Journalism

, , , , , , , , , , ,

A priest is a priest is a priest: Do editors need to include church labels in headlines?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

If you know anything about how newsrooms work, then you know — as your GetReligionistas often stress — that reporters do not write the headlines that top their stories.

Now, add to that fact another sad reality: Many readers never make it past the headline when they are scanning a newspaper. Then there are readers who struggle to make sense of a story that — in their eyes — seems to clash with the contents of the headline.

All of this underlines the importance of copy-desk pros writing good headlines.

This brings me to a recent story here in East Tennessee that ticked off a GetReligion reader. I mention this topic because the “mistake” made in this case is one that readers ask me about rather frequently. At the heart of this issue is a simple fact: When most Americans (and some journalists fall into this category) see the word “priest,” they automatically assume that this is a reference to a Roman Catholic priest.

In this case, the headline pointed toward events that could have painful and even fatal consequences. Thus, the stakes were high in this particular headline, which stated:

Infected Chattanooga priest may have exposed others to coronavirus, church says

Now, if you read the actual Knoxville News Sentinel story, the confusion was cleared up quickly — by the second paragraph.

A Chattanooga priest who has tested positive for COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus, may have inadvertently exposed others when he officiated a wedding, served communion and led a staff meeting, his church announced. …

Father Brad Whitaker, rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Chattanooga, fell ill shortly after returning from a conference held by the Consortium of Endowed Episcopal Parishes, the church said in a statement. At least six people who attended the conference, which ran from Feb. 19-22 in Louisville, Kentucky, have since tested positive for COVID-19, according to the consortium.

So the basic question is this: How many people read that headline and assumed this was a Catholic priest?


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

The quest for religion and science coverage of COVID-19 -- in the same news report

, , , , , , , ,

We are living in surreal times.

The world as we knew it just over a week ago has been brought to a halt by the COVID-19 pandemic. After the virus devastated China’s Wuhan province, it spread to Europe and now the rest of the world. Our daily lives have been disrupted in a way never seen in our lifetimes.

I have for weeks been concerned about the virus. Most of my family lives in Italy, a nation hard hit by it. My many uncles and aunts — all 65 and older and therefore more at-risk of dying — have not left their homes after the government imposed a national lockdown. What has happened in Italy and now the rest of Europe could certainly happen in the United States.

There has been some very good journalism being done. My go-to sources for news have been The Associated Press and The New York Times. For broader context and commentary have been valuable resources such as The Atlantic and The Economist. We must give these journalists praise and thanks for the long hours they have been putting in to inform us all. In a time where misinformation can lead to death, the press should be largely lauded for their efforts. I can tell you, as someone who covered a massive event like the Sept. 11 attacks and its aftermath, that newsrooms are in overdrive at this moment and will be for months.

While the aforementioned four media outlets — and the countless others — have done an exceptional job covering the pandemic, so have Catholic news organizations. For those across the Catholic doctrinal spectrum, the religious press has also done a wonderful job covering COVID-19 from a faith perspective. EWTN, with its TV and radio broadcasts as well as digital media, has done a wonderful job.

In particular, Catholic News Agency has updated readers with a constant stream of stories over the past few weeks.

The mainstream press, other than focusing on churches going remote during this time of social distancing (and the usual questions about Holy Communion from a “common cup”), hasn’t bothered much with the religion angle.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Click-bait headlines about Pope Francis and coronavirus nothing to sneeze at

, , , , ,

The coronavirus has brought with it concern and panic across the world, especially after cases were detected outside of China the past two weeks. Aside from China, the other country severely impacted by the outbreak has been Italy.

During his weekly general audience that coincided with Ash Wednesday, the pope reduced his contact with pilgrims in St. Peter's Square, shaking hands with only a few people. The pope then circled the square in the popemobile, blessing them from a distance.

At the end of his audience, the pope assured all those affected by the coronavirus of his closeness and prayers. He said his prayers were also with the health care professionals and public officials who were working hard to help patients and stop the spread of the disease.

This is where the coronavirus, also known as COVID-19, stops being solely a health story and crosses into religion reporting, especially when you throw in the Vatican, Pope Francis and the Lenten season. Paramount here on the part of journalists is not to incite fear — but to report the facts.

Here’s a fact: Pope Francis, a day after shaking hands with the faithful on Ash Wednesday, did not get coronavirus, something the Vatican confirmed on Tuesday. The latest is that he is recovering from what the Vatican is calling a cold, forcing him to bail on a prescheduled week-long Lenten retreat.

You wouldn’t necessarily know all this from reading Twitter or Reddit, forums where conspiracy theories run amok.

People posted all kinds of misinformation the following day once the Vatican announced the pope had a cold and was altering his public schedule.


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

UPDATE: CNN sort of repents on 'fetus' language in story about Senate born-alive bill

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Year after year, debates about abortion continue to raise questions about ethics, politics, morality and science — as well as arguments about language and style in journalism.

The latest, of course, focuses on the legal status of a baby that is born accidentally — perhaps during a botched abortion — as opposed to being delivered intentionally. If you think that is a relatively black-and-white issue, then talk to Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam. Meanwhile, what role should the beliefs of doctors and parents, secular or religious, play in this discussion?

Some readers may flinch because I used the term “baby” in that previous paragraph. However, in this case we are discussing the status of a human being who has already been born. Meanwhile, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary continues to define “fetus” as:

[Click to the next page for update on this post.]


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

Mainstream press misses backstory of why Francis has (for now) vetoed married clergy

, , , , , , , , , ,

Pope Francis — a week after the dust settled from his decision not to create an Amazonian rite that would have allowed married men to serve as priests and women as deacons — continues to garner news coverage as Catholic progressives and traditionalists debate what it all means.

The mainstream press, often too concerned with propping up Francis’ progressive bona fides, has largely not reported on why the pope decided to go the way he did. The factors that resulted in the pope’s decision came from a variety of camps inside the church. And what about this question: Did conservatives in the Vatican hierarchy, led by Cardinal Robert Sarah (helped by the recent intervention of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), raise enough concerns to tip the decision in their favor?

The Amazonian rite, however, was never only just about South America. The pope’s decision could have had global ramifications. The tug-of-war mostly involves German bishops pushing the pope to allow all clergy to marry (along with other changes in discipline and doctrine), while on the other is conservative prelates warning against doing away with the 1,000-year church tradition.

Once again, much of the backstory behind Francis’ decision can be learned from reading the religious press, both Catholics on the doctrinal left and right.

The mainstream press largely missed these angles, meaning readers had to delve really deep into internet news sources (with help from social media) to get analysis of how Francis reached his decision and whether the issue of married clergy/women deacons will rage on.

In the end, much to the chagrin of the mainstream press, Francis decided in favor of Catholic orthodoxy and tradition. What the mainstream press saw, but failed to report, was the Francis defies typical contemporary political categories.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Listen to Yogi Berra! Flashback to previous New York Times religion-beat puzzle

, , , ,

It’s one of the major challenges of writing for GetReligion.

What are we supposed to do when major news organizations make the same error over and over or professionals leave the same religion-shaped holes in major stories? Are we supposed to write the same posts over and over?

Actually, what we usually do is write new posts about the new errors and link back to the old posts, thus, noting that what we are hearing are echoes of the old errors.

Yesterday, Julia Duin wrote that kind of post — but with a major difference. She noted that a new job notice for a New York Times religion-beat reporter (hurrah for the creation of that national beat slot) contains some strange language that we have heard before (as in a 2017 Times job notice for a similar religion-news job).

In other words, it’s time to quote Yogi Berra — again. In this case I would like to do something that I have never done before, which is re-up my entire post from two years ago about that earlier Times job search. By doing this — especially one day after the new Duin post — I am trying to stress how important it is that Times editors use this hire to address their national religion-news concerns in a way that reflects the symbolic role their newsroom plays in American journalism.

So here we go. Back to 2017.

Readers: Feel free to use our comments pages to offer your views on this journalism puzzle.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

Here we go again: The New York Times can't admit it needs theologically astute writers

, , ,

Early last week, the New York Times posted an ad for a national correspondent for its religion, faith and values beat. It was part of a trifecta of hires of reporters *not* based in the Big Apple. One position is for someone to cover rural communities. Another is for someone to cover suburbs in a fast-growing place like Phoenix or Las Vegas.

It’s great that they’re trying to get out of the New York-Washington echo chamber. The rural areas job is especially intriguing.

These job postings are aimed at areas where the Times’ coverage is lacking. We all know the Times doesn’t get religion. Here are the quotes from executive editor Dean Baquet saying just that.

Here’s the job posting for a national correspondent covering religion, faith and values:

We are seeking an ambitious correspondent to explore the ways that religion and faith shape American life. This reporter, who must be a team player and expressive writer, should be relentlessly curious and offer readers fresh perspectives on belief and spirituality, and the shifting nature of faith in a country where a record number of Americans count themselves as nonreligious. You should have a record of creativity, boldness and breaking stories thanks to your deep sourcing.

This correspondent won’t need to be an expert in religious doctrine but should demonstrate a willingness to understand and empathize with diverse communities in their reporting. Only applicants eager to live outside of New York and Washington and to travel extensively around the country should apply.

So, what sentence there jumps out at you? How about this phrase: “This correspondent won’t need to be an expert in religious doctrine. …”

Like, this writer need not understand the Nicene Creed, which forms the base of worldwide Christian belief? Or why Orthodox Christians have major differences with the filioque phrase at the end? (More basically, shouldn’t this writer know what the filioque is?)


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

Election-year coverage should focus on Catholics as being ‘politically homeless'

, , , , , , , , , , ,

We’re a month into 2020 and, as expected, it is a year where the presidential election will dominate news coverage. In dominating the news, politics is also — like it or not — the prism in which journalists look at most other issues in society. That includes news about entertainment, economics, sports and, yes, religion.

A few things happened in January that have set the mood for the Iowa caucuses that took place Monday, the official start of the primary season. One of the biggest took place about 1,000 miles east of Des Moines, in Philadelphia, when Archbishop Charles Chaput was replaced by Nelson Perez.

The decision by Pope Francis, although ultimately not a surprising one, was largely portrayed in the mainstream press as the replacement of a conservative cleric with a largely progressive one. In other words, discussions of doctrine were framed and discussed in political terms.

This is how The New York Times framed the decision:

Archbishop Chaput, who was appointed to the position by Pope Benedict XVI in 2011, has long been known as a theological and political conservative, often at odds with Francis’ mission to move beyond the culture wars dominated by sexual politics.

Francis recently acknowledged that a good deal of the opposition to his pontificate emanated from the United States, telling a reporter who handed him a book exploring the well-financed and media-backed American effort to undermine his agenda that it was “an honor that the Americans attack me.”

Archbishop Chaput’s departure was expected, as he had offered his resignation to Pope Francis when he turned 75 in September. Church law requires every bishop to tender his resignation at that age, but the pope can choose not to accept it, often allowing prelates to remain in office for several more years.

In this case, the pope did not wait long before saying yes.

A theological and political conservative. Really?

Theological absolutely if you mean Chaput upheld the teachings of the church. The accuracy of this political judgement is up for debate. Is a Catholic a political “conservative” if he backs Catholic doctrines on the death penalty, abortion, marriage, immigration and other hot-button issues?


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

Reporters digging (or failing to do so) into the complicated Catholicism of Rudy Giuliani

, , , , , , , ,

President Donald Trump’s impeachment is underway in the U.S. Senate, something that has dominated news coverage in recent days and will continue to do so.

While Trump is at the center of the Senate trial, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is a key figure in all of this as well. Once called “America’s mayor” for the leadership he exhibited after the 9/11 attacks, Giuliani served as Trump’s personal lawyer and, according to evidence compiled by Democrats, is responsible for the alleged shenanigans involving Ukraine and the request for an investigation into Joe Biden and his family.

Giuliani is a complicated figure. A lot has been written about him over the past three decades — some good, but also plenty of bad — regarding the impact he had as mayor all the way to the present day. While his politics and tactics are rightly scrutinized, a lot of information linked to his private life is often glossed over. Among the largest things that has been ignored is Rudy’s faith.

The pros at The New York Times Magazine, in a cover story this past Sunday, featured a cartoon of Giuliani under the headline: “The Fog of Rudy: Did he change — or did America?” The piece tried to dig into Giuliani’s mind — with the help of responses to 65 statements the former mayor provided in writing — and why populism has taken over the current body politic.

In a way, the piece is reminiscent of another Times feature — this one on media mogul Rupert Murdoch last year — where religion (again Catholicism) seemed to be missing (tmatt took on the subject in a blog post).

This Giuliani piece by Jonathan Mahler also lacked religion — although two of Giuliani’s answers did include his Catholic faith. Mahler did include them as footnotes (as he did with all of the former mayor’s quotes), but largely ignored them in his news feature that read more like an opinion essay.

This was a lost opportunity to examine the complicated crossroads between politics and faith that has dominated Giuliani’s public life.


Please respect our Commenting Policy