I’m mildly unsure if I should mention this, but I am not the world’s biggest Maurice Sendak fan. I like his work, certainly, but it didn’t transform or influence me in the same way it did so many of my peers. I’m even a big fan of the general genre he worked in — I just favor Czech or German tales such as Struwwelpeter. It’s kind of like Bruce Springsteen. I like him, and the live show I saw back in the late 1990s remains one of the best concerts I’ve ever attended. And yet I know that I don’t appreciate him in the way so many friends do.

When Sendak’s death was announced yesterday morning, the New York Times had ready a gorgeous eulogy of a man the writer clearly adored. It was a great tribute. For our purposes here at GetReligion, I noticed this portion:

As Mr. Sendak grew up — lower class, Jewish, gay — he felt permanently shunted to the margins of things. “All I wanted was to be straight so my parents could be happy,” he told The New York Times in a 2008 interview. “They never, never, never knew.”

I naturally became a bit more curious about the Jewish part and whether there was anything worth reading that explored these influences on him. If you are likewise curious, I’d recommend this essay headlined “‘Vilde khaye!’: Maurice Sendak’s not-so-cautionary tale” via the Yiddish Book Center. Here’s a relevant bit:

Sendak was born in Brooklyn to Polish immigrants. His father was a tailor who told his children biblical stories in dramatically embellished form. His mother was psychologically unstable. His parents; the experience of watching Walt Disney’s Fantasia at an early age; and the presence, visible and invisible, of relatives whose lives had been touched by the Holocaust defined the young Sendak’s world view. The parents spoke Yiddish to him. They often sent him to his room. And his mother called him vilde khaye, wild beast.

Some read Wild Things as a tale about innocence and courage, manliness, or even the rite of passage of a child seeking to define his limits in a world he doesn’t yet understand. Others seek a psychoanalytic explanation, looking at the disparity between the authority of the outside world and Max’s subconscious desires. A third interpretation, tangentially inspired by Shakespeare’s The Tempest, approaches the plot through the prism of colonialism and abandonment. Like Prospero the magician, Max is exiled in a distant land surrounded by the sea. He becomes the ruler of the natives, subduing them, until he decides to leave them behind. Whatever interpretation one chooses (to me, they all seem forced), the book’s memorable title invites us to understand Max’s otherness at home and abroad.

The volume forms a triptych with Sendak’s In the Night Kitchen and Outside Over There. Wild Things has been adapted as opera and recast as a musical as well as a film (with a screenplay by Dave Eggers and Spike Jonze, and directed by Jonze). None of these variations comes remotely close to the power of the original.

Apparently, the first draft of Wild Things featured horses instead of monsters. Sendak’s editor at Harper & Row, Ursula Nordstrom, realizing that the author couldn’t draw horses very well (the original title was Where the Wild Horses Are), asked him to change the characters into creatures he could ably depict. Sendak opted for lovable monsters that, in his own words, resembled the immigrant aunts, uncles, and cousins who visited his childhood home in Brooklyn and for whom he felt both affection and disdain. He saw them as rowdy and impolite: they “could eat you up.” In the opera, these monsters have names: Tzippy, Moishe, Aaron, Emile, and Bernard.

In the realm of children’s literature, Sendak’s method is revolutionary. He shows only what Max experiences and refrains from moralizing or reflecting on the events. Jewishness is implied: although no reference is explicitly made to it, the entire book is permeated with Jewish sensibility. Max inhabits his own universe; he resists outside authority; he arrives in alien lands but assimilates the inhabitants’ culture so well that he becomes a leader. Most of all, he longs for a return to his origins, the only place he feels truly at home.

Just great. I love the part about the embellished Bible stories. Here we have another reminder of what might lurk behind those ghosts you pick up in news stories and obituaries. This Guardian piece also gives a flavor of Sendak and his dark sense of humor.

The Associated Press’ Christopher Toothaker has a long and fascinating look at Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Let’s get right into it. Here’s the top of the piece:

CARACAS, Venezuela — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has spent much of his career praising the socialist ideas of famed atheists such as Karl Marx and Fidel Castro. Now in the thick of a prolonged battle against cancer, however, the leftist leader is drawing inspiration more than ever from a spiritual leader: Jesus Christ.

Chavez has been praying for divine intervention during increasingly infrequent appearances on television, holding up a crucifix while vowing to overcome his illness. He says living with cancer has made him “more Christian,” talk that has coincided with speculation by some Venezuelans that cancer might cut short his bid for re-election in October.

Chavez’s voice cracked with emotion as he bade farewell to aides and supporters in Caracas on April 30 before leaving for what he said would be his final round of cancer treatment in Cuba.

“I’m sure our Christ will do it again, continuing making the miracle,” Chavez said as he raised his cross to his lips and kissed it, prompting applause from an audience of aides.

If Chavez survives cancer, political analysts say his increasing religiosity could pay election-year dividends in a country where Catholicism remains influential.

And it goes on like that for a while. The report is detailed and includes quite a bit of perspective from analysts (including of the skeptical variety). He’s apparently become quite outspoken about his faith, even crying during a televised Mass with relatives. The article is illustrated with a picture of Chavez holding up a crucifix and kissing it.

Chavez’s religiosity contrasts with the resolute secularism of his political father figure, Castro, and other leaders who have followed the socialist path Chavez lauds.

A large majority of Venezuelans practice Catholicism, and Protestant denominations have grown rapidly in some parts of the country. Many Venezuelans also practice folk religions and leave offerings at roadside shrines.

Mixing religion and politics isn’t new in Venezuela, even if religious groups generally don’t get directly involved in politics. Former President Luis Herrera characterized himself as spiritually pure and promoted social programs for the poor while leading his Copei Social Christian party.

We get comparisons to other Latin American leaders who employ religious language. We even get to drill down a bit on Chavez’s eclectic religious views, such as his views on María Lionza. I do wonder if that was put accurately:

He has at times also expressed faith in folk deities such as Maria Lionza, an indigenous goddess venerated by some Venezuelans who pay homage through candlelit rituals and shrines.

Since Venezuelans tend to relate to her in rather different ways, it may be helpful to have a direct quote to explain what “expressed faith in” means here. Anyway, the one area I wanted to discuss related to conflicts between Chavez’s Catholicism and his political practices. Here’s how the article handles it:

Despite his recent expressions of faith, the president has had a rocky relationship with Catholic leaders. He has accused priests of siding with the country’s wealthy rather than the poor and in a particularly heated clash in 2010, suggested that Christ would whip some church leaders for lying after Cardinal Jorge Urosa warned that democratic freedoms were being eroded in Venezuela.

Chavez insists his faith goes back to his days as an altar boy, and long before his illness, he was calling Jesus Christ “the greatest socialist in history.” …

Chavez has been receiving radiation therapy in Cuba over the past week, the latest phase in treatments that since June have included chemotherapy and two surgeries that removed tumors from his pelvic region, though he has not said what sort of cancer he has.

I guess what I found noteworthy is that nowhere do we discuss the persecution of Christians that has taken place under, among other political allies of Chavez’s, Cuban rule.

The article does a nice job of reporting nearly every other aspect, but considering the strength of that relationship between Castro and Chavez and the reality of what life under Castro has been like for religious adherents, I’m surprised we didn’t get more discussion of whether Chavez has problems with that friendship. And, if not, why not.

Chavez photo via Vitoriano Jr. / Shutterstock.com.

Adam Yauch, one of the founders of the Beastie Boys, died on Friday in Manhattan. He was only 47 years old. He’d been sick with cancer for some time, not well enough to appear at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame last month when the group was inducted. Still, the news was quite a shock for his many fans.

As anyone who went to one of his Tibetan Freedom Fests would recall, Yauch was a Buddhist. I was curious how obituaries might remember this important aspect of his life. Thankfully, many did a nice job. For background, first of all, you might enjoy this Tricycle interview with him from nearly 20 years ago.

The Huffington Post had a piece headlined “Beastie Boys’ Adam Yauch’s Buddhist Spirituality Permeated His Life And Music.” It collects some great links related to Yauch’s spiritual life, including details about how his religious tradition helped him in his battle against cancer and how it influenced his music.

For more mainstream outlets, the New York Times treated the religious aspect here:

While the Beastie Boys’ music continued to offer a crunching, squealing good time during the 1990s, the rhymes it carried grew more mature. Vandalism was replaced by constructive thoughts, and offhand sexism was replaced by explicit respect for women. After travels in Tibet and Nepal, Mr. Yauch became a practicing Tibetan Buddhist. On the Beastie Boys’ 1994 album, “Ill Communication,” he rapped “Bodhisattva Vow,” a version of a pledge taken by devout Buddhists, over a hip-hop drumbeat mixed with the deep chanting of Buddhist monks. The Beasties also brought Buddhist monks to perform ceremonies at the 1994 Lollapalooza Festival.

In 1994 Mr. Yauch started the nonprofit Milarepa Fund, which presented the Tibetan Freedom Concert series to raise awareness of Chinese control of Tibet. The first one, in 1996, drew more than 100,000 people to Golden Gate Park in San Francisco; concerts followed in New York, Washington, Tokyo, Sydney, Amsterdam, Taipei and elsewhere. After Sept. 11, 2001, Milarepa organized New Yorkers Against Violence, offering relief efforts for victims of violence.

In 1998 he married Dechen Wangdu, who survives him along with their daughter, Tenzin Losel; and his parents, Frances and Noel Yauch.

The Washington Post added to these details at the end of the obituary:

On a trip to Asia in the early 1990s, Mr. Yauch met Tibetan refugees while hiking the Himalayas and was inspired to pursue Buddhism.

During the 1990s and 2000s, he organized the Tibetan Freedom Concert, a series of music festivals, most of them lasting two days, that promoted pacifism and Tibetan independence. One was at RFK Stadium in 1998. Proceeds benefited Mr. Yauch’s charity, the Milarepa Fund, named for a Tibetan saint who sought enlightenment by composing music.

Having found Buddhism, Mr. Yauch said he regretted his earlier destructive ways.

“I didn’t realize how much harm I was doing back then,” Mr. Yauch said in 1998. “I had kids coming up to me and saying, ‘Yo, I listen to your record while I’m smoking dust, man.’ And I’d say, ‘Hey, man, we’re just kidding. I don’t smoke dust.’ People need to be more aware of how they’re affecting people.”

The reader who sent in this Washington Post piece said that it was a “very good obituary that linked the Buddhism to a genuine chance of heart that was reflected in his performances and daily life. We also learn of his secular upbringing by parents of different faiths, and get a good idea of this man’s trajectory in life. (And unlike many entertainers, this seemed like a positive trajectory.).” Sounds about right. The reader noted that the obituary was a bit brief on details related to Yauch’s marriage and any role she might have played in his religious life, but that for a brief piece, it was quite nice.

I agree. I find many of these obituaries to be somewhat short on details, but very nice, respectful and sympathetic. Do let us know if you see anything worth special mention.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported on a major change at the paper recently:

LITTLE ROCK — Arkansas Democrat-Gazette executive editor Griffin Smith announced Monday that he is leaving the post effective Tuesday.

Smith, speaking to the newsroom, said there was no single factor in his resignation, adding he knew it was the “right time.” In his address to several dozen employees in the paper’s downtown headquarters, Smith thanked the staff and publisher Walter Hussman.

“It’s been a tremendous privilege to work here with him and with all of you at this newspaper,” he said.

Hussman said the paper will not hire a new executive editor for the “foreseeable future.” Managing editor David Bailey will lead the newsroom.

Bailey, who called Smith “intellectually brilliant” and a good friend, indicated he didn’t plan major changes in the day-to-day operations of the newsroom.

“It’s a really wonderful institution,” Bailey said. “It’s a wonderful institution because it takes great pains to report very accurately and very carefully and to do so with authority and credibility. I don’t think that’s something you tamper with.”

So what does that have to do with the Godbeat? Well, Frank Lockwood, the religion editor at the paper — aka Bible Belt Blogger, has some insight, having served under him for a while. He notes that Smith’s grandfather and father were also journalists and attorneys and that the grandfather was a newspaper publisher before becoming chief justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court. Frank fills in some details here:

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette’s executive editor announced his resignation this week after nearly 20 years of service.

Before leading Arkansas’ statewide paper, Griffin was one of the founding journalists at Texas Monthly, a writer at National Geographic (writing those great big stories that they run on Guatemala and China, for example).

He is an attorney and a former White House speech writer (for Jimmy Carter.)

Griffin is a big believer in the importance of religion coverage, a big fan of Terry Mattingly’s column and a journalist who really got religion.

While other papers were eliminating the religion beat, he remained committed to offering weekly religion pages.

And he committed resources to the religion beat, dispatching a reporter to the last two Episcopal Church triennial conventions and continuing to send reporters to the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.

By the end, reporters from secular publications had all but disappeared at SBC gatherings, but Griffin felt it was important to cover the SBC in the Bible Belt. So the Democrat-Gazette kept sending a reporter.

Griffin found a way for my predecessor to travel to the Vatican in 2005. And, when the Pope died, she was there to cover his death and the election of Pope Benedict.

He gave big coverage to the split in the Anglican communion, instantly sensing its importance. Likewise, he understood the news value when an Episcopal diocese in northern Michigan elected a “Buddhist bishop.” Ultimately, the Democrat-Gazette was able to report that Kevin Thew Forrester had been defeated several days before the Episcopal Church made the announcement.

Griffin understands this state and its people and he has great news judgment.

Let me share some circulation figures from 1992, the year Griffin became editor here.

I hope I’ve typed all these correctly. (I used the 1994 World Almanac to get the older data.) You’ll notice a trend or two:

Standard (non-branded) print circulation statistics (Sep. 30, 1992) and March 31, 2012

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette      176,741       175,276
Detroit Free Press                        580,372      132,635
San Francisco Chronicle             556,765      165,523
Miami Herald                                404,679     167,057
St. Louis Post Dispatch               339,545      169,608
Orange County Register             332,164      162,921
Boston Herald                              330,614      103,616
Atlanta Constitution                   302,616      163,607
Fort Worth Star-Telegram        256,199       136,624
Louisville Courier-Journal       236,103       136,766
Kansas City Star                          287,119       163,697
New Orleans Times-Picayune  269,639      133,577
Baltimore Sun                             227,706       136,708
Oklahoma City Oklahoman      210,004      116,350

There are a few things worth noting. Most religion reporters these days are battling against innumerable pressures. They’re being asked to do more with much fewer resources than even a few years ago. Many editors are completely axing religion beats or failing to see the importance of having an educated reporter on that beat. When you have an editor who does see the value in the beat, it can make all the difference.

And those circulation numbers are fascinating, no?

Newspaper concept illustration via Shutterstock.

Beginning in late January, I’ve looked at various difficulties the mainstream media has had with handling questions surrounding religious freedom. When the Obama Administration announced in mid-January that it would not broaden an exemption for a new mandate requiring religious employers to pay for insurance plans that cover contraception, sterilization and abortion drugs, the story — which had been brewing for many months — took off. Generally speaking, fans of the mandate say it is an important step to advancing greater access to contraception. Critics say it violates religious freedom. And political campaigners on all sides see it as an issue ripe for exploitation and grandstanding. These elements have combined in various ways to shape the larger coverage of the mandate.

The first media analysis issue to note was that while U.S. Catholic Bishops were at Defcon 2 or so in their response, media coverage was surprisingly restrained (see, for example, my January 31 post: Catholics outraged, media unimpressed). That restraint was particularly noteworthy in light of the excessive coverage of Susan G. Komen For The Cure’s decision to voluntarily stop donating money to the country’s biggest abortion provider (see, for example, my posts on February 2: Media discover Planned Parenthood is controversial , February 3, 2012: Media genuflect before Church of Planned Parenthood,  February 6: Planned Parenthood and media thank each other and February 7: Kurtz: Of course Komen stories were biased).

As February progressed, I noticed some trends with how religious freedom concerns were being presented. Namely, the media seemed to have some problems with downplaying religious freedom concerns relative to the perspective of the mandate’s supporters. You can see a sample of some of these problems in my posts from February 8: Blind spots breaking out all over, February 10: Frame game: the importance and composition of polling, February 14: Lies, damned lies and 98 percent of Catholic women, February 16: In HHS flap, media prefer politics to religion, February 17: Media ignore women, for women, February 24: Media shirk debate on religious liberty.

I continued looking at problems with the way the media framed the stories in March. You can see, for example, some issues that I raised in March 1: Spoon-feeding partisan talking points, March 5: Debating access to religious liberty, March 13: Why ignoring religious liberty is bad journalism, March 20: Working hard to avoid religious freedom, March 23: Scaring people away from religious freedom. I also highlighted one particular story that covered a religious freedom rally rather well (by which I mean as if it were an actual news story that included real people with legitimate concerns about religious freedom) in March 29’s: What a religious freedom rally looks like.

I took a break from the religious freedom issue (and that’s not to my credit) in April with the exception of April 30: Got News? Sebelius unaware of religious liberty cases.

In that post, I highlighted some rather eye-opening answers to Congressional queries from Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department that issued the mandate regulations. If you were the type of person to think that the religious freedom angle to this story was worth exploring more or better than it has been, as I am, the lack of mainstream media coverage of this testimony was telling.

But Mark Silk of Religion News Service thought my post was bad. I’m not entirely sure on what grounds he thought it was bad. Godbeat pro Bob Smietana says that Silk launched a “head-slap” at me, for what it’s worth.

It didn’t land too hard. I am honestly not entirely sure what his complaint is, particularly since he seems to agree with the post in general. I guess the crux of the complaint is here:

Earlier this week, GetReligionista Mollie Ziegler was on deck with the latest in a series of critiques of coverage of the HHS contraception mandate story.

One of the ways the media have botched this story is by couching it as a debate over contraception as opposed to a debate over religious freedom. While it’s true that certain players in the battle do view it as a debate over contraception—and that is a legitimate and worthwhile avenue for coverage—it’s also true that other players in the battle (who may not even care about contraception or generally approve of it) view this as as a religious liberty debate. That side of the story has suffered from weaker coverage.

Given that over 1,300 stories mentioning “bishops” and “religious liberty” have appeared in the English-language media since January 1 (according to Lexis-Nexis Academic), I wouldn’t say that the press has exactly ignored the story’s religious liberty angle. But that’s not been enough for Ziegler. As she puts it, “It has been a very, very, very frustrating experience for those of us who are expressing concern about the separation of church and state as it relates to the mandates of the massive health care legislation passed in 2010.”

As sure as God made little green apples, there are parties to the debate who are terribly anxious to frame this as a religious liberty story. Whether the media should go along, however, is another question.

Well, where to begin. Let’s take my note that the religious liberty side of the story has suffered from weaker coverage. In response to that, Silk says that since 1,300 stories mentioning “bishops” and “religious liberty” have appeared in the English-language media since January 1, he wouldn’t say the press has exactly ignored that side of the story. See how “weaker coverage” morphs into “ignored”?

Let’s grant that 1,300 stories have appeared (by my count in Nexis, it’s actually just over 2,000.). This includes Catholic newspapers and conservative publications in addition to mainstream newspapers, but the point is that they exist. But guess how many stories Nexis records for articles mentioning “Sandra Fluke” and “contraception” since January 1. If you guessed 2,343, you win the prize.

But even that quantitative analysis doesn’t get at the point of GetReligion’s critiques thus far. For instance, we’ve shown how even if a story does mention those bishops and their religious issues, it certainly isn’t the framing device they have chosen. They tend to frame it as a battle over access to contraception and include, lower down, a mention of the religious freedom concerns. Now, perhaps neither framing device is appropriate, given how divergent the mandate’s fans and opponents are, but the point is that we’re seeing quite a bit of coverage that favors a particular outlook on this story at the expense of another outlook. Since we advocate for a mainstream model of journalism that doesn’t take sides, we’ve been critical of this slanted coverage.

Anyway, Silk is correct that there are countless millions of Americans who are terribly anxious to see some stories framed in terms of religious liberty. (Maybe even without scare quotes a few times.) He asks, though, whether the media should “go along” with readers’ and viewers’ desire to have stories that reflect religious freedom concerns. Here at GetReligion, we’d advocate that stories do something much more journalistic than “go along” with the religious liberty questions. These are huge issues, they will be huge issues when the courts decide the religious liberty questions, and there is much to explore. Those initial concerns and questions about religious liberty should be mentioned, first off. But then they should be scrutinized and evaluated and, in general, reporters should go much deeper investigating this side of the equation. Likewise, just as support for contraceptive mandates has been highlighted (and, to be sure, occasionally cheered on) by the media, this support should also be scrutinized and evaluated. I’m sure most good reporters have guilt files on all the stories that could be explored surrounding this mandate.

The point is that since this is a complicated story with strongly opposed factions, there is opportunity for much more fair and accurate coverage.

Silk goes on to note that many Americans are unhappy with the health care law in general and he quotes Peggy Steinfels at Commonweal suspecting that religious liberty concerns may not be all they’re cracked up to be. Maybe it’s not about religious freedom so much as about anti-Obama prejudice, for instance.

Silk ends by saying:

The bottom line here is that by pushing the contraception mandate story’s religious liberty angle hard, GetReligion is playing the mandate opponents’ game.

As has been discussed frequently here at GetReligion and elsewhere, there is something of a battle for the soul of American mainstream media. Some are openly advocating for less balance and more advocacy by the mainstream press — a European model, if you will. Others, such as those of us here, are arguing for something more modest, if much more difficult. We believe in a press that has a more restrained vision for what it can and should aim for: the presentation of controversial and important issues in a fair and accurate manner. Calling for fair and accurate coverage of multiple sides of a debate is what we do. Does that serve only one side of a debate? It shouldn’t. If it does, that’s not an indictment of what we’re calling for so much as an indictment of what’s been happening in the presentation of the issue to this point. Encouraging reporters to aim for fair and accurate coverage — not just of the side that advocates for the contraceptive mandate but also for the side that expresses alarm about it — is important and certainly not a game.

I’m open to someone arguing that coverage of religious liberty concerns has been handled well. The case hasn’t been made yet. Until then, we’ll continue to advocate for balanced coverage of important topics such as this HHS mandate.

Photo of media critic showing results of a regression analysis of HHS mandate coverage via Shutterstock.

The Pew Research Center has good news on the anniversary of Osama Bin Laden’s death:

A year after the death of its leader, al Qaeda is widely unpopular among Muslim publics. A new poll by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, conducted March 19 to April 13, 2012, finds majorities – and mostly large majorities – expressing negative views of the terrorist group in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey and Lebanon.

The media coverage mostly reflected this take advanced by Pew.

Here’s the Los Angeles Times, for instance:

Muslims in Middle East, Asia think poorly of Al Qaeda, poll finds

A new poll covering thousands of Muslims in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey and Lebanon found that most thought poorly of Al Qaeda nearly a year after Osama bin Laden’s death.

The results came just after U.S. intelligence officials announced that the terrorist group has been greatly diminished since the death of Bin Laden, suggesting that Al Qaeda has been losing Muslim hearts and minds along with organizational muscle.

And here’s CNN:

Poll: Many Muslims in Mideast, Pakistan have poor view of al Qaeda

Most Muslims in several key Middle Eastern and Asian countries hold negative views of the terrorist network al Qaeda a year after U.S. forces killed its leader, Osama bin Laden, according to a recent survey.

The poll by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, released Monday, found that a high proportion — between 71% and 98% — of Muslims questioned in Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon viewed al Qaeda in an unfavorable way.

In Pakistan, where U.S. Navy SEALs killed the al Qaeda leader during a raid on a compound a year ago, 55% of the Muslims surveyed had a negative opinion of the terrorist group, according to the poll. Only 13% had a favorable view.

US News:

After bin Laden’s Death, al Qaeda’s Popularity Wanes

Osama bin Laden’s death didn’t fuel support for al Qaeda. In fact, the group remains as unpopular as ever in much of the Middle East.

A Pew Research Center Survey conducted in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan and Turkey shows a majority of Muslim citizens hold unfavorable views of al Qaeda one year after Osama bin Laden’s death.

We have looked at this poll previously, and the coverage that comes with it, and while few would disagree that it’s great news that the percentage of Muslims in five countries who don’t like al Qaeda is as low as it is, it still is alarmingly high to me.

So on the one hand, you can highlight that “only” 21% of Egypt, 15% of Jordan, 13% of Pakistan, 6% of Turkey and 2% of Lebanon express even favorable views toward the terrorist group. But you could also say that these polls reflect support of al Qaeda that would work out to 47,284,049 Muslims in only five of the 50 countries in which a majority of the population is Muslim.

If roughly similar percentages of Muslims support al Qaeda in the remaining countries — which include Indonesia, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia — we’re talking a lot of support.

I’m trying to think if the media would report that “only,” say, 12% of Floridians support the methods of Terry Jones, the Koran-burning pastor. Or the KKK or some group like that.

What would be nice for media coverage to look into is what this “support” means in any case. Is al Qaeda losing favor in the Arab World for their terrorism or because they haven’t been terribly proficient lately? What about the support of other Islamist groups?

In other words, what do these numbers mean? Do they reflect a growing dislike of terrorist movements? Of terrorist methods? Do they even reflect anything about terrorist movements in general or just al Qaeda in particular? Answering those questions might change these headlines some.

Crashing percentage image via Shutterstock.

I’ve been kind of bummed out with news recently. With all the bloodshed in Nigeria (read this excellent Associated Press report about a pastor who was killed by Muslim extremists as he prepared communion) the bombing in Kabul right after President Obama signed a pact in Afghanistan, what the Chinese government is doing to the family and friends of Chen Guangcheng and all the torture in North Korea, sometimes the news is just hard to handle.

But the BBC has a rather nice story about a Muslim scholar who is on a campaign to end forced marriage in Scotland:

A Muslim scholar has launched a groundbreaking campaign against forced marriage in Scotland.

Shaykh Amer Jamil says the practice has no place in Islam.

During the next few weeks leaflets and sermons are being given in mosques as part of an initiative to educate the community.

“In the Muslim community there’s a misconception amongst some people that religion allows this, that parents have an Islamic right to choose partner of their children, and that they don’t have a choice in this,” says the Glasgow-based Imam.

The article goes on to explain that the scholar receives calls, emails and texts every week from young people at risk of marriage against their will. The news alerts push forth a rather shocking number of stories about the plight of forced marriage around the world. And that includes Germany, Scotland and even in the United States. You may remember that the San Diego family of the murdered Shaima Alawadi — we discussed coverage of her murder here, here and here — was allegedly forcing a daughter into a marriage she opposed. (By the way, ever since the family drama was unveiled, coverage of that story has fallen off dramatically, but I did find this related story with another interesting religion angle to it.)

The story mostly gives the perspective of Jamil and has him explain what the youth are saying. We learn that his goal is to explain to parents that forced marriage is unethical, immoral and religiously wrong.

While there is a long standing tradition of arranged marriages in Muslim communities - that have the consent of those taking part - forced marriages can involve kidnapping, physical and mental abuse.

Although the majority of victims are women it also affects men.

I spoke to a young, successful businessman in the city.

Last year relatives in Pakistan forced him into a marriage against his will while he was there on holiday. It was to protect the family’s honour, which is why he does not want to be identified.

“There was a guilt factor about the image it would leave in the family. The relationship it would leave my mum and dad with the elders in Pakistan forced me into doing something I would never have done otherwise,” he says.

What frustrated me about this piece is that I wished for much more explanation of why Jamil teaches it is wrong to force a marriage. There are vague references to Mohammad being against it — and you can certainly find more about that on the internet but it would be nice to get some specifics. But what would also be helpful is to know how various other Muslims justify the practice, particularly in light of what is said about forced marriage in Islam’s sacred texts.

Here’s the bulk of the religion content in the story:

Shaykh Jamil believes that it is time for religious leaders like himself to educate the community that forced marriage is not allowed in Islam.

“The only thing that can break a cultural norm for Muslims is the religion,” he explains.

“So when you come down and say in Islam the prophet was against this practice, nobody can argue with you,” he says.

Shaykh Jamil admits it is a position that has made him unpopular with more traditional elements of the community.

“You’re seen as a troublemaker. But there’s a responsibility to young people who are suffering.”

Argh. Wouldn’t it be nice to hear from some of those people who are engaged in the practice or are advocating for it? It’s a huge hole in the story. I mean, I guess it’s possible that we’re talking about masses of Muslims throughout the world who have never heard what Muhammad said and will turn on a dime once they do, but something tells me the story is infinitely more complex than that. Are there ambiguous scriptures that others use to defend the practice? Since forced marriage is something that happens, sadly, in many diverse Muslim countries — from Asia to Africa and the Middle East — it’s not something that can just be chalked up to cultural traditions, but clearly cultural traditions are an issue and are shaped by many factors.

I’m left very confused as to why forced marriage remains such a humongous problem in some Muslim communities and this story doesn’t really do anything to change that.

I love that we learn about this campaign and how religiously focused it is, but more details would be helpful.

Image of bride via Shutterstock.

A reader sent in this very good NPR story about Michael Morton, a man who was freed from a life sentence in prison for murdering his wife after 25 years. He was exonerated thanks to exculpatory DNA evidence. But the story is about much more than one of the many men who have been freed thanks to DNA evidence. Morton and his advocates want the people who withheld some of the evidence that would have cast doubt on his guilt held accountable.

Here’s a sample:

From the tip about the credit card to the man in the green van behind the Morton house to Eric’s eyewitness account of his mother’s murder — all of this evidence was withheld from both the judge in the case and the defense attorneys.

And so Morton didn’t get to see Eric grow up. When Eric was 12, he stopped seeing his father in prison. When he was 18, he changed his last name from Morton. That broke his father’s spirit. Fourteen years into his life sentence, Morton hit absolute bottom.

“The things that I was hanging on to in the world, and he was it. When that was gone, I just cratered,” he says. “When you are completely without hope, when you are completely without any avenue of escape, when you’re not sure of any reason to go on, I cried out to God. I said, ‘OK, I’m done. I got nothing.’ “

How was Morton finally freed? His wife’s brother had found the bloody bandanna the police left later that day, and he turned it in. For years, Williamson County fought Morton’s requests to have the evidence in his case tested. Prosecutors ridiculed his efforts and taunted him, saying they’d consider DNA testing the evidence only if Morton would first take responsibility for the crime.

Now, the reader who submitted the article also sent a link to this interview of Morton, by the same reporter.

You should read the original article (or, I guess, listen to it) and then listen to the second link, and then come back and read from here on out. At the end of the first piece, listeners are encouraged to go to the NPR web site and listen to the second link. I thought some of the comments to the audio of the second story are interesting:

Page Cvelich (Pagie) wrote:

I am always curious what gets left off the air. As I was listening to Mr. Simon’s parting comment about an “emotional” situation that Mr. Morton experienced in his jail cell, I decided to go online suspecting that it was probably something spiritual. I was right. What I wonder about is why this was labeled “emotional” or why it was left out of the story. Does it cause shame or embarassment in some way? I think most folks these days are looking for a larger narrative to understand how to make sense of the craziness of this life. Just like in the book, Unbroken, when Zamparini (sp?) had a complete life change due to a religous conversion after being returned from WWII as a POW. Even my non-religious book club wonders why these parts of the story get pushed to the side or hidden in radio or TV interviews. As humans, we desperately need to hear a larger narrative. We can choose to believe or not, but give us that chance to make up our own minds. As the boy asked the insurance investigators at the end of Life of Pi, “Which is the better story?”, let us be able to choose by providing the whole story.

Other listeners weighed in, too:

Catherine Montalbo (CatherineMontalbo) wrote:

Page, the first thought that leapt into my mind at the end of the story was, “Oh, they are leaving me hanging because they want me to go to the NPR web site.” Well, it worked!

Athena Murphy (truepowersecret) wrote:

Page: In regards to your question, my guess, after hearing the separate audio, is that it was edited for time, not for any “spiritual” reasons. (I’d love to see an answer to my guess from the staff.)

Considering the length of Mr. Goodwyn’s story, and the amount of facts they had to fit it to inform the listener, it makes sense that they cut out anything not “on the spine” of the narrative, knowing many of us would come to the website to listen. The original story is a deeply moving, fact-laden and intense listen. I think adding any additional emotion to it would have bogged it down.

When I heard the story on the air, I was emotional enough! I don’t think I could have taken a whole lot more. This very poigniant moment for Mr. Morton had a presence and depth of its own, and if it was a choice of “cut it all together to fit the show timeline” or run it separately on the web, then I’m glad they chose to place it on the web.

I’m surprised that NPR gets slammed for editing spiritual content, given that it’s one of the few media outlets around that has a full-time “religion correspondent” and airs many stories specifically about spirituality and religion.

patti lepre (patch19) wrote:

I too wished Mr Morton’s visit from God would have been included as part of the story. It struck me odd that all it received was a “you can go to our website to hear about it blah blah…” Fantastic story, poor choice to omit such a vital piece.

They raise many interesting points. What did you think about the choice to separate out that powerful second audio from the original story?

Photo of jail cell via Shutterstock.

Back in February, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee held a hearing on religious liberty concerns arising from the new Health and Human Services mandate requiring religious employers to fund insurance plans that include drugs and services they morally oppose. This is an issue that has been boiling up since last year, but has suffered from poor coverage, which we’ve repeatedly detailed.

One of the ways the media have botched this story is by couching it as a debate over contraception as opposed to a debate over religious freedom. While it’s true that certain players in the battle do view it as a debate over contraception — and that is a legitimate and worthwhile avenue for coverage — it’s also true that other players in the battle (who may not even care about contraception or generally approve of it) view this as as a religious liberty debate. That side of the story has suffered from weaker coverage.

When the House held that hearing on religious freedom a few months ago, two women testified — Dr. Allison Dabbs Garrett, the senior vice-president for academic affairs at Oklahoma Christian University and Dr. Laura Champion, medical director of Calvin College Health Services. But because Democratic representatives staged a walkout before they spoke — on the grounds that no women were speaking at a hearing on religious freedom contraception — that’s the meme that’s been fully set. I noticed President Barack Obama made a joke at Saturday night’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner about the “contraception” hearing only featuring males (take that, Drs. Dabbs Garrett and Champion!).

Even though the hearing featured women who oppose the HHS mandate, the narrative that they don’t exist and didn’t testify was featured extensively and continues to dominate the message from that hearing. What wasn’t covered nearly as well as their (fictional) absence from the hearing was what any of the people testifying at the hearing said. It has been a very, very, very frustrating experience for those of us who are expressing concern about the separation of church and state as it relates to the mandates of the massive health care legislation passed in 2010.

Moving forward, this past Friday HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before the U.S. House’s Education and Workforce Committee, where she was questioned by Rep. Trey Gowdy, a Republican from South Carolina. In her statement, Sebelius made the claim that she had carefully considered religious liberty concerns and sought to balance them in the final regulations governing the mandate in question.

Gowdy asked her several questions about what she meant when she said she balanced religious liberty concerns. He explained to the former Kansas governor and husband of a judge that there are three tests for legal balance, depending on the issues under consideration. He explained that because religious liberty is considered a fundamental right in the United States, any decision that might violate it requires the strictest scrutiny.

While she was still under oath, Sebelius said that her careful consideration relied on the expertise of HHS’ General Counsel, that no legal memo was ever written or at least provided to her on the topic, and that she was either unaware or unfamiliar with any of the significant cases related to religious liberty that have been decided by the Supreme Court.

There has been literally no mainstream media coverage of this rather telling testimony given under oath about one of the most pressing issues of religious freedom in our country. Now, if the HHS mandate — which requires religious employers for the first time in history to fund insurance plans they morally oppose — is about a “war on women,” this lack of coverage could make sense, I guess. It certainly doesn’t help advance the narrative that Sebelius was so ignorant of all these important issues surrounding religious freedom.

If this HHS mandate is, as its critics say, about a threat to religious liberty, this is extremely revealing testimony that should be covered.

What I’m trying to figure out is why the grandstanding silliness based on the completely erroneous claims that Dabbs Garrett and Champion don’t exist and didn’t testify back in February received so much coverage and why the faux-hearing based on Sandra Fluke’s completely irrelevant testimony was live-streamed on CNN, for instance, while the actual remarks given by the actual people who testified at the religious liberty hearing were ignored and the actual remarks given by the actual Secretary of HHS are ignored.

Apart from over-covering anybody’s grandstanding (and in this town, grandstanding is a lot of what happens no matter which side of the issue you’re on), I’d like to see more substantive coverage both of the claims made regarding rights to free birth control and abortion drugs as well as the claims made regarding religious freedom.

The thing is that this substantive coverage of religious liberty concerns wouldn’t mean that it would just be favorable to those who are fighting that side of the battle. Federal regulations are subject to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which relates to what Gowdy was talking about with strict scrutiny. While many think that the mandate would fail to meet the test of RFRA, it’s certainly not a slam dunk. At the state level somewhat similar mandates have been upheld, largely on the strength of a Supreme Court decision authored by none other than Antonin Scalia. This is all super fascinating stuff but not stuff that you can talk about when you’re giving a staged walkout of a hearing months of coverage while downplaying the actual legal battles that are being waged around these mandates.

Covering stunts is easy. Covering whether religious freedom concerns were given proper weight in the decision making process for this HHS mandate isn’t as easy. But it’s far more important, isn’t it? And besides, reporting what an HHS Secretary has testified under oath at a public hearing isn’t that difficult. Certainly a bunch of pro-life sites and Catholic agencies were able to do it within hours of the testimony. If media outlets need to hire some more people who speak the language of that half of the country that identifies as pro-life or whatever percentage care about religious freedoms being attacked here, it seems like that would be a good thing to do rather than miss major stories that are pretty easy to catch.

For what it’s worth, here is the New York Sun editorial on the matter, which begins:

What a remarkable glimpse of the gulf between the administration and Congress over religious freedom is flashing around the internet. It is a Youtube video of the secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, at a hearing of the House Education and Workforce Committee hearing. She is being grilled by a Republican congressman of South Carolina, Trey Gowdy. He asks her about her a statement she has made about seeking a balance between believer’s rights and the contraception mandate. What becomes clear is that there is no feel for, no thought about, but glancing attention to the Constitution the secretary is sworn to support.

And if you’d like a more comprehensive write-up of what happened, here is the Catholic News Agency’s take, which is helpful.

Is it defamatory to call someone gay? If so, why?

Via Romenesko, I found this story about a priest suing a newspaper over their lack of diligence in publishing a letter to the editor. The East Central Illinois News-Gazette has the story:

DANVILLE — The headmaster of a Catholic boarding school in Georgetown has filed a civil action against the Paxton Record, claiming the weekly newspaper defamed him when it published a letter to the editor in support of gay rights that erroneously identified him as the author. …

The suit claims the Paxton Record didn’t contact McMahon or the academy to confirm the letter’s authenticity before running it on April 6, 2011, and representing to “its readership that a gay rights organization, headed by Father McMahon, was being run out of a Catholic boys boarding school.” In addition to not writing the letter or leading the group, which the suit claims doesn’t exist, it says the letter’s views directly contradict McMahon’s.”The representation that Father McMahon, who is charged with the safety and spiritual growth of young Catholic men, was the leader of a sexually active, gay advocacy group headquartered at a Catholic boarding school imputes to him an inability to perform and want of integrity in the discharge of his duties as a Catholic priest and Headmaster,” the suit says.

You know, this is why you confirm identities before running letters to the editor. So you don’t claim that the headmaster of a very traditional Catholic boys’ school is also “president of the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Association of Vermilion County.” What I found interesting, though, was the response the publisher John Foreman gave. He doesn’t dispute McMahon’s claim that McMahon didn’t write the letter but says the suit is spurious:

“We don’t believe that Father McMahon was defamed by a letter suggesting he was sympathetic to the societal problems faced by gay people. That’s not defamatory,” he said.

It’s not clear from any of the stories I read whether the letter just suggests the priest is gay or leading a gay, bisexual and lesbian organization out of his boys’ high school. Either way, the issue of him being presented as advocating views that are in contrast with his religious convictions does seem to be an injustice. But the paper disagrees. Wouldn’t this be the view of leaders at many publications? That it’s not defamatory to allege someone is gay or an activist for gay causes? In fact, it might be an honor. The publisher suggests that the priest’s religious views mean he is not sympathetic to societal problems faced by his neighbors, which is quite a charge in itself.

The second example came when a Fox News talking blonde tweeted out a response to the news that abortion rights activist Sandra Fluke is engaged. Her response? “To a man?” Hardy har har har har. Oh my sides are splitting. OK, but is that something the media would consider rude or defamatory? In the prank of example one, we’re told it’s not defamatory to suggest that a Catholic priest leads a gay organization. In the so-called joke of the second example, many media figures weighed in that it was homophobic and bigoted. For instance, the Washington Post’s Alexandra Petri wrote a piece headlined “Joel Ward, Monica Crowley and the Twitter cafeteria problem”:

It’s getting harder to be a casual bigot.

Once, you could be a racist, homophobic, sexist jerk in the privacy of your own home.

And we get many words on how awful Crowley was to make her attempt at a joke. Crowley apologized for what Fluke called her “hate speech.”

I’m in that rare camp of people who thinks both the prank and the joke were defamatory. I’m not entirely sure why someone who supports same-sex marriage would view a question about the sex of one’s betrothed to be “hate speech,” and media reports should explain that. I imagine, although I could be wrong, that it involves whether the person doing the prank or joke attempt has approved-of political views. But it seems a consistent standard should be called for. What do you think? Perhaps we could agree that the newspaper and the talking head should be more polite both to headmasters of boys’ schools and newly engaged activists?