Comments on: Shameless plug for friends of Godbeat http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3483 "The press . . . just doesn't get religion." -- William Schneider Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:02:20 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Jerry http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3483&cpage=1#comment-123244 Jerry Fri, 09 May 2008 02:24:27 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3483#comment-123244 Julia, Those are very good points. Of course, it's impossible to survey all the media outlets, but surely we can ask that the sample be more representative. And you're right that the realities of publishing means that some times are dead zones. Those that pay attention know that bad news is often released after work on Friday because it's a reporting dead zone. Julia,

Those are very good points. Of course, it’s impossible to survey all the media outlets, but surely we can ask that the sample be more representative. And you’re right that the realities of publishing means that some times are dead zones. Those that pay attention know that bad news is often released after work on Friday because it’s a reporting dead zone.

]]> By: Julia Duin http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3483&cpage=1#comment-123188 Julia Duin Thu, 08 May 2008 15:24:48 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3483#comment-123188 I read through the report and found that many of the media outlets surveyed have horrible records on covering religion. To use those outlets as barometers to measure papal coverage ended up in some skewed findings. For instance, TV has a horrible record covering religion, yet TV stations were cited frequently. Yet PBS' Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, which is a specialty show on religion - and which carried 3 papal segments I believe - was not mentioned. Neither were any of the Washington newspapers cited, even though the pope was there 3 days. But the NY Times gets quoted again and again - why? And the Chicago Tribune - I don't think they even sent a reporter to cover the visit. But their walk-up was cited. Why not quote from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a smaller publication that sent its religion writer to both cities? And to fault the media for not covering the interfaith aspect ignored the fact that the pope's meeting with those leaders didn't start til about 6:30 pm! It was almost impossible for reporters to file anything for their late editions, much less their first editions. The ecumenical meeting was not much better; that began after 5:30 p.m. on a Friday night. So a lot of reporting from these late meetings got shoehorned into the street editions. I read through the report and found that many of the media outlets surveyed have horrible records on covering religion. To use those outlets as barometers to measure papal coverage ended up in some skewed findings. For instance, TV has a horrible record covering religion, yet TV stations were cited frequently. Yet PBS’ Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, which is a specialty show on religion - and which carried 3 papal segments I believe - was not mentioned. Neither were any of the Washington newspapers cited, even though the pope was there 3 days.
But the NY Times gets quoted again and again - why? And the Chicago Tribune - I don’t think they even sent a reporter to cover the visit. But their walk-up was cited. Why not quote from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a smaller publication that sent its religion writer to both cities?
And to fault the media for not covering the interfaith aspect ignored the fact that the pope’s meeting with those leaders didn’t start til about 6:30 pm! It was almost impossible for reporters to file anything for their late editions, much less their first editions. The ecumenical meeting was not much better; that began after 5:30 p.m. on a Friday night. So a lot of reporting from these late meetings got shoehorned into the street editions.

]]>