Finally.

I think someone may have had a journalistic epiphany on the whole Health and Human Services thing.

But before we go there, stop and, for a moment, join me in contemplating the following journalism puzzle.

The Obama administration’s new HHS regulations — click here for a sample of GetReligion coverage — continue to cause an electric buzz here inside the Beltway. At the moment, people continue to focus on the Catholic angle of this story.

That’s logical. I get that. I mean, why would a Democratic candidate want to tick off Pope Benedict XVI in what will almost certainly be a tense election year?

Keep thinking. If this battle over the HHS rules is merely a “Catholic” story, it’s logical to think that it is essentially a story about birth control. This logic has been leading reporters to another semi-logical conclusion. They’re thinking: Most Catholics use birth control. Thus, most Catholics are not going to care about the HHS rules. The pope and the bishops are all just blowing smoke and this story is no big deal — other than to a few crazy Catholics (none in the typical newsroom, naturally) who actually care about church doctrines about sexuality.

However, if this is simply a story about birth control, logical journalists will need to figure out why so many liberal Catholics are currently so upset with the White House for picking this fight at this moment in time.

This leads us to the fact that U.S. bishops and the pope see this as a battle over issues much bigger than birth control. They see these rules as a direct attack on the religious liberty of Catholics and other believers. They see this as a First Amendment story in which the government is forcing religious groups — the institutions, not individual believers — to commit or fund acts that are sinful and evil, according to the doctrines proclaimed by these religious groups.

Seen from this angle, the ruling on birth control is simply the point on a much larger spear. The next thing you know, the U.S. Justice Department will be trying to get involved in decisions about who is hired and fired by religious groups. Wait a minute. That sounds familiar.

Please hear me say that there is no way to cover this story without hitting the birth-control angle and hitting it hard. However, there is no accurate, balanced way to handle this story without covering the larger religious-liberty angle, as well.

I also know that the potential impact of the HHS rules IS HUGE when you look at the Catholic numbers. What percentage of the nation’s health care (especially for the poor) is provided by institutions with Catholic roots or ties? Then there is the fact that the nation contains nearly 250 allegedly Catholic colleges and universities. This is big stuff, folks.

The big question for journalists is this: Which angle frames the story? Which drives the coverage?

So stop and think. If this is primarily a story about birth control, then it’s safe to say that only pro-Vatican Catholics will be screaming bloody murder these days. But that isn’t the case, is it? Instead, leaders in a wide variety of religious groups are mad as hades, because they see the larger legal picture. They are asking: Is America a place in which people have freedom of worship or freedom of religion?

Finally, I think that we have a national-level story that has found a way to frame this story accurately.

Here is the top of religion-beat veteran Rachel Zoll’s report for the Associated Press:

The Obama administration’s decision requiring church-affiliated employers to cover birth control was bound to cause an uproar among Roman Catholics and members of other faiths, no matter their beliefs on contraception.

The regulation, finalized a week ago, raises a complex and sensitive legal question: Which institutions qualify as religious and can be exempt from the mandate?

For a church, mosque or synagogue, the answer is mostly straightforward. But for the massive network of religious-run social service agencies there is no simple solution. Federal law lays out several criteria for the government to determine which are religious. But in the case of the contraception mandate, critics say Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius chose the narrowest ones. Religious groups that oppose the regulation say it forces people of faith to choose between upholding church doctrine and serving the broader society.

“It’s not about preventing women from buying anything themselves, but telling the church what it has to buy, and the potential for that to go further,” said Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, representing some 600 hospitals.

Keehan’s support for the passage of the Obama health care overhaul was critical in the face of intense opposition by the U.S. bishops. She now says the narrowness of the religious exemption in the birth control mandate “has jolted us.” She pledged to use a one-year grace period the administration has provided to “pursue a correction.”

I am bringing all of this up, again, for a logical reason (or two).

For starters, it will not surprise regular listeners of our “Crossroads” podcast that this issue was the subject of this week’s discussion. You can find it at iTunes or simply click here to listen online. However, the main reason we talked this through — again — is that this story is not going away. Instead, it’s taking on a life of its own on op-ed pages and in news reports (and not just because GOP types think it’s a nice reason to wound the White House).

Oh, we also spent a few minutes discussing that whole GetReligion turns eight thing.

Enjoy the podcast.

Eight years ago, the Rt. Rev. Douglas LeBlanc clicked a button with his mouse and GetReligion went live. I wrote the first post on Feb. 1, 2004, but the site actually kicked into gear the next day.

That opening post talked about religion “ghosts” in many mainstream news stories. If you have never read that post, then by all means click here. That top of that what-we-are-doing-here manifesto looks like this:

Day after day, millions of Americans who frequent pews see ghosts when they pick up their newspapers or turn on television news.

They read stories that are important to their lives, yet they seem to catch fleeting glimpses of other characters or other plots between the lines. There seem to be other ideas or influences hiding there.

One minute they are there. The next they are gone. There are ghosts in there, hiding in the ink and the pixels. Something is missing in the basic facts or perhaps most of the key facts are there, yet some are twisted. Perhaps there are sins of omission, rather than commission.

A lot of these ghosts are, well, holy ghosts. They are facts and stories and faces linked to the power of religious faith. Now you see them. Now you don’t. In fact, a whole lot of the time you don’t get to see them. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

Of course, we do more than stalk ghosts.

We also try to spotlight errors in coverage and we strive to praise solid reporting on the beat. We came up with the “Got news?” concept when we kept seeing incredibly interesting stories in blogs and specialty websites that never seem to make it into the mainstream. The 5Q+1 series lets readers hear, every now and then, from interesting professionals who work on the religion-news beat or whose journalism work on other topics often veers into religion news (we’d love to do more of the latter, frankly).

One of the quotes I keep in mind, when looking for material for the site, is that oft-quoted (certainly around here) line from Bill Moyers, the one about the fact that far too many mainstream journalists are “tone deaf” when it comes to hearing the music of faith in public issues. They, yes, just don’t “get religion.” They suffer from a lack of information, or interest, or imagination.

So, this is GetReligion’s eighth birthday. What should we do in order to celebrate, in the midst of another crazy working week?

OK, here are eight observations from moi about what I have learned in eight years of work here. There are many more that could be made. I am trying to stick to basics. I do hope the other GetReligionistas chime in.

* GetReligion is not a blog about religion news. It’s a blog about how the mainstream press struggles to cover religion news. We have roughly 89,000 comments on this site and we would have at least twice that if we allowed readers to shout at each other about the content of religious ISSUES in the news, instead of attempting to steer comments toward discussions about media coverage of those issues.

* Lots of people hate religion and lots of religious people hate journalism (especially when journalists print information that they dislike). GetReligion has tried to stay focused on basic, accurate, balanced mainstream coverage of religion. Yes, there are skilled, experienced professionals out there who sincerely attempt to do that job and they do it well. Yes, there are plenty of examples of train wrecks in mainstream religion coverage. They are too common. But they are not the whole story.

* What we are dealing with is a Blind Spot with two sides. In other words, the two halves of the First Amendment do not get along very well. Plenty of journalists do not seem to respect the powerful and essential role that religious faith plays in this land. Plenty of religious people do not seem to respect the powerful and essential role that a free press plays in this land.

* The bottom line: The state of American journalism will be improved by people who love journalism, not by those who hate it. Get with the program.

* No one knows what the word “evangelical” means, including evangelical leaders. It’s like defining fog. At the same time, this is a word that describes a movement of religious believers, not a movement of registered GOP voters. It’s time to stop treating it like a political term. Meanwhile, the word “fundamentalist” has a meaning and it can be found in an accurate reference in the Associated Press Stylebook. Many journalists still need to look that up.

* When in doubt, reporters should accurately quote people — rather than continuing to slap vague and often inaccurate labels on their foreheads.

* When specific flocks of religious believers keep saying, year after year, that journalists are printing inaccurate information about what they believe, journalists should (a) take that seriously and then (b) tell these believers to come down to the local newsroom with stacks of on-the-record reference materials that explain the basics. Then everyone exchanges business cards and promises to return phone calls. It’s journalism, folks.

* At some point in the future, there’s going to be a story that involves Episcopalians, same-sex marriage, Mormons, post-Vatican II liturgical rites and vampires and the server that hosts this blog is going to blow up.

And, one more time, did anyone out there really listen to what Bill Keller said the other day in Austin? I am still depressed.

Onward into year No. 9.

It is with a certain sense of fear and trembling that I note that The New Yorker has published a long, detailed and emotionally devastating feature story on the Rutgers University case involving Dharun Ravi and the late Tyler Clementi. The double-deck headline on this “Reporter At Large” feature by Ian Parker is simple and eloquent:

The Story of a Suicide

Two college roommates, a webcam, and a tragedy

The crunch passage in this story is going to mystify some people and infuriate others.

As it turns out, this tragedy was quite complex and, in the end, if focused more on a digital and cultural disconnect between two people, more than an clash of beliefs. Even the prejudices at the heart of the story are hard to label. Thus, readers are told:

Clementi’s death became an international news story, fusing parental anxieties about the hidden worlds of teen-age computing, teen-age sex, and teen-age unkindness. ABC News and others reported that a sex tape had been posted on the Internet. CNN claimed that Clementi’s room had “become a prison” to him in the days before his death. Next Media Animation, the Taiwanese company that turns tabloid stories into cartoons, depicted Ravi and Wei reeling from the sight of Clementi having sex under a blanket. Ellen DeGeneres declared that Clementi had been “outed as being gay on the Internet and he killed himself. Something must be done.” …

It became widely understood that a closeted student at Rutgers had committed suicide after video of him having sex with a man was secretly shot and posted online. In fact, there was no posting, no observed sex, and no closet.

This riveting story does, however, contain a religion angle and, if I am reading the story correctly, it appears that information that emerges in the future could add more details linked to faith. However, it appears — as I suspected at the time — that religion played no role whatsoever in the despicable actions and prejudices of Ravi. Here is a key paragraph from a post in which I urged reporters to seek religious facts related to this tragedy, not more speculation about motives and influences.

… Before we get pulled off the journalistic issues here, please note that I am actually saying that journalists need to probe the facts of these stories. Journalists need to find out if the bullying trends, right now, are linked to students who are acting on religious motives or acting on other motives. I, for one, suspect that the actions of the Rutgers students accused of broadcasting a sexual encounter between the late Tyler Clementi and another male were more inspired by reality television (think the sludge of “Jersey Shore,” if you must) than by religious doctrines.

The bottom line: Were these cyber-punks bar hoppers or members of a dorm Bible study? At Rutgers?

As it turns out, the only evangelicals involved in this case were inside the Clementi home.

How do readers know that? The following passage from the feature is part of the reporter’s attempt to offer practical, factual details about many of the cultural differences between the homes and communities that shaped these two young men.

Ravi drove a BMW in high school; Clementi didn’t have a car. Jane Clementi is a nurse. Joseph Clementi runs the public-works department in the nearby town of Hawthorne. They have two older sons, both of whom returned home after finishing college. Jane Clementi is active in the local Grace Church, which is affiliated with Willow Creek, the evangelical megachurch near Chicago. …

An acquaintance who memorialized Clementi online wrote, “Tyler never said very much or interacted with the rest of the youth group at the church I attended with him.” This post is accompanied by a photograph of Clementi on a church outing in 2007. Sitting on a bus, he is staring at the camera; behind him, a girl is laughing and putting on lipstick. He seems out of step even with his own bright-orange T-shirt, which reads “Daytona Beach.”

As previously reported, Tyler Clementi did out himself to his parents shortly before heading to college. It is clear that his mother was disappointed, but also very supportive. There is no evidence — at this point — that his declaration changed his relationship with his parents. They seemed to relate to him in the same manner as before. After all, the family already included one gay son.

The details of the Internet-driven conflict between Ravi and Clementi are too detailed to mention here. In the end, it is clear that this is a Web-based tragedy — in part because the roommates seem to have said next to nothing to each other of substance in face-to-face contacts. I will not attempt to summarize the any of the details in this mulch-layered report.

So what can be said? It appears that — for reason of social class and technology, more than anything else — Ravi was annoyed by Clementi, when this does appear to have been the case with his other gay associates or friends. This disconnection turned into cruelty that, when seen in detail, was shockingly mundane and banal. There were few, if any, known signs that Clementi was traumatized — until he jumped.

The contents of Clementi’s final handwritten note remain sealed. There could be additional details emerge and journalists will attempt, I am sure, to report them.

As I said in the lengthy and at times constructive comments thread after my earlier post on this subject, reporters are simply going to have to seek the facts in these kinds of cases and follow them wherever they go. That is going to be painful for people to write and others to read. Tragic stories are like that.

Once again: Comments should focus on the journalism issues in The New Yorker story. Thank you.

As faithful readers of this weblog will know, your GetReligionistas are convinced that it is stunningly simplistic for journalists to talk about the “Catholic vote,” as if there was one mass of Catholics who agree on how they should apply centuries of Catholic doctrine to their actions in voting booths.

About a decade ago, an elderly priest here in Washington, D.C., told me that he is convinced that — at the very least — there are four competing camps of “Catholic voters” here in postmodern America. As a reminder, here is the typology as I have shared it in the past:

* Ex-Catholics. Solid for Democrats. Cultural conservatives have no chance.

* Cultural Catholics who may go to church a few times a year. This may be one of those all-important “undecided voters” depending on what’s happening with the economy, foreign policy, etc. Leans to Democrats.

* Sunday-morning American Catholics. This voter is a regular in the pew and may even play some leadership role in the parish. This is the Catholic voter that is really up for grabs, the true swing voter that the candidates are after.

* “Sweat the details” Catholics who go to confession. They are active in the full sacramental life of their parishes and almost always back the Vatican, when it comes to matters of faith and practice.

As noted, the final camp — the depressing world of confession statistics are the key — represents a very small piece of the American Catholic pie.

Now, on to the current headlines. You see, it helps to keep that “Catholic voters” typology in mind while reading mainstream media coverage of the escalating conflict between the Obama administration and the world of religious education and non-profit ministries. Since clashes with the Catholic hierarchy have received the most ink, it helps to remember that not all “Catholic colleges” are “Catholic colleges” in the same sense of the word. The same statement is true of “Catholic hospitals.”

Thus, one would expect various kinds of Catholic institutions to have different policies when it comes to defending church doctrines on controversial issues — such as birth control.

This brings us to the following headline in The New York Times: “Ruling on Contraception Draws Battle Lines at Catholic Colleges.”

The only appropriate response? Well, DUH. Of course this fight is drawing battles between the White House and Catholic institutions, as well as spotlighting preexisting fractures in the world of Catholic higher education. Simply stated: These schools are not preaching or practicing the same faith. Why shouldn’t they clash when it comes time to react to a government action affecting religious liberty?

Here’s the summary language in this story:

Many Catholic colleges decline to prescribe or cover birth control, citing religious reasons. Now they are under pressure to change. This month the Obama administration, citing the medical case for birth control, made a politically charged decision that the new health care law requires insurance plans at Catholic institutions to cover birth control without co-payments for employees, and that may be extended to students. But Catholic organizations are resisting the rule, saying it would force them to violate their beliefs and finance behavior that betrays Catholic teachings.

“We can’t just lie down and die and let religious freedom go,” said Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Now hold your breath. Here’s the payoff punch:

In an election season that features Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who have stressed their Catholic faith, scientific thinking on the medical benefits of birth control has clashed with deeply held religious and cultural beliefs.

Once again, science on one side vs. blind religion on the other. That’s the magic formula, it seems. Right Bill Keller?

Also, note that this entire matter is simply political, not theological. There are no real doctrinal issues to debate. The folks who see a religious-liberty crisis in all of this — often liberal Catholics, as well as conservative — are only doing so because of a political agenda. You know, like the right-wingers at the liberal National Catholic Reporter (and the editorial board of The Washington Post, while we are at it).

But enough about the predictable political framing in this story. Back to the Catholic colleges in the headline.

Some Catholic colleges are likely to ask for a yearlong delay in implementing the rule on birth control coverage, said Michael Galligan-Stierle, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities. In the longer run, he predicted in a statement that either Congress or the Supreme Court would invalidate the rule. Belmont Abbey College, which is Catholic, and the interdenominational Colorado Christian University have already sued the Department of Health and Human Services, arguing that the birth control requirement violates the right to freedom of religion.

Birth control is considered a “preventive service” under the new health care law, but Mr. Galligan-Stierle said such services should be limited to preventing disease, not pregnancy.

“We do not happen to think pregnancy is disease,” he said. “We think it’s a gift of love of two people and our creator.”

The most important word comes right at the beginning of that passage — “some.”

In other words, there are Catholic schools that defend Catholic teachings and strive to recruit students, faculty and staff who join in that effort — or at the very least seek to recruit those who will not oppose these teachings. Then again, many Catholic schools openly reject the teachings of their church.

Thus, we read:

At Catholic universities, some students support the right of the schools to uphold religious doctrine. But others, particularly professional and graduate students, have found the restrictions on birth control coverage onerous. …

One recent Georgetown law graduate, who asked not to be identified for reasons of medical privacy, said she had polycystic ovary syndrome, a condition for which her doctor prescribed birth control pills. She is gay and had no other reason to take the pills. Georgetown does not cover birth control for students, so she made sure her doctor noted the diagnosis on her prescription. Even so, coverage was denied several times. She finally gave up and paid out of pocket, more than $100 a month. After a few months she could no longer afford the pills. Within months she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically — along with her ovary.

“If I want children, I’ll need a fertility specialist because I have only one working ovary,” she said.

A spokeswoman for Georgetown, Stacy Kerr, said that problems like this were rare and that doctors at the health service knew how to help students get coverage for contraceptives needed for medical reasons. Asked if Georgetown would begin covering birth control under the new rule, she said, “We will be reviewing and evaluating the new regulations, ever mindful of our Catholic and Jesuit identity and mission.”

I kept waiting to see if this story would recognize the wide diversity that is found Catholic education. I was expecting, frankly, to hear from qualified, experienced Catholic educators who want to defend their faith on this matter — which would mean resisting government actions to force them to financially support actions they believe are sinful. Instead, we get this accurate, yet rather bombastic quote:

Senior Catholic officials said that students at Catholic universities should know what to expect, and that those who disagree with the policies can choose to go elsewhere. “No one would go to a Jewish barbecue and expect pork chops to be served,” Mr. Galligan-Stierle said.

That’s a valid quote and it’s valid for the Times to use it.

My question is simple: Is this one of those urban, sophisticated Times stories in which the editors (if they agree with their newly retired editor) believe that they do not need to cover both sides of an issue? Is it enough now that they quote the valid, powerful anecdotes and arguments on one side and then reduce the other side’s convictions to rumblings about politics and a punchy soundbite?

Just asking.

The key to future coverage is to find out if the government will find ways to honor the convictions of Catholic schools that want to defend Catholic doctrines and will openly and legally state that in all contacts and legal covenants with students, faculty and staff. In other words, can the government find ways to treat these religious private schools — Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, etc. — like the religious institutions that they are.

And the rest of the Catholic schools? The leaders of those schools are free to kneel to the state on this matter. They have ever right to do that, if the Vatican decides to let them do it — while remaining “Catholic colleges.” Then again, there is this.

It’s a subject that causes editors to sweat, knowing that their newsroom switchboards will almost certainly to explode if they dare to cover it. We are talking, of course, about (cue: drumroll) Mormon underwear.

For many people this subject symbolizes all of the doctrinal topics linked to Mormonism (think Temple vows and the specifics of Temple rituals) that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not supposed to discuss with those outside their church.

Yet critics of the church — especially ex-Mormons — want to talk about these things. They make all kinds of statements on the record about what these secret symbols and rites are supposed to mean.

At that point, reporters and editors are caught in dangerous territory, in terms of basic journalistic ethics.

How do editors (a) verify the accuracy of alleged details (Do ritual Temple dramas and/or media materials teach that traditional Christian churches are in league with Satan?) when (b) responsible, even candid Mormon leaders have taken vows that do not allow them to answer?

How does one write an accurate, fair-minded, balanced journalistic report about, well, Mormon underwear?

BuzzFeed recently tiptoed into this landmine with a respectful, constructive piece on the subject that caught the eye of some GetReligion readers.

The problem, of course, is one that continues to plague your GetReligionistas. This is not a news piece. Once again, how do journalists critique the accuracy and fairness of pieces that are completely one-sided, that represent serious attempts to deal with serious subjects — but they do so in the form of editorial essays, not news reports?

On one level, the current boom in Mormon underwear interest is linked — logically enough — to Mitt Romney’s latest White House bid. Thus, readers are told:

It’s true that Mormons are taught not to flaunt “garments” (as they’re called) for public view, which can feed the impression that Romney’s hiding some dark, cultish secret beneath his well-starched shirts and neatly-creased slacks. But the principle behind Mormon garments would be familiar to any Baptist who’s worn a “What Would Jesus Do” bracelet, or any Jew who’s worn a yarmulke or tzitzit (woven threads Orthodox Jews wear on shawls under their shirts). As the website for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints puts it, garments are worn as “an outward expression of an inward commitment.”

Because garments are considered so sacred, Mormons tend to recoil when they hear non-Mormons make casual reference to their underwear — especially in a political context. But if there ever was a time when discussion of the subject could be contained to Mormon circles, now is not it. Anyone who’s attended a performance of The Book of Mormon Musical has already seen actors wearing replicas of the underwear on stage. And as the presidential race wears on, there’s no doubt it will come again and again.

The key to this piece is that the author — McKay Coppins — is a Mormon and, thus, is able to write this kind of statement: “This reporter is something of an expert on the subject.”

The information in the article is, one can only assume, accurate and presented in a fair manner. A key section discusses the claims made by critics that Mormons believe that these garments are “magic.” Not really. Do Catholics (and the Orthodox) believe that their baptism crosses are magic?

As a journalist, here’s the part that interests me:

Garments today come in two pieces — a white undershirt, and white boxer brief-style shorts — and they contain small symbols meant to remind Mormons of the covenants they’ve made in the temple. … They also come in a variety of materials — cotton, polyester, silk, etc. — to accommodate different climates (a fact for which Mormon missionaries in subsaharan Africa are grateful). Generally, wearing them takes some adjustment at first, but most Mormons report quickly growing accustomed to them. (Out of respect to Latter-day Saints, we are not posting photos of the garments here.)

Here is my question, for those who cover the Mormons on a regular basis. When I worked in Denver in the 1980s, the whole subject of these garments was pretty much covered under the vows of secrecy related to temple rituals. Yet, this article openly discusses this issue and even contains the reference that the garments “contain small symbols meant to remind Mormons of the covenants they’ve made in the temple.”

Where is the line, today, that reporters cannot cross? Where is the point at which a Mormon — such as Coppins — must fall silent for perfectly valid reasons due to the vows he has taken as part of his faith? So you can mention the symbols. Can the symbols now be discussed? He mentions the temple covenants. Is it still out of bounds to discuss the contents of the rites and covenants themselves? Is the secrecy line moving?

My question is sincere, in response to this interesting and I would assume — from the point of view of Mormons who are journalists — constructive piece. Are there journalists out there from Salt Lake City or elsewhere who can help me understand precisely what is happening, these days, with respectful, accurate, journalism on these topics?

One of the most poignant and complex stories in America the last few days has been the prolonged outpouring of grief at Penn State University for the legendary and, in some people’s minds fallen, football coach Joseph Paterno. The final memorial service drew 12,000 people and, naturally, it included remarks that touched on the Catholic faith of the deceased.

What I can’t figure out is how much religious material made it into this event, which was part funeral and part campus rally.

There is no question, however, which quote from the service was given the most ink in the national press, appearing in headlines and in pull-quote graphics on many websites that ran the Associated Press version of the main story from The Morning Call newspaper in the Lehigh Valley.

The quote is found right up top, where it belongs:

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — Jay Paterno quoted Sophocles and Tennessee Williams, recounted his father’s last moments and led more than 12,000 people in prayer. He also lingered strongly on one point, which Nike Chairman Phil Knight had thundered about an hour earlier.

“Joe Paterno left this world with a clear conscience,” he said.

I am sure that some people in other parts of the nation read that quotation and thought: How could Joe Paterno have died with a clear conscience, since it was clear that he and many other leaders on that campus could have and should have done more to shut down the alleged sexual encounters between former defensive coach Jerry Sandusky and the young boys he often brought onto the campus?

Well, when dealing with a Catholic believer, it is one thing to say that he died with no regrets. No one said that. What they said is that the elderly Paterno died with a “clear conscience.”

In other words, one can assume that he said a final confession and received last rites. The contents of that confession, any regrets or mistakes that were discussed, are between the dying man, his priest and God. It’s hard to put that in a news story. I know that. However, could journalists have done a bit more to set the context of that statement? Frankly, I do not know.

The Washington Post story about the memorial service at least included a reference to the priest who took part in this rite of passage for the family and the community. I almost didn’t notice it my first time through the report:

On Thursday at Penn State’s basketball arena, Sue Paterno drew a standing ovation just with the simple act of walking to her front-row seat in front of the stage. Five Paterno children and 17 grandchildren soon followed.

“Lord,” prayed Father Matthew Laffey of the school’s Catholic Campus Ministry, “thank you for this man, and the blessing to have lived when this giant walked the earth.”

This made me wonder: Was this Paterno’s priest?

This leads to more questions. How often did the coach attend Mass on campus? Previous stories have stressed that he lived a walking-distance from the campus and kept a very consistent and disciplined schedule. I have always wondered if Paterno was a daily Mass Catholic. I do wish that someone had asked about that. It’s a fact that would have intrigued the coach’s critics, just as much as his supporters.

Let me make one final point, in the form of a question for GetReligion readers.

Most stories about the service included some version of this anecdote:

At the hospital Sunday morning, just before Joe Paterno died at age 85 after a short bout with lung cancer, Jay Paterno told his father that he had fulfilled his mandate to make an impact larger than his own footsteps.

“In my last words to my father,” Jay Paterno said, “I kissed him and whispered into his ear so only he could hear: ‘Dad, you won. You did all you could do. You’ve done enough. We all love you. You’ve won. You can go home now.’”

That’s an incredible quote. However, the Associated Press report ended with another anecdote that, in its own way, I found just as powerful — especially for anyone who appreciated the coach’s love of literature and fine language. In the full report, the story ends this way:

The family celebrated Paterno’s 85th birthday in December, when he received a book of letters from former players, and “stressed how blessed he had been in his life.”

Jay Paterno also noted that his father ended every game by leading the team in The Lord’s Prayer in the locker room. After leading the audience in prayer, Jay Paterno remembered once asking his father why he did that.

“He said, ‘It’s the words, Jay. The words.”’

Here’s my simple, journalistic question to our readers. If you read this AP story in your local newspaper, did it include this final passage? My observation is that many copy desks seem to have cut it off.

Space in newspapers is scarce, these days. But that’s a wonderful end to a story about this particular man.

I know, I know. It’s an opinion piece.

Nevertheless, I am very, very afraid that, at some point in the future, I am going to see people quoting the following and then adding the crucial kicker — “according to an article in The New York Times.”

Here we go.

If you are holding a cup of coffee, please set it aside, far from your keyboard. The headline on this essay by David S. Reynolds is blunt: “Why Evangelicals Don’t Like Mormons.”

Uh. Actually, I have known some evangelicals who rather like Mormons, consider them close friends and even colleagues, while remaining aware that — in terms of doctrine — their faiths cannot be reconciled. Believe it or not, the National Association of Evangelicals board met in Salt Lake City last spring. That’s in Utah. Years of formal and informal dialogue continued. Bread was broken. These things happen.

But moving on. Back to the lede in this Gray Lady essay:

According to a CNN exit poll of South Carolina Republican primary voters, Newt Gingrich, a thrice-married Catholic, won twice as much support from evangelical Protestants as Mitt Romney, a Protestant. And among voters for whom religion meant “a great deal,” 46 percent voted for Mr. Gingrich and only 10 percent for Mr. Romney.

That sound you just heard was the explosion of thousands of minds in church-history departments from sea to shining sea.

Let’s back up for a moment.

In my reporting days in Colorado, covering most of the 1980s, I spent many hours meeting with press representatives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, talking about the kinds of language issues that keep coming up here at GetReligion. One of the crucial topics was whether a believer needed to be “Trinitarian” in order to be called “Christian.” There is, for example, the matter of Oneness Pentecostals, whose rejection of the Trinity does not seem to cause them to lose their “Christian” label in public media.

In all of my meetings, I never heard a Mormon leader simply state that they considered themselves another branch of, well, Protestantism. I never heard that word claimed. In light of the harsh realities of daily journalism, when a few words have to go a long way, they often suggested that “Mormon Christians” could be accurately contrasted with “Trinitarian Christians.” And so forth and so on.

Please note that I am not trying to settle this hot-button issue in public and journalistic language, primarily because I am not sure that it can be settled that easily.

My point is that it is ridiculous — even in an editorial column — to simply state that Mitt Romney is a Protestant. I think that this publication’s elite readers are supposed to assume that Romney is a Protestant because he is not a Catholic. Then again, many mainstream journalists seem convinced that Catholic Rick Santorum is a evangelical Protestant.

This use of the term “Protestant” is central to this Times piece. It is also, as usual, assumed that doctrinal conflicts linked to Mormon beliefs are caused by some uniquely evangelical bias — as opposed to the Vatican’s stand on this issue, or the concerns of all but a few liberal Protestants.

Evangelicals, you see, are the problem.

This is the second evangelical-heavy state Mr. Romney has lost. With a third, Florida, next on the list, it’s important to consider the often antagonistic skepticism that many evangelicals have of Mr. Romney’s brand of Protestantism: Mormonism.

For many evangelicals, that faith — a “false religion,” as the Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress called it — raises serious doubts about Mr. Romney’s suitability for office. But such concerns ultimately say more about the insecurities of the establishment denominations than about Mormonism itself.

Many evangelicals assert that Mormonism denies the divinity of Christ and is therefore not a branch of Christianity. But the Mormon belief is that Jesus was the first-born child of God and a woman, and that humans can aspire to share his spiritual essence in the afterlife.

So, so much to say. So many crucial doctrinal points ignored. The essay goes on to note the fact that marketplace of American religion has produced more than its share of alternative religions, in addition to Mormonism. Any short list would include the Christian Scientists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The assumption of the Times copy desk, once again, is that all of them can fit neatly under this “Protestant” umbrella.

Says who? Well, says this writer in The New York Times.

Once again, this is not a news piece. I know that. I know that we are not supposed to hold editorial columns to the same journalistic standards as pieces in the news pages. Wait, does that include matters of fact and definitions?

Do readers understand these kinds of editorial differences? What happens when the “Mitt Romney, a Protestant” reference — which at the very least deserves debate, no matter where it appears — is quoted elsewhere? And what about the other sins of commission and omission included in this piece?

Yes, this is not news. But in this day and age, the wall between editorial comment and news seems to be falling. What happens when editorial writers make fact statements of this kind? Who is responsible for accuracy in this case?

If you’ve been reading GetReligion for very long, you probably know that “cult” is the kind of word that is almost impossible to use in public media without causing riots. Are we talking about a dangerous sociological cult? A doctrinal cult? If so, which religious group’s doctrines are providing the frame of reference in this case?

Another word that causes trouble from time to time is “sect.” This is not a fightin’ word, per se. But it is horribly vague.

Consider the shades of meaning in the three definitions offered in one online dictionary:

sect (skt) n.

1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.

2. A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.

3. A faction united by common interests or beliefs.

That third one is so vague that it’s useless and the second one isn’t much better.

The important thing to note, once again, is that the main definition contains an important theme — that the “sect” has left a larger body because it has made innovations or “refinements” in doctrine, belief and practice. That’s why the “sect” has chosen to leave the larger denomination or movement or, on occasion, has been forced to leave.

What kind of “refinement”? How central were the doctrines in question to the historic, mainstream form of this particular faith?

In the context of Christian history, making changes in a doctrine as central as the Holy Trinity gets you the “cult” label. Arguments about which gifts of the Holy Spirit are or are not active in the modern world may earn a breakaway body the “sect” label, in some cases.

Truth is, “sect” is a vague, yet a word with moderately nasty doctrinal implications. It’s best for journalists to avoid this term.

Which brings us to a recent story out of Cleveland, in which editors at the Plain Dealer put the following language into print. Here is the top of the story:

BAY VILLAGE, Ohio — A nationwide rift among Episcopalians has fractured St. Barnabas church, where the bulk of the congregation has broken away from the Episcopal Diocese of Ohio and is worshipping in an auditorium at Bay High School.

In recent years, a number of Episcopal congregations across the country have been at odds with church hierarchy over Christian teachings. Essentially, breakaway groups see the church drifting from orthodox Christianity to a more liberal creed, including allowing openly gay, partnered clerics to serve as bishops.

“When they talk about Jesus, it’s not the same Jesus I talk about,” said the Rev. Gene Sherman, pastor of the 250-member breakaway congregation from St. Barnabas. “They say Jesus is a way to salvation. I say Jesus is the way to salvation.”

As you can see, the conservatives think that the liberal Episcopal establishment has made major innovations when it comes to doctrines linked to salvation and sexual morality. The conservative priest, however, used pretty neutral language.

Later in the story, however, the newspaper itself gets theological — whether it meant to or not.

The breakaway groups joined the Anglican Church of North America, a dissident sect not officially affiliated with what is called the Anglican Communion, a worldwide denomination headed by the Church of England. The Episcopalians, however, are a part of the Anglican Communion, though its spiritual leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams of England, sometimes raises an eyebrow over the actions of his American flock.

Several comments must be made. First of all, I am sure that the leadership of The Episcopal Church would be rather miffed to learn that they are, in any legal way, the “American flock” of Rowan Williams. That implies some kind of formal control, which is certainly lacking in Anglicanism. Second, it’s true that the Anglican Church of North America is not “officially affiliated with what is called the Anglican Communion.” (By the way, that is the “what is called” language all about?) However, the American conservatives are in Communion — with a large “C” — with many of the largest branches of the global Anglican Communion. The biggest complication is, of course, the status of Communion with the Church of England, itself.

Third, what are we to make of the “dissident sect” reference? Under the vague definitions of the term, this language is accurate. However, this story is clearly about a set of doctrinal conflicts. Thus, one needs to ask: What were the doctrines of the global Anglican Communion that this conservative body twisted or redefined in order to earn the “sect” label?

I am sure that many on the doctrinal right would say that the Anglican Church of North America is a splinter from The Episcopal Church, but that The Episcopal Church is a “sect” in comparison to the faith and practice found in the larger, growing bodies within the Anglican Communion. The doctrinal left would disagree.

So how to handle this situation in print? Don’t use this label when talking about the right or the left. It causes way more trouble than it’s worth. “Sect” has become a word that contains very little useful content.

IMAGE: Back by popular demand.

One of the news items creating buzz inside the DC Beltway this week is a national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and The Washington Post exploring the lives and beliefs of African-American women.

In a short feature explaining the poll’s roots and methodology, Post editors included these helpful talking points:

Some of the key findings from the poll:

— Religion is essential to most black women’s lives; being in a romantic relationship is not, the poll shows.

— Nearly three-quarters of African American women say now is a good time to be a black woman in America, and yet a similar proportion worry about having enough money to pay their bills.

— Half of black women surveyed call racism a “big problem” in the country; nearly half worry about being discriminated against.

— Eighty-five percent say they are satisfied with their own lives, but one-fifth say they are often treated with less respect than other people.

The religion numbers really jump out, when looking at the poll results themselves (click here). In fact, 92 percent of the black women polled said that “living a religious life” was important to them and, within that big-picture stat, a stunning 74 percent said religion was “very important.” This put the importance of religious faith up at the top of the poll results, along with “being respected by others.”

This fact is mentioned in the summary paragraphs high in the 3100-word first day report, which ran on A1.

Religion is essential to most black women’s lives; being in a romantic relationship is not, the poll shows. Nearly three-quarters of African American women say now is a good time to be a black woman in America, and yet a similar proportion worry about having enough money to pay their bills. Half of black women surveyed call racism a “big problem” in the country; nearly half worry about being discriminated against. Eighty-five percent say they are satisfied with their own lives, but one-fifth say they are often treated with less respect than other people.

The poll’s findings and dozens of follow-up discussions reflect the conversations black women are having among themselves at church halls after Bible study, at happy hours after work, in college lounges after listening to lectures. …

Believe it or not, that’s the last Post readers were told about the role of faith in the lives of African-American women in the first two days worth of printed features based on this important study. The second-day report focuses on how black women feel about the values and style of First Lady Michelle Obama.

While the first-day story ended with a short promotional note alerting readers about the second-day feature, the lengthy Michelle Obama story does not end with an item holding out hope for another major installment of the series.

So, at this point, it seems that the high priority that African-American women say that they place on religious faith — a value found at the very top of this Kaiser-Post poll — will receive, oh, about a dozen words worth of attention in the printed editions of the newspaper. That would be about a dozen words out of 7,000 or so.

Will there, in fact, be future features produced from this important poll data?

We can only hope. There may be a reference that I have missed somewhere on the Post site to future publishing plans about this subject. I sure hope that is the case.

At the moment, all I am hearing is angry crickets.

Perhaps Post editors were shocked by this result and, in effect, had not taken religion into account when planning ahead for this buzz-worthy series. If so, this tells us more about the priorities of the editors of this important newspaper than it does about the values and lives of black women. That high pro-faith number in the poll is not shocking, for anyone who has done some research into this topic.

Let’s hope that I am wrong and that a major feature is forthcoming on the missing religion factor in this series. One can hope.

One of the first things that I do with student journalists is teach them the following trick. If you are struggling with some particularly tough passage in a story, perhaps a tricky paraphrase with some complicated grammar, then it is wise to print a copy of your rough draft, walk away from the keyboard and read the stuff out loud. Most of the time, your ears will catch the mistakes.

This even works, sometimes, with errors of fact. It’s amazing how the really dumb stuff just jumps off the page when you hear your own voice reading the words. No, this technique doesn’t work nearly as well when you simply read the text silently, inside your own head.

A reader just sent your GetReligionistas a classic example of a mistake that made it into print at the Palm Beach Post (the newspaper that landed in my yard about a decade ago) that surely, surely would have been caught if a reporter or editor had paused long enough to read this howler out loud. Here’s the top of this short political-beat story:

Rev. O’Neal Dozier, the conservative pastor of Pompano Beach’s Worldwide Christian Center, told the Palm Beach Post … that Mitt Romney cannot win the presidency because Americans won’t vote for a Mormon president.

Following his third place finish in South Carolina, Rick Santorum made his first Florida campaign stop at Dozier’s church, where he gave a faith-based sermon. Dozier has been an outspoken critic of homosexuality and radical Islam. In November, former presidential candidate Herman Cain decided minutes before a speech not to have Dozier deliver his invocation, as was originally planned.

First of all, under Associated Press style, that would be “The Rev. O’Neal Dozier,” with a T-H-E.

However, that isn’t the most humorous choice of words in this passage.

Did you see it? Raise your hands, out there in GetReligion reader land, if you have ever heard someone deliver, in a church, a non-faith-based sermon.

I assume that the reporter was trying to say that, instead of getting up in the pulpit of a conservative church and giving a talk about tax breaks for manufacturers, the Catholic senator elected to talk about matters directly related to Christian faith. Thus, it was a “faith-based sermon” instead of, well, a “secular sermon.”

Then again, after that kind of gaffe, are readers supposed to trust that this was a “sermon” at all? Did Santorum actually preach the sermon in this church service or did he simply make some off-the-cuff remarks? In other words, is the reporter using the word “sermon” as a metaphor?

In this case, I would think that many readers would actually want to know if a candidate for the White House spoke before the service in a major African-American church, during the service or afterwards. Was he in the pulpit or did this take place in coffee hour?

After reading that strange “faith-based sermon” reference, I am not sure what happened, in this case.

As for the main thrust of this story, Palm Beach Post editors also needed to challenge this prominent pastor on one of his alleged facts. Read the following carefully:

Dozier, who is black, said a Republican will need at least 10 percent of the black vote to win the presidency.

“Blacks are not going to vote for anyone of the Mormon faith,” Dozier said. “The book of Mormon says the Negro skin is cursed.”

From 1849 through 1978 the Church of Latter-Day Saints barred blacks from its priesthood. The church has lifted but not repudiated the policy. Dozier said if Romney is the nominee, President Obama’s surrogates will bring out what Dozier considers to be racist views in the Mormon Church.

First of all, the story should have referred to “The Book of Mormon,” not the “book of Mormon.” Also, that controversial “doctrine” or “teaching” — as opposed to “policy” — is linked to a passage in a different Mormon text, one called “The Book of Abraham,” within “The Pearl of Great Price.” It isn’t in “The Book of Mormon,” itself. If I am in error on that point, someone shoot me a correction.

All in all, this was not a happy excursion onto the religion beat.