Journalism

, , , , , , , , , ,

Category: Game shows. Question: How did Jeopardy! stumble into the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire?

, , , , , , , , , ,

The mega-hit TV game show “Jeopardy!” is not my thing; I can’t recall ever watching it for more than a few minutes. But chances are that more than a few GetReligion readers are fans. Some undoubtedly were among the approximately 15-million viewers who tuned in to the show’s prime time “The Greatest of All Time” competition.

In the world of TV game shows this was, I understand, a big deal. As such, it constituted legitimate entertainment news and has been extensively covered the past several days. Some of this is, of course, linked to legendary host Alex Trebek and his battle with stage 4 pancreatic cancer.

The wave of news about “The Greatest” has not been the only recent “Jeopardy!” encounter with the news. And while the headlines generated by “The Greatest” episodes were a public relations gold mine, the show’s second news media spotlight was anything but.  

Rather, the second “Jeopardy!” story was a public relations disaster on an international scale. (I’m guessing here, but I figure the old show business adage, “say anything you want about me as long as you spell my name right,” longer boosts ratings in the #MeToo era.)

Why was it a global downer? 

Because the show was caught rewarding an incorrect answer to a geopolitically fraught question. And because the error concerned the always incendiary Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the incident went viral. 

As is the norm these days, the flub ricocheted around the web, garnering attention way beyond any rational measure of its real-world importance. 

Here’s the top of a Washington Post story on the brouhaha to get those of you who need it up to speed.

The “Jeopardy!” category was “Where’s that Church?”

The clue, for $200, was about an ancient basilica, “built in the 300s A.D.," in the West Bank city of Bethlehem.

And the answer? That might depend on whom you ask.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

What journalists need to look for during Benedict-Francis feud over priestly celibacy

, , , , ,

The movie The Two Popes is a largely fictional account of the doctrinal differences between the retired Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.

In real life, those differences were brought to the surface this week when retired Benedict issued a strongly-worded defense for priestly celibacy — countering his successor Pope Francis, who has publicly affirmed this tradition of the Roman rite, but who is also considering allowing older married men to be ordained in the Amazon to deal with a shortage in that part of the world.

The pope emeritus made the surprise comments in a book, excerpts of which were printed in the French newspaper Le Figro, co-authored with Cardinal Robert Sarah (click here for the cardinal’s defense of listing the retired pope as an author of materials in the book).

What journalists covering this ongoing story need to focus on is explaining what it means for a pope to be infallible on matters of doctrine, as talk of schism intensifies. Also, what role does an emeritus pope play? What does clergy celibacy mean doctrinally for Catholicism? All of these factors will have a bearing on what Pope Francis ultimately decides to do regarding doing away with celibacy among men serving congregations in the Amazon region.

Both Benedict and Sarah are doctrinally conservative, while Francis is widely seen — especially in media reports — as a progressive who wants to change many church teachings to deal with changes in the modern world.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Why did viral papal slap garner Francis largely favorable news media coverage?

, , , , , ,

Starting the new year with an apology is never good.

That’s how Pope Francis kicked off 2020 just a week ago following an incident in St. Peter’s Square the night before. The incident in question was the pope being grabbed by a woman. The pope, in turn, slapped the woman’s arm and the whole thing went viral. That was followed by memes and lots of news coverage on a day usually dedicated to replaying ball drops and advice on hangover cures.  

The media’s reaction to the slap, from social media to major news organizations, again showed the divide that continues to exist among Catholics around the world. Those who like Francis saw a man being grabbed and reacting like anyone would. His detractors saw a man with little patience for parishioners.

The media coverage was all over the place on this one, starting out extremely negative and changing to a largely positive one overnight after Francis apologized for his angry reaction. The Holy See’s own news operation, Vatican News, described the incident this way:

“His salvation is not magical, but it is a ‘patient’ salvation, that is, it involves the patience of love, which takes on wickedness and removes its power. The patience of love: love makes us patient,” said the Pope. “We often lose patience. So do I. And I apologize for yesterday's bad example…”

The apology Pope Francis offered was in connection with a moment from his visit to the Nativity scene in St. Peter’s Square on Tuesday evening.

As he greeted the faithful, a woman tugged his arm, causing a shooting pain to which the Pope reacted with an impatient gesture to free himself from her grip.

That Vatican News attributed the pope’s reaction to “a shooting pain” has no attribution. The Vatican press office never gave an official reason and also failed to comment on the possibility of that poor security contributed to the problem, as AFP pointed out. In his public apology on New Year’s Day, the pope also failed to give a reason for his reaction. Instead, Francis went off-script and delivered what sounded like a heartfelt apology. At the same time, no media outlet that I saw knew the woman’s identity or interviewed her.

Most of the divide over the viral moment played itself out on Twitter. #DUH


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

Nonprofit groups destined to command big chunk of journalism? What about religion news?

, , , , , , , , ,

As the 2020s dawn, the Internet-ravaged newspaper business is paying close attention to The Salt Lake Tribune, long known for independent-minded reporting that includes stellar religion coverage by Peggy Fletcher Stack and colleagues. The  148-year old Trib is conducting an experiment as the first important U.S. daily to turn non-profit. 

A related phenomenon is wealthy investors who needn’t fret about profits purchasing, e.g., the Boston Globe, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Daily News, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Diego Union-Tribune, Washington Post, Time magazine and The Atlantic. (The latter made good use of a $490,000 Henry Luce Foundation grant for religion coverage.) 

Are charities and nonprofit groups destined to command a major chunk of American news reporting, including religion coverage? 

 On the religion beat, we see The Associated Press’s deal to distribute copy from two non-profits, Religion News Service (which has emphasized opinion pieces in recent times) and TheConversation.com (which re-frames scholars’ thinking for general audiences).  This innovation is funded by $4.9 million from the Lilly Endowment. (Disclosure: The Guy was an AP religion writer 1998-2006). 

An example of this newborn joint operation is “Reparations and Religion: 50 Years after ‘Black Manifesto’,” a solid  RNS article The AP transmitted December 30 that was widely picked up online by other media.

Notably, the article has a double byline. Matthew Cressler, no journalist  but a religion-and-race scholar at the College of  Charleston, is named first out of alphabetical order, indicating priority over co-author Adelle Banks, a well-respected RNS reporter.


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

There he goes again: New York Times Editor Dean Baquet on journalists getting religion

, , , , , , , ,
There he goes again: New York Times Editor Dean Baquet on journalists getting religion

There he goes again.

Yes, the GetReligionistas noticed the online hubbub caused by that Chuck Todd remark the other day on Meet the Press, when he read part of a letter to the editor sent to The Lexington Herald-Leader that took a shot at, well, a certain type of Bible reader that went to the polls in 2016.

The problem, you see, is not a matter of politics — strictly speaking.

The problem is with that these knuckle-draggers have the wrong religious views, when it comes to the Bible. Here’s the key language, as it ran in Newsweek:

"[Why] do good people support Trump? It's because people have been trained from childhood to believe in fairy tales," the letter read. "This set their minds up to accept things that make them feel good. ... The more fairy tales and lies he tells the better they feel. …

“Show me a person who believes in Noah's ark and I will show you a Trump voter."

Well now, that was certainly a quote worth discussing in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

I argued that this Meet the Press exchange was, in a way, a modern version of the classic shot at Richard Nixon voters that was reported in the classic Joe McGinnis book, “The Selling of the President.” Old folks like me will remember that quote, which said Nixon was “the president of every place in this country which does not have a bookstore.”

In other words, there are smart people and dumb people and people whose biblical views do not match those of NBC News are in the second camp.

As I have been saying for years, religious conservatives are wrong if they think that many elite journalists are anti-religion. That’s a simplistic thing to say. Many journalists believe that there are good religious people and bad religious people and that one of the duties of the press is to advocate for the views of the good religious people. Journalists get to tell us which doctrines are true and which ones are false.


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

Start of a new year: Stories and trends to watch for on the Catholic beat in 2020

, , , , , , , , , , ,

There are no shortage of religion stories, but you already knew that. You wouldn’t be here — and we wouldn’t be doing this — if you also didn’t think so.

This time of year brings with it pieces looking back on the biggest stories of the year. It’s also a time to look ahead. The coming year will certainly be a busy one once again for journalists who cover Catholicism, Pope Francis and the church’s hierarchy.

The pontiff already made his claim for newsmaker of 2019 (and 2020) after a bizarre incident on New Year’s Eve that included slapping the hand of a woman who grabbed him in St. Peter’s Square in the same evening where he denounced domestic violence against women. The video went viral to start 2020 as the pope apologized for the incident on New Year’s Day.

With that, here are six of the biggest storylines and trends journalists need to watch for in 2020: 

The 2020 presidential election: Yes, there will be another presidential election this November. That means politics will dominate the news cycle and our everyday conversations. Yes, even more than it already has the past few years. Trump and the digital age has wrought news overload — even with coverage of religion news. Look for reporters to cover religion a lot, if the news is linked to the president and his Democratic challengers.

How Catholics vote will be a big storyline throughout the primaries and in the general election.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

Yet more synagogue and church shootings and a farewell (kind of) to arms from Julia

, , ,

It is that time of year again when I’m listening to Lutheran Public Radio’s Christmas music, lighting candles for Hanukkah (wanted to teach the kiddo what that is all about) and reflecting on the end of the year. This year is different in that my nearly five-year stint with GetReligion comes to an end with this post.

You may have already seen Tmatt’s writing on the changes afoot and while much is still up in the air, funding is tight, so I will be moving on.

I’ll miss the breaking news, of which there’s been plenty over this weekend, all of it sad, unfortunately. Not only were people stabbed at an innocent Hanukkah celebration Saturday night at a rabbi’s house just outside of New York but two people were killed Sunday at a Fort Worth church by a gunman who killed two churchgoers before security shot him dead. Our own Bobby Ross wrote this about the Texas carnage.

One weird factoid concerned the first attacker’s weapon. He was using a sword (or very long knife) instead of a gun. What was up about that? And why have recent attacks against Jews been carried out by blacks? This Jerusalem Post editorial explains why black anti-Semitism is the new boogyman that no one wants to name.

About the shootings in Texas, what if the attack had taken place in a zip code where people -– in this case the security team at the church — aren’t as likely to carry guns? Would there be a lot more dead? And why that church?

I’ve been asking such questions for four years and 10 months now. I was teaching journalism in Fairbanks and the snow was still deep on the ground in February 2015 when Tmatt asked if I’d join the team on March 1. I’d never blogged professionally before, so it was a steep learning curve figuring out the intricacies of Squarespace, how to attract readers and how to operate while four time zones behind the other writers. I am grateful that Tmatt burnished off a lot of the rough pieces in my copy, especially when I was frequently up past midnight doing posts. One gets the late-breaking news when posting from Alaska.

Now I am merely three zones behind most of the GetReligion team, with whom it’s been a pleasure to work with and compare notes and observations of America and the world’s wild and crazy religion scene. Reporting is often such a lonely occupation, so I have really enjoyed the camaraderie.

My daughter and I now live in the Seattle area and one of my assignments was to monitor religion coverage west of the Rockies which, unfortunately, is as sparse as ever.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Read all about it: After nearly a decade, GetReligion contributor transitions to a new role

, , , ,

Well, this is it.

Sort of.

After nearly a decade of contributing to GetReligion — some 1,500 posts in all — this is my last official one in my old role of writing four posts a week.

In the new year, I’ll be transitioning to a new role writing a weekly column for Religion Unplugged, an online news magazine funded by TheMediaProject.org. My move coincides with the downsizing of GetReligion that editor Terry Mattingly announced a few weeks ago. Basically, tmatt will be doing GetReligion part-time again, like in the old days, operating in a partnership with the Overby Center at the University of Mississippi. Familiar names will still be here, only in smaller roles.

But here’s the good news (or the bad, depending on one’s perspective): I’ll still be around. GetReligion and Religion Unplugged share some content, and tmatt plans to republish my new column here. I’ll share a bit more about that column in a moment.

First, though, some reflection: I was a GetReligion reader before I became a GetReligion contributor. In 2010, I heard that GetReligion was looking for someone with Godbeat experience to write a few posts a week. Before joining The Christian Chronicle, I had served as religion editor at The Oklahoman and covered religion for The Associated Press. Plus, I loved GetReligion’s emphasis on informed, balanced coverage of religion news. So I emailed tmatt to express my interest.


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

(Final) Friday Five: 2019 top posts, Galli vs. Trump, 'Olive, come out,' casino priest, holy crop duster

, , , , , , ,

Every week in Friday Five (and if you missed the news, this is the last one), we’ve highlighted GetReligion’s most-clicked post of the previous seven days. We’ll do that again this time.

But since it’s the end of the year, I thought readers also might be interested in knowing about some of our most popular posts of the entire year.

Our No. 1 most popular post of the year — and it wasn’t close — was Clemente Lisi’s viral April 15 commentary titled “If churches keep getting vandalized in France, should American news outlets cover the story?”

At No. 2: Julia Duin’s May 10 analysis headlined “Catholic student gunned down in Colorado; few reporters ask crucial questions about shooters.”

Among other contributors, Editor Terry Mattingly’s top post was his May 21 reflection that “Tim Conway was a kind soul, with a gentle sense of humor. Maybe his faith played a role in that?” Richard Ostling got his most clicks with his April 20 explainer “Regarding Israel and the End Times, what is Dispensationalism? What is the rapture?” My top post was my May 29 piece “When it comes to Alex Trebek's 'mind-boggling' cancer recovery, have prayers really helped?”

Now, let’s dive into the (final) Friday Five:


Please respect our Commenting Policy