Journalism

, , , , , , , , , , ,

'Catholics are under attack': Is it a valid news story if a U.S. senator claims this is true?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Is it news if a sitting United States senator pens a letter to the U.S. Justice Department?

It depends on a number of factors. Let’s also say that the letter in question is made public by the senator’s communications department via the Internet and on social media. Is it a news story then?

This depends, of course, on what the letter says and whether it is connected to facts that journalists can seek out and report — if they are willing to do so.

Is the story linked to nasty political partisanship? Does it involve President Donald Trump? Does it involve religion, sex and maybe even money?

This post isn’t some esoteric exercise in press freedom or news judgement. It’s about something real that is plaguing the national press in this country at this very critical moment in time.

A letter of this very kind was written and made public on August 11 by Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy (no relation to the Kennedy’s of JFK and Massachusetts fame). The letter in question had nothing to do with Russian election interference or the disappearance of mail boxes. Those topics would have been covered immediately and extensively.

Instead, the letter was about the surge in vandalism targeting Catholic churches and statues, a story that the vast majority of pros in the national press (as I have noted in this space before) have ignored. The reasons for that vary greatly, but my best hypothesis is that it just doesn’t resonate among secular newsroom editors and reporters who don’t have a high regard for Catholics or religion in general in the importance in the lives of everyday Americans.


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

Washington Post ponders the future of Sen. Tim Scott (all but avoiding the word 'Christian')

, , , , , , , , ,

Let’s see, am I at liberty — after a week of big-time PTL scandal flashbacks — to discuss a completely different kind of religion story?

I have not been watching the major-party political conventions (for mental-health reasons, let’s say), but I have been spending a few moments watching reactions on Twitter. I tend to prefer baseball over the live visuals of advocacy media slugfests.

I saved a few links to materials about the interfaith strategies of the Democrats. I also looked for signs of the role that issues of religion and culture could play in the post-Donald Trump GOP. And in that context, I looked at some of the quotes from the short speech by U.S. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.

It’s obvious why this man once considered going to seminary. He’s a fine orator and has a knack for making references to Christianity in ways that are more graceful than, well, posing with a Bible for news cameras. It’s impossible to dig into Scott’s career without paying serious attention to his faith.

However, a recent lengthy Washington Post Magazine profile of Scott came close to doing just that. Here’s the epic double-decker headline:

The Burden of Tim Scott

As the only Black GOP senator, he has walked a delicate line between schooling his colleagues — and the president — on matters of race and remaining silent. Has that helped his political future?

I understand that this was a political piece and that Scott is tiptoeing through the Trump-Twitter era. The long opening anecdote in about Scott asking the president to take down the infamous “white power” tweet is totally justified.

However, to be blunt, I think that the word “Christian” should have been just as important in this long, long story as the word “token.” Read it all and see what you think. I think this story would have been completely different, if a religion-beat pro had been asked to take part in the reporting or editing.

So here is the political angle that is at the heart of this story:


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

Catholic news outlets reporting on church vandalism when mainstream media won't

, , , , , , , , , ,

This endless summer ravaged by political divisions, civil unrest and statue-toppling (did we mention there’s also a deadly virus out there!) has made for a very busy time in journalism. For news sites, this deluge of events to report on has meant long hours for remote-working staffs who have also had to endure furloughs and layoffs in a worsening economy.

We live in a culture hijacked by politics.

It has become exhausting to follow the news (especially via social media) because of this political prism through which everything is now viewed. It has become our country’s new religion for millions.

As mainstream news outlets increasingly abandon objectivity and transition into advocacy, some very important stories and trends never get to readers. The internet has fueled “filter bubbles” and newspapers transitioning to digital rely increasingly on subscribers (as a business model) and less on general readers. It also helps spread misinformation. For example, a new Pew study revealed that people who get their news through social media actually knew less.

That means editors now give readers want they want to read (often reporting on the unchecked assertions of lawmakers within their bubble), rather than presenting an unbiased view of what happened. At the same time, the tech companies got an earful from Republicans who argued that giants like Facebook and Amazon for “empowering” people who “traffic in hate” against religion.

While the mainstream press failed to focus on this angle of the hearing (see tmatt’s post from and podcast), Timothy Nerozzi, writing at Religion Unplugged (where I also regularly contribute news articles, commentary and reviews), didn’t. This is how he started his news story:

During an hours-long antitrust hearing in Congress July 29 with CEOs of Amazon, Facebook, Google and other tech companies, Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) accused Amazon and Facebook of “empowering” people who “traffic in hate” against mainstream American religions.

Gaetz called out Jeff Bezos specifically during the hearing, accusing him of unknowingly partnering with institutions that hold intolerance towards religious charities and foundations.

“I am not accusing you as someone who would ever traffic in hate,” Gaetz said. “But, it seems that you have empowered people who do. And I’m particularly talking about the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a legal non-profit founded in 1971 that describes itself as “dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society.” The SPLC has faced backlash in recent years for perceived overeagerness in designating individuals and organizations as “extremist.”

Gaetz continued, “The Southern Poverty Law Center, who you allow to dictate who can receive donations on your Amazon Smile platform, has said the Catholic Family News, Catholic Family Ministries, Federation for American Immigration Reform, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, the Jewish Defense League, and even Dr. Ben Carson are extremists, and should be treated differently.”

Why go into all this?


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

People keep asking: Why does press say 'religious left,' as opposed to 'Religious Left'?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
People keep asking: Why does press say 'religious left,' as opposed to 'Religious Left'?

Every now and then, readers — or people I meet in daily life — ask this question: Why do journalists write so much about the Religious Right (capital letters), while devoting way less digital ink to the actions, policies and beliefs of the religious left (no capital letters).

That is a complex question and you can hear me struggling with it all the way through this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). The hook for this episode was my post that ran with this headline: “Thinking with David Briggs and Ryan Burge: Whoa, is religious left really on rise (again)?”

For starters, people tend to ask this question every four or eight years (hint, hint), when the mainstream press does another round of stories about the religious left surging into action in an attempt to counterbalance the nasty Religious Right.

The Religious Right, you see, exists all the time — because it is one of the largest camps inside the modern Republican Party. The religious left doesn’t play the same role in the Democratic Party, unless we are talking about the importance of politically (as opposed to doctrinally) liberal black-church leaders in strategic primary elections. You can ask Joe Biden about that this time around.

I guess the simple answer to the “RR” vs. “rl” question is that journalists tend to capitalize the names of groups that they see as major political or social movements — like the Civil Rights movement or the Sexual Revolution.

The religious left, you see, isn’t a “movement” that exists all the time — in my experience — for many mainstream journalists. The religious left is just ordinary, good, liberal religious people doing things that are positive and logical in the eyes of gatekeepers in newsrooms. This is “good” religion.

The Religious Right, on the other hand, is a powerful political movement consisting of strange, scary evangelicals who keep coming out of the rural backwoods to threaten normal life in American cities. This is “bad,” even dangerous, religion.

Now, there is another big irony linked to press coverage of progressive forms of faith.


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

What's a hot take on Israel worth? Depends on one's media celebrity status (Hello Seth Rogen)

, , , , , , , , ,

How do you tell the difference between a Jewish pessimist and a Jewish optimist?

Easy. The pessimist says, “Things just can’t get any worse. The optimist says, “Sure they can.”

Well, they certainly have — as far as the fraught connection between Israel and liberal American Jews goes.

The latest stressor is a predictably nasty media exchange over high-profile liberal commentator Peter Beinart’s recent declaration that he no longer backs a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A single bi-national, or perhaps a confederated, state, said Beinart, is the best remaining equitable option. This, he concluded, is because of Israel’s deeply entrenched West Bank settlement project. Further undermining the two-state option, he said, is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s threat to annex much of the occupied West Bank that Palestinians want to include in their own independent state.

Beinart detailed his thoughts in this New York Times oped and, in much greater detail, in this Jewish Currents essay.

For liberal Jews — who have long argued that two independent states coexisting side by side, one Jewish-run and one Palestinian, is the best and only realistic option — Beinart’s abandonment of full Jewish nationhood was nothing less than Zionist heresy.

Naturally, given today’s insatiable 24/7 media universe — in which all who dare venture are but a tweet away from “woke” fame or “cancel culture” renunciation — the verbal warfare started immediately.

Beinart’s, you may be wondering, is but one voice in a cacophony of voices claiming to know what’s best for Israel-Palestine, so why the fuss? Moreover, he lives in the United States, not Israel, so to what degree does his opinion even matter?

The answer, of course, is his American media prominence. His frequent talking-head appearances, (he’s a CNN regular) and voluminous writings have won him a place in the liberal Zionist media firmament, where he’s long been a harsh critic of Netanyahu and Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. That’s not Hollywood famous, but it’s a start.


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

Podcast: What did those Big Tech hearings have to do with religious life in America?

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

There have been some wild clashes between religious groups and the czars of the Big Tech institutions that have tremendous power in American public discourse. Certainly there have been more important skirmishes than Twitter shutting down that inspirational Tim Tebow mini-sermon the other day.

Many of my friends — as an Orthodox Christian layman — started paying close attention to this issue back in 2015 when a strategic set of cyber-lords informed these believers’ priests, all of a sudden, that they couldn’t put “Father” in front of their names on their Facebook pages.

This was part of a general policy about honorary titles of all kinds. But the title “Father” plays a different role in the lives of people in ancient Christian flocks. It’s not a professional title, it’s a sacramental title.

My own Orthodox godfather — the popular online scribe Father Stephen Freeman — responded by putting “(Father Stephen Freeman)” after his name. Other priests found clever ways to add their identity to the top of their Facebook pages. That, of course, doesn’t help people find their sites with searches for their actual names, including the word “Father.”

Like I said, there have been more consequential clashes between the Big Tech czars and religious believers, but that one was symbolic.

The key is that faith is part of daily life, for millions of folks. These days, social media software has a massive impact on how people live their lives. Thus, Big Tech is a powerful force in the lives of believers and their families. That’s why “Crossroads” host Todd Wilken and I talked about this week’s Big Tech Congressional hearings, during this week’s podcast (click here to tune that in).

So what were these hearings all about? Apparently, the answer to that question depended on one’s political ties. As I wrote the other day:

Democrats have their own reasons to be concerned about Big Tech, whose clout in the lives of modern Americans make the railroad tycoons of the Gilded Age look like minor-league players. These companies, after all, resemble digital public utilities more than mere Fortune 500 powerhouses.

Meanwhile, you know that — at some point — Republicans are going to roll out a long list of cases of viewpoint discrimination against cultural, moral, religious and — oh yeah — political conservatives.

So what happened, when the mainstream press covered the Hill showdown with the glowing digital images of Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google’s Sundar Pichai, Apple’s Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos of Amazon and The Washington Post?


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

Old 'liberal' views of the New York Times news bubble -- one from left, one from right

, , , , , , , , , ,

It’s been awhile since Bari Weiss of The New York Times wrote That. Resignation. Letter. to publisher A.G. Sulzberger, but I am still thinking about what she wrote and some of the published reactions.

Yes, I wish someone would leak some Times newsroom Slack discussions about the aftermath. As always, I am more interested in what is happening in the newsroom, as opposed to the offices of the editorial-page staff (click here for the GetReligion podcast post on that subject).

Two commentary pieces jumped out of the swirling online mix, for me, in the days after that firestorm. I often read lots of material on the cultural left and then on the cultural right and look for thoughts that overlap.

With that in mind, let me recommend this piece by Jodi Rudoren, who is editor in chief of The Forward, a progressive Jewish publication. Rudoren spent more than two decades at the Times.

It’s safe to say that she worked there during — to frame this in terms of the Weiss letter — the era of the “old orthodoxy,” which was basically old liberalism, to one degree or another. The Times was a culturally liberal workplace, but it was not — at least not deliberately — trying to preach its gospel to readers. Now there is a “new orthodoxy” on the rise in America’s most influential newsroom.

Thus, the headline for Rudoren’s piece: “I don’t recognize the NYT that Bari Weiss quit.”

By all means, read all of that piece. But here is a crucial chunk of that, which starts with a discussion of the forced resignation of editorial page editor James Bennet after the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s essay calling for the use of U.S. military troops to quell violent protests. Rudoren writes:

I found the argument that publishing the OpEd endangered anyone’s life to be specious, though it was repeated by many of my former colleagues on Twitter; I thought that organized, open revolt violated every code of collegiality; and I worried that the paper was cowering from its historic role as the host of raucous but respectful debate.


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

Sports Illustrated gets theological in its slam-job on Giants pitcher who would not kneel

, , , , , , , ,

As a rule, editors and writers at major sports publications rarely make spiritual judgements about the actions of professional athletes.

This are not, however, ordinary times in America and, apparently, journalists have decided all bets are off when it comes to damning those who are not woke.

I am referring to that controversial — and quietly evolving — Sports Illustrated story that ran with the following headline (which needed three decks of type to pack everything in):

Giants’ Sam Coonrod Explains Not Kneeling for Moment of Unity: ‘I’m a Christian’

In Friday’s Hot Clicks: a Giants pitcher hides behind his religion. …

Taking a stand against inequality shouldn’t be controversial

First things first, let me note that — as an old-school First Amendment liberal — I have no problem with players kneeling whenever they want to kneel.

One could make a case that players who kneel during the national anthem are showing respect, which is one interpretation of kneeling in other circumstances. Some have said that they are praying, while they kneel. They could kneel and recite batting averages and I would back their right to do so. The same thing goes for players who choose not to kneel. I’m pro-free speech, including symbolic speech.

But back to the theological judgements woven into that SI piece about Coonrod, which was written by Dan Gartland — who is identified as a writer/editor on LinkedIn. I mention that because I could find no evidence that he is a columnist who is paid to make editorial comments about players and the games they play. Then again, that’s old-school journalism talk.

Doing a critique of this piece is complicated by the fact that there are two versions to discuss — the original and the edited version that has quietly take its place. There are screen shots and Twitter comments that capture some of the original wording.

However, the key phrase remains in the headline, at least the one I copied as I started work on this post. I’m referring to the “hides behind his religion” wisecrack.


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

Got bias? Pompeo gave a 'divisive' speech, which implies two kinds of insiders were divided

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

Let’s just say that I saw — in social media and in personal emails — two very different kinds of comments about the recent speech that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered on the subject of human rights.

Quite a few people, as always, wanted to argue about the contents of the speech itself, especially its urgent emphasis on religious freedom. That’s understandable, in light of waves of images coming out of China of blindfolded Uighur Muslims being shipped off to training camps.

Others were upset about the nature of the relatively short New York Times report about the speech, which ran with this rather blunt lede:

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a divisive speech … calling for the United States to ground its human rights policy more prominently in religious liberty and property rights.

To cut to the chase, some folks were upset by the inclusion of the word “divisive,” saying that this was a loaded, biased word to use in a lede framing the contents of a hard-news story.

Meanwhile, I was actually intrigued by the word “divisive” for a rather different reason, one directly linked to debates about objectivity and fairness in journalism.

You see, if a speech is “divisive” that would imply that people who heard the speech were divided, in terms of their views of its contents. It’s hard to cover a “divisive” speech without presenting accurate, fair-minded content about the views of people on both sides of that divide. Does that make sense?

The problem with the Times peace — #DUH — is that it contains zero input from people who support the views presented by Pompeo and, thus, would be willing to provide information and input that would explain the speech from their point of view.

Maybe this is one of those cases in which there was only one point of view worth quoting, in terms of reacting to Sec. Pompeo’s words?


Please respect our Commenting Policy