Stick to the journalism subject and stick to responsible, mainstream media. Not activists with radio mikes and TV cameras.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Who said anything about journalism applying normative moral standards? In fact, who said anything about morality at all? Sure wasn’t me.

I am not saying that journalism shouldn’t be religiously and theologically neutral,but rather that this neutrality is and must be a fiction and that this is not a matter merely of the subjective bias of this or that reporter, but of deep epistemological, ontological, and ultimately theological judgments built into the method itself. The method itself contains a tacit theological worldview in other words. Once again, this is not to deny a difference between good journalism and bad journalism; nor is it to deny that good journalism sometimes reveals important information, but to call attention to journalism’s inherent limitations, to which most journalists and consumers of journalism seem blind. And I would say this. To the extent that real insight breaks through, especially with regard to religious matters, it is often due to the human brilliance of this or that reporter and occurs in spite of the fact that he is a journalist, not because of it.

My point with respect to this story is simply that claims to orthodoxy (like claims to truth for that matter) are claims of a different order that journalism as such has little capacity to recognize, much less to deal with. In other words, while I certainly agree with Terry that it is gratuitous to put ‘orthodox’ in sneer quotes, it is in some ways the logical conclusion of journalism’s own methodology. How could one determine that this term had other than merely sociological or empirical content (what most people happen to believe at the moment) without appealing to some extra-journalistic judgment? This, it seems to me, is what TMatt is doing when he appeals to a history of doctrinal consensus—it is a decidely ‘un-journalistic appeal in other words (which I happen to agree with). But why, from a journalistic point of view, should historical doctrinal consensus count as orthodoxy now? If the inherent limitations in the method determine in advance that all competing claims to orthodoxy are a draw, then aren’t sneer quotes or some equivalent device entirely approporiate when noting one side’s claim to hold the ‘orthodox’ position?

Regarding Paganism, my only point is that from a journalistic point of view, the same empiricism which renders claims to orthodoxy arbitrary means that identifying oneself as a Pagan (like identifying oneself as a Christian) suffices to count as one, irrespective of what that term has historically meant or how what is now called Paganism may relate to other historical phenomena described with this term. As it happens, I have my doubts about how well contemporary ‘Pagans’ understand ‘Paganism’—hence the ‘so-called’—and I noted those some months ago I believe, but they are a bit beside the point I don’t want to go into all that again. So if that was too much of a drive-by adjective, I apologize.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

There may be some journalists who ‘get religion’, but not, I would argue, insofar as they are journalists.

I can’t agree with that statement, at least as an ideal. This issue about “orthodox” points out how hard it is to do an outstanding job, to be sure, but I think the ideals of journalism are the right ideals: objective, fact-based, well-researched stories.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

These stories are about another phase of a five year legal battle, which the San Francisco paper has certainly written about since the litigation has taken place in San Francisco. In the sense that they are bringing people up to speed on the issues before the Supreme Court—as opposed to the issues advocates think should be the topic—I’m not sure you can judge the journalism based on a single report in a long-term story.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I’m not sure what you meant by “so-called ‘Paganism’;” if it’s not Paganism, what is it? If you meant that the MSM are completely at sea as to what Pagans believe, I agree.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sure, one can note the fact that most traditions, especially the hierarchical ones, have a definitive body of belief, and so, I grant you that the sneer quotes are gratuitous. But without some extra-journalistic judgment, that is, unless the journalist become a theologian or philosopher (or acknowledge that he’s already tacitly engaged in such), then there is no reason for a journalist to regard doctrine or tradition as more ‘orthodox’ than what the majority of people in any given moment happen to be thinking and doing or to regard any criterion of ‘Christianness’ as more fundamental than people’s self-identification.

Something similar is true of so-called ‘Paganism’ by the way.

There may be some journalists who ‘get religion’, but not, I would argue, insofar as they are journalists.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

These may not be great examples, but they’re typical. Absolutely, sneer quotes DO exist and are used in just that way, but I think sometimes reporters who aren’t ironclad on the background of their topic, or who are trying to avoid any appearance of biased word choice, fall back on the very, very short quote to avoid it. That’s not sneer, it’s kind of the opposite, admitting through shorthand that you’re letting someone else’s words suffice for the story. And most of the stories I’m seeing day to day in the daily I edit are between 5” and 15” on topics that are incremental or general-interest features, written by a staff of reporters covering the same metropolitan area a staff fully twice the size covered just three or four years ago, in the ongoing media industry-pocalypse.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I’ve even had some sort of amusing talks with Catholics for whom some post-Vatican II practices, such as taking communion in the hand or using the Haugen and Hass folk hymns, are considered “orthodox” because “that’s the traditional music of the church” (yes!). And so on. Ahistorical revisionism and simple lack of historical basis for anything has whacked the legs out from under any semblance of broadly understood Christian “orthodoxy.”

It gets even worse in the secular/liberal world, where there’s less a grasp on objective truth, so even the concept of “orthodoxy” is suspect and to be avoided in serious discourse at all costs. When necessary, operating definitions of “orthodox” end up being “what is practiced generally.” Most reporters don’t even know what actually is practiced generally, if there is such a thing, and don’t subscribe to the idea absolute truths (except about the ideas of freedom of the press and the utter legality of abortion, I suppose).

So, “orthodox” ends up being a useless word, kind of like “traditional” or “liberal” or “fervent” or “progressive” — best avoided in news copy or conversation because each and every reader understands what it means differently.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

This happens fairly regularly with student groups (activities groups in particular). Generally the crashers do not have the stamina to show up to enough meetings to get a vote and actually change the leadership. If they do (or if voting requirements are weak), the replacement leadership doesn’t normally want to follow through on constitutional changes and budgeting (especially mandatory student government budget training). As a result, the group falls to follow through on their group constitution and gets disbanded within a year. Meanwhile, the original group members just move on and start a new group with the same original leadership and essentially the same constitution; since they actually follow through with the budget training and crafting a budget, and likely know everyone in student government already, they just request their old budget and get it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. It seems to me that the opinions of secular journalists should not be the root of whether or not to use quotation marks around the word orthodox — after all, what authority do they have to weigh in on that issue?

But if what you mean is that the quotes represent an acknowledgment of controversy among believers on what that word means, then it seems that you’re in line with tmatt here. The problem is that quotation marks, by themselves, are ambiguous — they can be interpreted either as a “quotation” or a “sneer.” (I’ve even seen NYC shopkeepers using them to emphasize a word — “fresh” milk, “low” prices. I kid you not.)

Tmatt — the Rutgers scenario may be hypothetical, but I recall reading a story from a number of years back concerning an Evangelical Christian man who strongly opposed same-sex acts and repeatedly tried to “crash” the LGBTQ employee organization at a large corporate employer in Seattle. When he was barred, he filed suit. I suspect the case went nowhere. Admittedly. the issue is different — private employer vs. publicly funded college — but your example is an apt one. The principles at stake here seem to cut in a number of directions. And I say that as someone who is Gay and Christian…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The story says BELIEFS.

Practices have always been inconsistent. The church sins, too, obviously. That does not change doctrines or the fact that a group defines itself by its beliefs or doctrines.

I mean, Al Gore drives an SUV or something, right?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0