Journalism

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Why does GetReligion want to keep doing that journalism thing that we do?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

I have never really enjoyed listening to infomercials, to tell you the truth. But, like it or not, creating one of those was a small part of the agenda in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

Yes, host Todd Wilken and I talked about GetReligion’s upcoming move to the Overby Center at the University of Mississippi, where I will also be a senior fellow linked to events focusing on religion, news and politics. I announced that in a post the other day with this headline: “Religion news, the First Amendment and BBQ: GetReligion will soon have a new home base.” And, yes, we talked about the fact that GetReligion needs to raise some money in order to do what we do in the future.

However, I think it’s significant how we got to that topic. We started off talking about the doctrinal wars over LGBTQ rights at George Fox University, which was addressed in this post: “Here we go again (again): RNS/AP offers doctrine-free take on George Fox LGBTQ battles.”

Readers can tell, just from that headline, that this story linked into many familiar GetReligion themes, including the crucial role that doctrine — whether academics call it “doctrine” or not — plays in defining life on private-school campuses, both on the left and the right. All to often (think “Kellerism”), journalists report and edit these stories as if journalists are in charge of determining what is “good” doctrine and what is “bad” doctrine.

There’s no need for an accurate, fair-minded debate when you already know who is right and who is wrong. Here’s a bit of that George Fox post:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

If the byline says Sarah Pulliam Bailey, go ahead and count on an interesting, enlightening religion story

, , , , , ,

Since I started writing for GetReligion nearly 10 years ago, I’ve cranked out probably 1,500 posts for this journalism-focused website.

Now, I have about 10 or 11 posts left before I transition to a new role with Religion Unplugged starting Jan. 1. If GR’s downsizing is news to you, be sure to check out tmatt’s post from Wednesday on his appointment as a senior fellow at Ole Miss’ Overby Center for Southern Journalism and Politics and the plans for GR moving forward.

The impending changes have made me a bit nostalgic. When I started at GR, my fellow contributors included Mollie Hemingway, now a conservative media star frequently retweeted by the president of the United States, and Sarah Pulliam Bailey, now an award-winning religion writer for the Washington Post. (Both are incredible human beings, by the way, just like all the contributors I’ve had an opportunity to know at GR.)

At GR, my role has been to analyze mainstream news coverage of religion and offer constructive tips for improvement. That has been tricky to do where Bailey is concerned because (1) she is a friend and former colleague and (2) she is a pro’s pro who doesn’t leave much room for criticism.

I’ve always wished we had a better way here at GR to just say: Hey, here is this really cool piece of religion journalism, and you ought to take the time to read it.

Actually, that’s what I’m about to say about Bailey’s piece this week on a Washington, D.C.-area pastor who confessed he’s tired and plans to take a sabbatical.

Yes, I could have said that way up top, but it wouldn’t have filled an entire post. And for a little bit longer, I have a quota to reach. (Thank you, by the way, to tmatt for putting up with me and my weird sense of humor all these years!)

Bailey’s story opens with this compelling scene:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Religion news, the First Amendment and BBQ: GetReligion will soon have a new home base

, , , , , , , ,

All together now, let’s sing: “Turn, Turn, Turn.”

GetReligion. org has been around since February 1, 2004, and in Internet years that is a long, long time. Some of us — certainly me — have gained more than a few gray hairs in the process.

For several years now, I have known that I would retire from full-time work here at GetReligion when the clock struck midnight and we reached January 1, 2020. The question — logically enough — was whether this weblog would shut down or evolve back into something that I could do part-time, which was how things started out long ago.

The good news is that, well, we ain’t dead yet. The bad news is that we will have to do some major downsizing, which means we’ll have to make changes in the amount of content that we offer here. After nearly a decade, Bobby Ross Jr., has already put out the word that he is leaving GetReligion and will now be writing a weekly religion-news roundup for Religion UnPlugged that will also run elsewhere (including here, we hope).

Readers will not be surprised to know that — a sign of the times in which we live — the work we will be doing here in the future will require some fundraising. Visitors to the website will see more information about that sooner, rather than later.

But the big news today is that GetReligion will soon have a new home base, one linked directly to the First Amendment, which means work tied to freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

As of January 1, we will be based at the Overby Center for Southern Journalism and Politics, which is next door to the School of Journalism and New Media at the University of Mississippi.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

Big story: How to properly cover laws regarding sex abuse and Catholic church bankruptcy

, , , , , , , , , ,

It’s been 17 years since The Boston Globe published its groundbreaking series on clergy sex abuse.

Some two decades later, a political shift in state legislative bodies and fallout from the #MeToo movement have all collided to bring what many warn is a financial reckoning that could cripple the Catholic church in America.

It was more than a year ago — on November 28 to be exact — that I warned in a GetReligion post about how the church would be hit with a blizzard of lawsuits in 2019 and what a massive story it would be.

Here’s an excerpt from that post:

As the scandals — that mostly took place in past — continue to trickle out in the form of grand jury reports and other investigations, look for lawmakers to try and remedy the situation for victims through legislation on the state level.

With very blue New York State voting to put Democrats in control of both the state Assembly and Senate (the GOP had maintained a slight majority), look for lawmakers to pass (and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Catholic, to sign) the Child Victims Act. The Empire State isn’t alone. Other legislatures in Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey and New Mexico are considering similar measures.

The New York legislation would allow victims of abuse suffered under the age of 18 to seek justice years later as adults. Removing the statute of limitations on cases involving private institutions, like the Boy Scouts and Jewish yeshivas, is at the heart of the battle.

New York did indeed pass the law — and may other states followed in its footsteps. In all, 15 states and the District of Columbia have changed their statute of limitations over the past two years in order to allow for lawsuits regarding rape and sexual assault allegations dating back many decades to be brought to court. In many cases, the offender is long dead.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Breaking news: Man gives 10 percent of his income to charity — what a revolutionary concept

, , , , ,

Let’s not waste any time.

We need to get right to a recent scoop by Vox.

Here it is: According to the headline, a man has given at least 10 percent of his income to charity for 10 years running.

Yes, I know how amazing that must sound to everyone just hearing about it for the first time.

“What a revolutionary idea,” said one person (actually, lots of people) on Twitter.

“Huh,” suggested another. “If only we had a word for this. One syllable? Rhymes with Blythe maybe. I don’t know. Maybe this guy can invent the word.”

Great idea! I suggest we all think real hard and try to come up with such a word.

In the meantime, here is Vox’s lede:

Ten years ago, in November 2009, a philosopher at Oxford named Toby Ord set up an organization called Giving What We Can. His idea was to ask people to commit, with him, to donate at least 10 percent of their income every year to highly effective charities. Ord chose to donate to organizations working to fight global poverty.

This commitment, from a not particularly well-paid research fellow, earned Ord profiles at the time from the likes of the BBC, the Telegraph, and the Wall Street Journal.

Ten years later, over 4,000 people from a wide range of backgrounds — including hedge funders, prominent philosophers like the late Derek Parfit, 2019 Nobel laureate in economics Michael Kremer, and, uh, me — are on the list of signatories.

Ord is now a senior research fellow in philosophy at Oxford and has since cofounded the effective altruist movement with fellow philosophers Will MacAskill and Peter Singer. Giving What We Can is now part of a broader suite of organizations under the Center for Effective Altruism, trying to persuade people they can use their time and money to make the world a substantially better place by giving to good causes.

Alrighty.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

After all these years, what about 'Manny being Manny' in church? And in seminary? Tell us more

, , , , ,

Major League Baseball’s crucial winter meetings kicked off today in San Diego.

The first big splash of the big annual shindig came with the news that the World Series champion Washington Nationals have reached a seven-year, $245 million deal to retain star pitcher Stephen Strasburg.

According to a Texas baseball writer, that agreement makes it less likely that the Nationals will be able to afford their free agent third baseman, Anthony Rendon, who I’m hoping signs with my beloved Rangers. Stay tuned!

Speaking of baseball, I’ve been meaning to mention to a truly fascinating Boston Globe feature on Manny Ramirez. Ramirez, as you may recall, is the former Red Sox slugger who hit 555 home runs over an illustrious career marked by his temperamental personality and difficulty dealing with, um, people in general, including the press. By sheer stats alone, he should be in the Hall of Fame. But his connection to the game’s performance-enhancing drug scandal has kept him out of that shrine.

So, what’s compelling about the recent Globe interview with Ramirez?

Literally everything — starting with news that a contrite Ramirez has found God and is now preaching and attending seminary.

Let’s start at the top of Dan Shaughnessy’s column:

All these years later, Manny Ramirez wants you to know that he loves you and that he is sorry for mistakes he made while playing in Boston.

He is sorry he knocked down Red Sox traveling secretary Jack McCormick over a ticket issue when the Sox were in Houston in 2008. He is sorry for the way he shot his way out of town and got himself traded to the Dodgers later that season. He is sorry he got popped for PEDs three times.

“It’s a mistake,’’ Manny said of his failed drug tests. “It’s like Barry [Bonds], Alex [Rodriguez], and everybody that was in that [Mitchell] Report. We made mistakes. I cannot go back and change it. I think it’s going to be good for young players to see what happened in that time. But when you’re good, you’re good. Those things don’t make you a better hitter.’’ …

Manny signed an eight-year, $160 million contract with the Red Sox before the 2001 season and made good on 7½ seasons of the deal. He was a latter-day Jimmie Foxx, good for about .312, 40 homers, and 120 RBIs every year. He was MVP of the World Series when the Sox broke the Curse of the Bambino in 2004. Paired with David Ortiz, he gave the Sox a Babe Ruth-Lou Gehrig combo.

But he also was goofy. Fans loved it most of the time, but “Manny being Manny” sometimes triggered headaches for teammates, managers, and owners.

Go ahead and read the whole column for important context and background. But let’s skip ahead to the religion angle.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Friday Five: Clergy abuse scandal, Buttigieg at church, politics of communion, N.T. Wright

, , , , , , , ,

It’s a big number. A really big number. As in, $4 billion.

As part of its “The Reckoning” series, The Associated Press reported this week that a surge of new abuse claims threatens the Catholic Church like never before — “with potentially more than 5,000 new cases and payouts topping $4 billion.”

Meanwhile, AP reporters and other experts examined the state of the clergy abuse crisis in a Facebook Live panel discussion. Watch it here.

Now, let’s dive into the Friday Five:

1. Religion story of the week: Pete Buttigieg keeps making major headlines in the Democratic presidential race.

We highlighted his visit to a black church in the South on Sunday, asking a question that news stories mostly ignored: “Is Buttigieg being gay a reason for his low support among black voters in the South?” The New York Times later followed up with another story on Buttigieg and black voters. Still, the key question we raised remained unexplored.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Pelosi points to her Catholic faith in denying she hates Trump. Will news reports offer any context?

, , , ,

“Don’t mess with me.”

It’s the soundbite of a busy news day — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s confrontation with a reporter who asked if she hates President Donald Trump.

But as you probably already know, Pelosi pointed to her Catholic faith in the exchange, immediately pushing this political story into the realm of religion news.

Some of the crucial details, via the New York Times:

The flash of anger from Ms. Pelosi — “Don’t mess with me,” she told the reporter — came as she was leaving a news conference in which she had just finished discussing her decision to move forward with articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump.

“Do you hate the president?” James Rosen, a reporter for a conservative television network, asked loudly as Ms. Pelosi made her way offstage in a television studio near the Capitol.

Ms. Pelosi whipped around to face Mr. Rosen, wagging her finger at him and saying, “Don’t accuse me,” as he explained that he was asking her to respond to Republicans’ claims that Democrats were pursuing Mr. Trump’s impeachment out of personal animus against him.

“This is about the Constitution of the United States and the facts that lead to the president’s violation of his oath of office,” the speaker said sharply after returning to the lectern to speak into a microphone and face the still-rolling cameras. “As a Catholic, I resent your using the word ‘hate’ in a sentence that addresses me. I don’t hate anyone.”

“I was raised in a way that is a heart full of love, and always pray for the president,” she continued. “And I still pray for the president. I pray for the president all the time. So don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that.”

In scanning the spot-news coverage today, I was curious to see if journalists would offer any background and context on Pelosi’s faith.

That information certainly seems relevant to the story, right?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

'The Two Popes' movie gets rave reviews and a good amount of fact checking, too

, , , , , , ,

The Christmas season is a time for both religious introspection and, of course, consumerism.

It’s also the time families go to the movies, which is why lots of them are released at this time of year.

Among the smorgasbord of films to open in the days before Thanksgiving was “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood,” the Fred Rogers bio-pic featuring Tom Hanks. That film is of particular interest because of its religion connections. See this recent tmatt post: “Podcast thinking: Fred Rogers, Tom Hanks, the Good Samaritan and the ties that bind.”

The only movie to open last week on the day before Thanksgiving was “The Two Popes.” I gave the flick a bad review over at Religion Unplugged, arguing that it needed a reality check. However, there are issues here that journalists will want to think about, as well. Here’s the key paragraph:

Where does the movie go wrong? Benedict did summon Bergoglio to Rome after the Argentine cardinal had resigned, as is custom when someone in that position turns 75. No one knew at the time how the cardinals would vote, except maybe former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. Therefore, the movie imagines what a dialogue between Benedict and Francis would be like. In taking us behind the secrecy of the Vatican, Meirelles creates a work of fiction.

“Change is compromise,” Benedict tells Bergoglio. 

“Nothing is static in nature,” Bergoglio replies.

Benedict, in response, argues: “God is unchanging!” 

The invented dialogue, like in the example above, aims at trying to convey the doctrinal divide that exists between these two men.


Please respect our Commenting Policy