As most of you probably know, the New York Times has a Public Editor, Clark Hoyt. A veteran newsman, and only the third to serve in this position (created in 2003), Hoyt’s job, in a nutshell, is to (re)present the voice of the New York Times reader.
This past Sunday Hoyt took up a topic guaranteed to evoke strong feelings in many of his, and of our readers: how newspapers cover religious-themed art, especially when that art is controversial or deemed offensive.
The broader question? Should a self-avowed “secular” (subject matter: the world) newspaper consciously make room for faithful voices — in this case, when chronicling the arts?
Clark’s thoughtful and revealing column was prompted by the revival of a play that provoked a tempest of protest when it was produced ten years ago, Terrence McNally’s “Corpus Christi.”
With his lede, Hoyt sets the stage (as it were).
LATE last month, while the presidential election and the meltdown of the economy were dominating the news, a revival of a play portraying Jesus as a sexually active gay man opened with little notice for a two-week run at the Rattlestick Playwrights Theater in Greenwich Village.
When Terrence McNally’s “Corpus Christi” was first produced in New York 10 years earlier, the Manhattan Theater Club said there were threats to burn down the theater, kill the staff and “exterminate” McNally. The play was canceled, but then reinstated after an outcry from other playwrights and the theater community. With protesters and counter-protesters in the street, the audience had to pass through metal detectors.
This time, there were no protesters and no metal detectors, but The Times’s coverage of “Corpus Christi” — a sympathetic review and an article linking the uproar a decade ago to the murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay college student in Colorado — hit a raw nerve with the group that organized the demonstrations against the play in 1998.
Here’s the Jason Zinoman review that prompted Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League for Religious and Rights, and more than 150 of its members to write Hoyt in protest.
Later in the commentary, Hoyt describes some of the subject matter covered by the play.
Set in Corpus Christi. Tex., where McNally grew up, it turns the story of Jesus and his disciples into a parable about the persecution of gays. Along the way, it pushes what have to be hot buttons for many Christians. Jesus is born in a shabby motel room; loud, abusive heterosexual sex takes place in the room next door; Joseph is a boorish, profane carpenter; Mary isn’t much of a mother; Jesus discovers he is gay and has sex (not on stage) with the young men who become his disciples; he performs miracles, officiates at a gay wedding, is ultimately betrayed by Judas and is crucified.
Hoyt’s assertion that the play “pushes what have to be hot buttons for many Christians” is a masterpiece of journalistic understatement. “Ultimately betrayed by Judas and crucified” may be the only part of that long sentence that many Christians would recognize as doctrinally correct at all.
Apparently some of the Catholics who wrote him said the New York Times “would never treat other religions the way it treats Catholicism.”
Wanna bet? There are many other denominations and groups, including many conservative Christians, out there who probably feel the same way. That isn’t say that they are correct — or incorrect. It is to argue that while factual and doctrinal misunderstanding is rife, individuals and groups who feel misunderstood, persecuted even, are so also.
So what’s a newspaper — or a Public Editor — to do?
Hoyt does a really nice job of discussing the conundrum with a wide spectrum of interested parties, including the Catholic League’s Donohue, other Catholics, veteran religion journalist Peter Steinfels, and Zinoman himself.
It is tempting for a secular and culturally liberal newsroom like The Times’s to dismiss such objections, especially because many appear to have come from people who neither saw the play nor read in full what The Times said about it. No self-respecting newspaper is going to avoid writing about a controversial work of art because it might offend some segment of the public. That would go against everything a newspaper stands for — examination of anything that happens in the public square — and Donohue told me he agreed that The Times should have covered the “Corpus Christi” revival. He just did not like what the newspaper said about it.
A number of Catholics I spoke to expressed outrage or embarrassment at Donohue’s methods. “He overreacts; he caricatures the things he objects to,” said Paul Baumann, editor of the independent Catholic magazine Commonweal, who himself gave “Corpus Christi” a negative review in 1998. “He raises the temperature in the room in a very unhelpful way.”
I found Donohue’s language overheated, but I wound up thinking that he had put his finger on an interesting issue: how a newspaper like The Times, which devotes great space and energy to covering the arts, should deal with the frequent collisions between art and religion. The argument, as it did with “Corpus Christi” 10 years ago, often gets framed as a First Amendment fight between those championing freedom of speech and those seeking to stifle speech they object to. But lost in all of that can be the deeper story of the spiritual and religious tensions that gave rise to the art in the first place and the sensibilities of religious readers who may be struggling with aspects of their own faith.
Bingo. The only thing I question in this last paragraph is Hoyt’s implication that the main sensibilities to be acknowledged are those readers “struggling with aspects of their own faith.” Readers quite secure in their faith may be just as offended.
Isn’t that what Gregory Wolfe is saying in this quote near the end of the article?
Gregory Wolfe, the publisher and editor of Image, a journal devoted to art shaped by religion, said: “It is possible for a conscientious Catholic to protest the depiction of Jesus as a promiscuous gay man and not be homophobic. To think this way is perhaps to be in a complex and ambiguous position, but I would venture that millions of sincere Catholics find themselves in just such a position.”
Hoyt’s conclusion? In this case, allow that the play “could be disturbing or challenging to many Christians, even those who do not agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
Every time a journalist attempts to move beyond the “he said/she said” approach to controversial topics like religion and the arts, they deserve a hearing. Let’s hope that someone at the Times is listening.
 | Posted at 5:22 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (17) |
November 11, 2008, at 7:17 pm
Cultural bias against Catholicism is well-documented, but I googled “media treatment of different religions” and got a couple of interesting hits:
minority religions generally get negative treatment.
An interesting review of broadcast policy toward religion.
I am certainly sensitive to slander against Catholicism, but I’m a Catholic, so what do you expect?
My quick google didn’t find what I really wanted: real research on how different religious groups are treated in the media. A google of “media treatment of the Catholic Church” didn’t turn up much, except for an essay by the ever-ready William Donahue. He’s not my preferred source, but he does have some actual data behind him.
And, btw, Matthew Shepherd was a gay college student in Wyoming. Also, I remember the flap over Corpus Christi ten years ago, and this is the first I ever heard of death threats against those involved. It may have happened, of course.
November 11, 2008, at 7:36 pm
Whenever a group or publication is even marginally right of center it is usually pointed out in a media news story. In fact orthodox-center groups or publications usually get the “right-wing” or “arch-conservative” label. However Hoyt in his article refers to an “independent Catholic magazine Commonweal.” A far more accurate description would be “extreme liberal Catholic magazine” with maybe a warning that they never seem to have use for anything Donahue does.
As for the point Elizabeth makes about the fact that objecting Catholics are not always those “struggling with aspects of their own faith”—-Yes!, Most Definitely.
Many people in the MSM are, according to polls, not in an active, deep relationship with ANY religion. Thus, they cannot understand the love relationship that can exist between a person and his Faith. All reporters should be required to read the brief Song of Songs in the Old Testament to learn how passionately and deeply a believer can relate to his Faith or his God. Maybe they will realize that an attack on one’s religion can strike a faithful believer as being akin to a vicious assault on one’s beloved wife.
November 11, 2008, at 7:55 pm
Nope, don’t even recognize that.
November 11, 2008, at 8:04 pm
Not just as a promiscuous gay man; making Him promiscuous with His female followers is just as offensive.
And yes, I wish I could remember the link, but some idiot masquerading as a minister posited such a thing online - “Hey, Jesus was a man just like the rest of us guys; he probably boffed a couple of the hot chicks hanging around him just like the rest of us would do, know what I’m sayin’?”
(Okay, maybe not in those exact words, but that was the meaning.)
November 11, 2008, at 8:25 pm
Yes, Martha, and when the video Disciple Girls Gone Wild comes out, we can depend on the New York Times to note our offended sensitivities by saying that it “could be disturbing or challenging to many Christians.”
November 11, 2008, at 8:51 pm
Errr…I wouldn’t recognise it either, Dale. Consider it gone.
November 11, 2008, at 9:36 pm
Deacon John M. Bresnahan and I agree about very, very little, but I think he’d join me in pointing out the difference between some cartoons of concern to Muslims in the not-to-distant past and how this issue was handled.
November 11, 2008, at 10:09 pm
I applaud Evans’ effort to promote writers on religion whomove beyond the “he said/she said” stuff—and for that matter I applaud Hoyt for actually sitting down with Donohue of the Catholic League, but what is missing from both points of view—at least for me—is the idea that devoted Christians might find meaning in a play like this one, because they grieve for the way gay and lesbians are oppressed by the Church. Sure there’s a passing mention that someone could be offended by the promiscuity of the Jesus in this play—as I certainly am—while not being homophobic, but I would take my own feelings further by saying, while I do not condone, accept or identify with all of the ways jesus is portrayed in this piece of art, I do, however, recognize the Christ whom I believe loves and accepts GLBT people. For me, this play is not really about freedom of speech but a church that fails to recognize its own sinful oppression of people beloved by God.
November 11, 2008, at 11:20 pm
“Jesus discovers he is gay and has sex (not on stage) with the young men who become his disciples”
Okay, Rev Peep, you have a point about recognising the love of God for all His children. But behaviour like that in the above quote is not Christianity; that’s a cult leader.
If David Koresh or (fill in the names yourself) made a point of sleeping with the women and/or men recruited to his movement, hands up all those who would find nothing at all wrong with that, as opposed to those who think that it’s an abuse of authority and taking advantage of the vulnerable?
The problem reviewers and the papers face (and I’m sympathetic to them in this) is that there are two conflicting things going on here: judging the play as a play, and the content of that play.
A play protraying Martin Luther King as a serial killer might be a damn good piece of theatre and the playwright’s finest work, but you are kidding yourself if you think no-one is going to find it disturbing or challenging, and casting any protests or objections as attempts to stifle First Amendment free speech rights.
November 12, 2008, at 12:04 am
Martha wrote:
I don’t think I’m kidding myself, but if the protesters were attempting to get the government to stop the ‘MLK as serial killer’ play or fine the production company or something, I would certainly have no problem casting the protests as a shamefully unjust attempt to stifle free speech. I mean, what else could you call it?
Indeed, even if the protests were just an attempt to use social pressure to get the play killed, I would cast the protests as objectionably censorious (though not, perhaps, unjust). But, of course, if the protests were merely intended to express disapproval of the play or disagreement with its message or something, then I’d have no problem with these hypothetical protests.
Am I unusual in this respect? I would have thought this bundle of attitudes I have is both familiar and celebrated in America.
November 12, 2008, at 6:25 am
Dave2 - what would I call it? I’d call it quite a knotty problem, actually.
There’s the rub: judging a play as a good play (on the artistic/aesthetic/theatrical merits) versus advocating the views expressed or the subject matter.
If anyone does want to write a “Martin Luther King - serial killer” play, I hope they either (1) have whacking great disclaimers saying “This is only make-believe, folks, this is not reality and we’re not claiming the events are true” (2) they are prepared to explain why they consider causing genuine hurt and distress to family and friends is worth it (and please, ‘shock value’ is not good enough).
The trouble is when people are pushing an agenda - what is the difference or where does the difference lie between exercise of free speech and propaganda? If someone has an axe to grind, is determined to Make A Statement, and is not averse to bending the truth, or flat out lying to do so, then the reviewer should mention this little fact.
I agree that theatre/film/book/art reviewers are not responsible for faith and morals, and that the criteria by which a work of art is judged are different from their moral or ethical content, but let’s face it - if someone wrote a play claiming that AIDS was deliberately spread by gay men in order to wage biological warfare upon the heterocentrist social order*, how many theatres do you imagine would be willing to put it on? ‘Exercise of free speech’ only goes so far, it seems to me.
(*Obligatory disclaimer: no, of course I don’t believe this).
November 12, 2008, at 12:39 pm
I think this is what’s most objectionable to me about media coverage of this sort of “art”. We get lots of excuses about artistic merit, shock value, sensitive subjects, and so on. But no one will admit to the ulterior motive - hatred of the Christian faith. Substitute anger, disgust, opposition or something if you think hatred is too strong a word, but Corpus Christi was not just about telling a story of gay persecution. It was about attacking Christians and Christian beliefs for their opposition to homosexuality.
THAT is why many Christians are “sensitive” to these things. They know when someone has whacked them over the head, and they feel entitled to whack them back!
November 12, 2008, at 3:15 pm
To Martha and others,
In your response to me, I think you may have misunderstood me. I wouldn’t dare defend a portrait of Jesus have promiscuous sex with anyone, so I wouldn’t defend the portrait of Jesus in Corpus Christi. The playwright’s right to say it, maybe, but not the portrait itself. We agree that this portrayal of Jesus is offensive.
Likewise, I share Don’s concern about people and groups that are hostile towards Christianity.
However…
I am less concerned with those outside the faith criticize Christianity than I am more concerned with how my faith group oppresses others. In the discussion of free speech and the wringing of hands over the offensiveness of this play, something important is lost, namely that Corpus Christi and other works of art like this point to very real cases of the church destroying lives through its judgement.
I would much rather see some honest soul-searching by people of faith than the defensiveness of the Catholic League and other groups.
November 12, 2008, at 3:54 pm
I’m going to write the play about Martin Luther King being a serial killer. I’ve never written a play before, it will be an interesting excercise.
November 12, 2008, at 4:02 pm
On the other hand, one could say that the moral judgements of the author of the play and his community are “destroying lives.” We all have to make judgements about what is and what isn’t acceptable behavior, and everybody can do with a bit of soul-searching, not just those who hold to a traditional Christian sexual ethic. I don’t see how a piece of propaganda in which an author likens himself to Christ (and, in the process, likens his opponents to those who crucified Christ) can provide any ground for self-reflection; it’s an exercise in self-righteousness and vilification.
November 12, 2008, at 5:39 pm
Martha, I guess I think it’s obvious that the lowest and most repellent propaganda—or the most pointless and mean-spirited provocation—is still protected speech, and worthy of defense against all those who would endeavor to censor it. Take National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, for example: I’m no fan of neo-Nazis, but I demand that they be able to express their opinion on equal terms with everyone else.
November 12, 2008, at 6:43 pm
As I recall, the Corpus Christi brou-haha happened at a time of several related cultural collisions involving offenses to the church, but one of the angles that fueled the protest mode ten years ago was because several of the offenders took advantage of partial underwriting grants from tax-subsidized agencies (museums, NEA, theaters, etc.). Is that the case with the current flap?