Basically, he asks for civic tolerance on behalf of a common cultural cause.

Divided by creed and theology. Got it.

United by “worldview,” one of the vague, but hot, buzz words of recent decades in evangelical life. Got it, sort of.

This brings us to the top of The New York Times report on this event:

LYNCHBURG, Va. — Mitt Romney traveled to Liberty University, the spiritual heart of the conservative movement, on Saturday, seeking to quell concerns about him among evangelical voters by offering a forceful defense of faith and Christian values in public life.

At a graduation speech at the college, founded by the evangelical leader Jerry Falwell, Mr. Romney made the case that he is bound theologically and politically to the same belief and value system as Christian conservatives, though he never explicitly mentioned his Mormon faith.

Now wait a minute. Yes on the whole vague “values” thing, but did Romney say that he was united to these Protestant conservatives in a common “belief … system,” a term that most of his listeners would have associated with doctrines and theology?

No, he didn’t. In fact, he said he was a believer in a different faith. He then asked these listeners to accept him as an ally on matters of culture and morality — a coalition-building formula that would have sounded very familiar on a campus built by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder of the interfaith, not ecumenical, group called the Moral Majority (which always included Mormons, from day one).

A few lines later, the Times repeats a common, and related, error in news coverage of this topic.

It was Mr. Romney’s most extensive and direct discussion of religion since his 2007 speech about his own faith and was intended to help him reassure conservatives, some of whom do not accept Mormonism as a Christian religion.

Note that, in this case, “conservatives” stands alone. In the context, however, it would appear that this means conservative Protestants, once again implying that they are the only Trinitarian Christians who do not accept Mormonism as fully Christian. Tell that to the Vatican, to Constantinople, the Lutherans, the United Methodists, etc., etc. In fact, has any Trinitarian Christian body accepted the validity of Mormon scriptures, doctrines and rites? I seem to remember that one or two Episcopal Church dioceses have done so, but I cannot find the reference.

Later on in the story, the Times repeats this same flawed formula:

Mormons consider themselves Christians, as noted in the church’s formal name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but evangelicals do not consider the Mormon scripture to be Christian.

Here is my question for GetReligion readers: What is the alleged content of this statement that journalists keep making, the statement that evangelical Christians — apparently alone — do not accept Mormons as Christians (as opposed to other Trinitarian Christian groups)? I think the point is that many evangelicals may carry their doctrinal grudges into voting booths, the only territory that matters to far too many journalists.

You can see this same problem in many other stories about the Liberty University address. Take the USA Today story, for example, which noted:

Mormonism has been a controversial topic among some evangelicals.

Right. Some evangelicals. That’s all.

How about The Washington Post?

Romney’s Mormon faith is a sensitive subject on campus at Liberty, where each class opens with biblical devotionals and the curriculum refers to Mormonism as conflicting with the school’s Christian theology.

Right. The issue is simply Liberty University’s approach to Christian theology. That’s the problem.

Here’s the irony. It seems, when one reads the full text of Romney’s speech, that the candidate knew more about the hurdles he faced in that public address than the journalists sent to cover it. Thus, he admitted that they were believers in different faiths, divided by theology and creed, but that they could — with civic tolerance — be united in worldview, “values” and a common cause.

Romney would need to give the same speech at Catholic University, Wheaton College, Baylor University, Calvin College and in numerous other settings, because he would need to make the same essential point. How many journalists understand that?

Embedded here is a clip from CNN’s Reliable Sources, headlined “Media embrace same-sex marriage story,” where host Howard Kurtz discusses the media coverage of President Barack Obama’s announcement regarding same-sex marriage with Terence Smith, Nia-Malika Henderson and Lauren Ashburn. Are media rooting for Obama on same-sex marriage? Should ABC have agreed that the Obama administration could pick the host to do the big interview regarding this news? And should journalists have pressed Obama about his claim he didn’t support same-sex marriage when everyone “knew” he did? Readers interested in media coverage of this issue will find this bit interesting. Later in the show, Kurtz interviewed Matt Lewis and John Aravosis about similar topics.

I’m trying to take a longer view of the media coverage. Obviously the culture warriors within the mainstream media were extremely happy about President Obama saying he supports redefining marriage to include same-sex unions. And the coverage has reflected that elation, more or less. But that doesn’t mean all the coverage has been bad. In fact, I’ve seen some shockingly good coverage, too. (And I’m still trying to process how biased pieces like this get written, much less published.)

One of the things that panelist Terence Smith said in the CNN clip above was that Obama wouldn’t lose a single vote on this issue, a rather dramatic claim. Kurtz interjected that it remained to be seen. Which brings us to how the media has covered early polls on the issue. I was alerted to this mainstream media mistake by Mickey Kaus over at The Daily Caller. He points out the headline The Hill ran:

Majority say Obama’s gay marriage stance won’t change their vote

And here’s the lede:

A majority of voters say President Obama’s decision to come out in support of gay marriage will not sway their decision in the fall election.

According to a Gallup poll released on Friday, 60 percent of adults nationally said Obama’s new position makes no difference, while 26 percent said it would make them less likely to vote for the president and 13 percent said it would make them more likely to.

Now, if the media are going to be so obsessed with politics, and we all know they are, at the very least they could cover political implications of races much better. It takes about one day on the campaign trail to learn that all of that money being spent in races across the country is a huge battle over a very tiny percentage of the vote. The fact is that a certain percentage of people never vote. And of those who do vote, their mind is made up quite early in a race. All that money President Obama and Mitt Romney are raising these days (not to mention all the races downticket) is over a relatively small percentage of the vote.

So if Gallup finds out that 26 percent of people are less likely to vote for Obama because of his public change on same-sex marriage and that this is twice as much as those who say it makes them more likely, that’s actually pretty big news. News that is the opposite of what the headline says.

Or as Kaus put it:

But 39% said it would–and they split two-to-one against Obama and gay marriage. Since the election is currently not two-to-one against Obama, that’s a net loss right there.

Worse, among independents, 23% said it would make them less likely to vote for Obama while only 11% said it made them more likely–a net negative for 12% in this group. Obviously, “less likely” doesn’t mean it’s going to be the deciding factor for that 12%–there are bigger issues, and gay marriage seems likely to fade in salience. But even if it’s the deciding factor for a tenth of that 12%, it’s a blow to Obama’s chances. The headline should have read something like:

Poll: Obama’s gay marriage stance hurts him with key voters

It goes without saying that one should correctly interpret the polls before explaining why voters are responding as they are, an area where religious views surely play a significant role.

If you’re interested in the topic of evangelical attitudes toward same-sex marriage, this is an excellent piece analyzing just that.

I went on a little rant last week about whether media outlets are dividing up their resources in savvy ways. One of the biggest issues I see is whether reporters should rush to cover the latest trending topic when they’re not given the time to develop unique, original stories.

One of the most obvious examples of a flocking to the same story trend came last week with President Obama’s announcement on same-sex marriage. The announcement was a big deal, for many, many reasons. Yes, I also contributed a piece to the flock of stories. But are media outlets, in their attempts to cover the “big story,” allocating their resources wisely? Let’s look at two articles as case studies.

First, we have Reuters, a wire service that managed to produce the most predictable 550-word story with eight — eight! — staffers. They did win the prize for the most bizarre lede of the day:

Some rejoiced in the U.S. president’s courage. Others predicted hellfire at the polls. One pastor said he would reflect on the matter in prayer.

I don’t doubt that someone somewhere predicted hellfire at the polls, but none of the quotes in the story back up that lede. Instead, the quotes are full of might-as-well-be-press-release-material quotes.

“It just makes me giddy with joy. I have been bouncing around all day,”

“I’m not happy with it. I believe scripture. God’s word says gay marriage is wrong.”

Quote from a statement

Quote from a statement

“I don’t think that’s appropriate for the president,” Bargaineer said. “The Bible’s strictly against that.”

“Because he understands oppression, he knows that loves is no second-class thing,”

“It has taken him a while to get there,” he said, “but it is just deeply moving for me to hear the president of the United States finally acknowledge the full dignity and humanity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and our families.”

Really? This is what an international wire service moves? If the story had one reporter on the breaking news story, I might understand it. But eight — again, eight — reporters dredged up these quotes?

Second, we have the New York Times, which devoted nine reporters for its second-day story. I think we’re supposed to be impressed that the reporters come from all around the country?

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. apologized to President Obama for hastening him into an endorsement of same-sex marriage, several people briefed on the exchange said Thursday, even as the White House sought to capitalize in the campaign on Mr. Obama’s long-awaited expression of support.

Well, what did Biden say?

Many conservative advocacy groups displayed no such reticence to wade into the debate. These groups, which will play major roles in trying to motivate voters to the polls, see an opportunity to drive a wedge between Mr. Obama and religious voters, a group he made significant inroads with in 2008.

Well, what are the polls showing?

Despite the White House friction, by Thursday there were signs that Mr. Obama’s comments had compelled a number of liberal donors, who had previously remained on the sidelines, to open their wallets.

Well, how much money did he raise in the first day?

Sure, you won’t get to those questions when you’re breaking news, but if you’re putting nine reporters on it for a second day follow, you should be able to get more specifics. The piece focuses on OMG, what is this going to do for the election, and not OMG, what is this going to mean legally. For the latter angle, I looked to coverage from Scotusblog to explain some really basic facts about what Obama’s announcement did—and didn’t—say. For instance, the federal government hasn’t and probably won’t get involved in a challenge to Proposition 8. So what does Obama’s support mean at the state level, when he’s said it’s not a federal issue?

In our two case studies, one is a wire service and one is a national newspaper, so of course they’re going to devote a lot of resources to a major story. But did they break any ground that other people weren’t going to break? Not in those pieces.

Image of the Pied Piper via Wiki Commons.

In this week’s podcast Issues Etc. host Todd Wilkin and I discussed two recent GetReligion stories: the withdrawal of First Presbyterian Church of Colorado Springs from the PC(USA) and the latest developments in the Irish abuse scandals.

As Nathaniel Campbell noted in his comment on the Colorado Springs article, the press frequently conflates the disputes within the mainline denominations into a single issue — homosexuality.

Campbell writes:

there are deeper but acknowledged issues here over hermeneutics and the evangelical insistence on privileging (often exclusionarily) a literal reading of Scripture.

In my estimation, at least, that is the major “ghost” behind a lot of mainstream/evangelical friction. While on the surface level it manifests as doctrinal disputes, I think it is at root a problem over how to read and understand Scripture.

Wilkin and I discuss the issue of press blindness, noting the divisions within the mainline churches do not stop at homosexuality as the breakaway groups are divided over another Scripture-driven issue: women clergy.

We also look at the coverage in the Irish Times over the fallout from the 1 May 2012 documentary “The Shame of the Catholic Church”, where the BBC claimed that as a young priest in the early 1970’s Cardinal Sean Brady failed to take sufficient action in the case of pedophile priest Brendan Smyth.

I argued that the advocacy journalism approach taken by the Irish Times in its reporting on the Catholic Church was self-defeating. By adopting a relentlessly hostile approach to coverage of the Catholic Church,the Irish Times was preaching to the choir. Those ill-disposed to the church would find confirmation of their views, while those supportive of the church would see their reporting as biased.

The comments to the story demonstrated this. As one commentator noted:

The Irish establishment, including their media, has long been anti Catholic, because the church stood in the way of Ireland becoming “modern” (read divorce, birth control and abortion). The “abuse” saga is a godsend to them to destroy the influence of the church, which was standing in the way of a modern forward looking culture. Perhaps this is why the story is made to sound as if the church is again being it’s old stubborn old fashioned self.

In its simplest sense, the problem with advocacy journalism is that it is based on the supposition that there is no one truth. Truth is subjective, or relative — I have my truth, you have yours. Why then should the journalist strive for balance or fairness, when at heart there is no single point of reference in which to frame a story?

Before we get to the coverage of Mitt Romney’s visit to Liberty University, I’d like to flash back to the scene-setter story that ran in The Washington Post on the day before that commencement address.

One of the keys to this kind of coverage is that far too many reporters seem to think that evangelical Protestants are the only Trinitarian Christians who have problems with many of the core doctrines that are proclaimed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is an evangelical problem, you see, not a clash between Mormons and Methodists, Mormons and Roman Catholics, Mormons and the Orthodox, etc., etc.

The other key to the coverage is that reporters are struggling to describe the differences between the beliefs of Mormons and these dang evangelical Protestants (as well as Catholics, the Orthodox, Lutherans, etc., etc.) without discussing, well, the differences between these radically different camps of believers.

In other words, it’s hard to write a story about XYZ without mentioning some of the content of XYZ. However, many reporters seem determined to do precisely that.

You can see this struggle in this particular Post report, which opens like this:

LYNCHBURG, Va. — Megan Leach and Sarabeth Rudd agree on almost everything. They are both evangelical, in their 20s and law students at the conservative Liberty University. They vehemently oppose abortion rights and same-sex marriage, believing they are contrary to God’s word. Yet when presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney comes to their campus Saturday to speak before a crowd of 34,000, Leach will be there cheering him on and Rudd will stay home.

One woman is hoping she will see a conservative leader willing to take a stand on social issues. The other said her conscience won’t allow her to vote for a candidate who does not share her religious beliefs.

What, precisely, is implied with this statement that Romney does not share “her religious beliefs”? The candidate also does not share the “religious beliefs” of law student No. 1, either. That is clear.

Come to think of it, it would be accurate to say that neither of these women share many, or maybe some, of the “religious beliefs” of Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich, either, since they are Catholics. What we have here is a totally empty phrase.

Let’s move on.

Republican strategists hope the renewed debate on social issues, in the wake of President Obama’s announcement Wednesday that he supports same-sex marriage, will galvanize conservative Christians behind Romney.

But Rudd thinks the former Massachusetts governor should never have been invited to speak at her college. There is nothing he could say to win her vote — other than that he has become an evangelical Christian and made Jesus his savior.

“People get so blinded by their party that they forget principle,” said Rudd, who is 25. “His theology goes against my faith. I’m not going to vote for him for that.”

So Rudd would not vote for Santorum? She would not vote for a Catholic conservative? How about a conservative Anglican? Once again, what does, “His theology goes against my faith” mean? Readers must assume, of course, that this statement has something to do with the whole evangelical vs. Mormon thing (when the actual issues are larger and deeper than that).

Let’s move on, again.

In the GOP primaries, conservative Christians were among the Republicans least likely to support Romney. Although polls show some movement, several prominent evangelical leaders have raised concerns about his Mormon faith, saying it does not represent their own worldview. Liberty’s curriculum refers to Mormonism as conflicting with its own theology.

Worldview? Is the doctrine of the Trinity merely a part of an undefined “worldview”? Also, what is meant by the statement that Mormonism conflicts with this university’s “own theology”? Once again, this makes it sound like the conflicts between Mormonism and Trinitarian Christianity are the result of small, specific beliefs that are solely defended by the kind of folks who congregate in places such as Liberty University. In an attempt to avoid facts and specifics, the story serves up — nothing.

At the end, we see the same problem, one last time.

Jason Campbell, who graduated from Liberty seven years ago and was back on campus Thursday, is hoping Romney — despite his religious beliefs — can get evangelicals fired up for 2012.

“This is still the Moral Majority,” he said. “It’s right here.”

Read the whole story and then answer this question: What specific doctrinal issues are at the heart of the conflict between Romney and these students? What did readers actually learn from this story?

Good luck with that. Did anyone actually talk to these students? Ask them any specific questions and record the answers?

One of the things that unites readers and reporters is that we are writing or reading news because we’re curious about the world around us. USA Today runs a story about something quite common — the celebration of Mother’s Day — and yet I found it interesting because it satiates some of that curiosity I have about Mother’s Day.

I don’t really celebrate Mother’s Day. I keep in contact with and show appreciation for my mother throughout the year. And my own children and husband could not be more appreciative of me, so the day just doesn’t do much for me. It’s also not a part of the Lutheran liturgical calendar and so we’re more likely to talk motherhood on those days associated with Mary, Jesus’ mother, than we are on Mother’s Day. We are likely to get a mention of the day in the prayers, it’s just not going to derail the appointed readings for the day.

This story in USA Today is about people who and congregations that celebrate Mother’s Day. Written by Godbeat pro Cathy Lynn Grossman, here’s the lede:

Hold the chocolate and flowers. Hold the brunch reservations. What mom may really want for Mother’s Day is for the whole gang to go to church first.

A new survey of 1,000 Protestant pastors finds Mother’s Day ranks right after Easter and Christmas in peak church attendance.

Father’s Day, however, is near the bottom of the poll although both holidays were founded as church events more than a century ago.

There may be something to this. Not two minutes before I read this article, a friend of mine reported on Facebook, “Sometimes my six year-old wild child is sweet and so very insightful. I just overheard him whisper to his brother, ‘I have the perfect Mothers Day gift for mom. Let’s be on time for Mass tomorrow!’” In the article, we get more specifics about how high of a holy day Mother’s Day is for many American Protestants, with fully 59 percent ranking it as one of the top-three days for attendance throughout the year.

Grossman compares how Mother’s Day and Father’s Day are celebrated and some of the reasons why Mother’s Day may win out:

Family dynamics make a difference, too. Dads may be church-averse, but moms have clout on certain days.

“Christmas, Easter and Mother’s Day have become the three days of male holy obligation when their wives and mothers are able to guilt them into the pews,” says David Murrow, author of Why Men Hate Going to Church.

This peaks like a candy kiss on Mother’s Day when “pastors tend to gush over women in their sermons,” Murrow says.

“But on Father’s day, men get a ‘straighten up’ lecture: ‘Dad, get right with God, reconcile with your kids,’ etc. You would never hear any suggestion on Mother’s Day that women could improve on their relationships,” Murrow says.

I love these quotes but this in no way matches anything like you might hear at any Lutheran church I’ve attended. Another pastor backs up Murrow’s claim.

We learn that smaller churches with attendance of fewer than 40 people are particularly fond of Mother’s Day. We get some nice color, including this bit about Nashville’s First Wesleyan:

Pastor David Gould, 42, says it’s an inner-city congregation, “where the mothers and grandmothers are the fixture of the community. Our numbers jump up with folks who will come with their moms to honor them this Sunday, even if they go to a different, bigger church other Sundays.

“Most people say their spiritual life and foundation comes from their mother,” Gould says.

Pastor Geoffrey Mitchell, 36, is counting on those motivations. He’s picked this Mother’s Day for the debut worship service for a new Disciples of Christ congregation, Big Life Community Church in Oswego, Ill.

His reasons are both pragmatic and spiritual.

It’s the ideal day for attracting the husbands and the 20-something kids of moms in their 50s, the two demographics with the lowest church attendance, Mitchell says.

Fascinating! Mitchell goes on to say his sermon theme will begin with his own mother and her Christian faith. Again, I don’t want to sound like that New York Times anthropologist, but this is all very different from the way sermons are done in my tradition.

The article says that Mitchell’s approach “echoes the original honoree of the first official Mother’s Day: Anna Reeves Jarvis, who devoted herself to improving the health of women and families in the 1850s.”

She overcame many obstacles in her zeal to do good works, including the Civil War itself. We get a nice history of Mother’s Day and how it was first marked on May 10, 1908 at a Methodist church. It became a political cause and exploded nationwide. Jarvis’ daughter had hoped it would be a day for prayer and personal time with mothers, not a commercial holiday. She fought that commercialization for years. There are some interesting stories about her efforts and how they failed.

In 1909, a woman launched Father’s Day in honor of her devoted dad, and by 1924 it became a nationwide cause as well.

The article includes a sidebar with information about how much more Americans spend on their mothers than on their fathers. And on what they buy. I was surprised to find out that, according to the cited research, only half celebrate the holiday with gifts for their mothers. I would have suspected it to be much higher.

Anyway, the article is full of information of interest to the USA Today audience. And this isn’t a criticism so much as just a random thought, but for many of my friends and acquaintances Mother’s Day is a day of sadness. Whether it’s because they had bad mothers or they themselves weren’t great mothers, because they’re infertile or lost a child to miscarriage, because they’ve never had the opportunity to get married and have children, or because their own children aren’t as appreciative as they wish, this day can be rough for many women.

One of the things I have seen done at Lutheran congregations, and I’m sure this is done elsewhere as well, is handing out flowers to the mothers or to the women of the congregation. It can be difficult for those women who are suffering with infertility or other pains associated with motherhood. I would love to know if congregations are sensitive to this problem and what they do to mitigate that pain for the women in their congregation.

In other treatment of Mother’s Day, I thought this “Got News” type piece that ran in the Los Angeles Times about forced sterilization and eugenics programs was brutal and beautifully done.

At the other end of the spectrum was this Washington Post “news” item about the “cult” of motherhood in Mexico. I’m not sure if the smarmy piece is more offensive to Mexicans or Americans but it was just surprisingly negative and shallow for a piece on motherhood. But very heavy on stereotypes, if you’re into that.

Let us know if you see any good stories that incorporate religion and motherhood.

(Mary and Jesus statue photo via Shutterstock)