Journalism

, ,

Despite a successful first-ever online conference, RNA is losing money -- badly

, ,

For an event that included six panels featuring more than 30 speakers of all shapes, sizes and colors of the faith rainbow for the benefit of 123 journalists, the two-day event went off amazingly well.

The one downside was a sobering report on the dwindling finances of the RNA. More on that in a moment.

Overseeing the event was RNA’s COO, Tiffany McCallen, who –- with one helper doing tech assistance -– was running the affair from a location near Columbus, Ohio that had excellent internet. I was on the conference committee, so was privy to some of the immense amount of planning needed to stage the event. In addition to panels on everything from race to the mental health of clergy during the COVID-19 era, there were “green rooms” for new members, those who wanted to do karaoke and a virtual bar. The latter was a salute to former days when RNA’ers would gather in a hotel room after the awards banquet and load up on liquor.

The virtual event was much tamer, believe me.

I helped plan the first panel of the conference, which was on whether churches, temples or synagogues should be considered “essential services” that should not be shut because of COVID-19. Robert Tyler, a lawyer who has represented many California congregations that wish to remain open, told us that because religious services aren’t available, suicide calls went up 800% in one part of Los Angeles County.

Other panelists talked about how problematic it is to try singing in a mask, even though public singing seems to be one of the chief way COVID-19 is transmitted. “It’s not about essential or non-essential,” said Rabbi Yoshi Zweiback of the Stephen Wise Temple in Bel Air, Calif., another panelist. “It’s about keeping people safe.” Not surprisingly, he added, “The national leadership on this has been terrible.”

The most humorous of the speakers was the Rev. Alvin Gwynn, Sr., a Baltimore pastor who ordered police out of his church when they tried to stop services last spring. The officials were so confused as to what was and was not allowed, Gwynn had to call the governor’s office to get a straight answer.

Following this was a panel on clergy health, where unfortunately only six minutes was left for questions from journalists. The moderator seemed mystified as to how to work Zoom, meaning most of our questions in the queue never got posed. The panel, which featured an imam from Memphis, a rabbi from Atlanta and care coordinator at a Christian counseling center in Lancaster, Pa., was quite diverse. Fortunately, the rabbi, Pamela Gottfried, did speak to one of the topics under discussion: Whether people are leaving their congregations because of the coronavirus.

The short answer: Yes.


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

Debate prep for journalists: Here are some 'Catholic questions' for Biden and Trump

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The election season goes into hyperdrive this month with the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and his Democratic challenger Joe Biden that will take place tomorrow in Cleveland.

Since the first presidential debate in 1960, and their resumption in 1976, the format has generally been the same: candidates answer questions posed to them from a moderator.

The first debate will be held on the campus shared by Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic. The nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates has announced that Fox News anchor Chris Wallace will moderate. Wallace, a respected journalist and son of 60 Minutes legend Mike Wallace, is known for his tough questions and being fair. The president is not fond of him, to say the least.

As with anything involving Trump, expect fireworks.

That’s always the case when Trump takes the stage. Trump’s debate performance during the Republican primaries four years ago got the real estate scion the nomination in a very crowded field that included contenders like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio, both Catholics.

As early voting continues across the country and debate intensifies over replacing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, this first debate will be key for those undecided voters, especially ones living in battleground states that matter when it comes to the Electoral College. While the debate — the first of three between the Trump and the former vice president — will shed light on the policy and ideological differences between these two men, there will be virtually no questions regarding religion.

Pew Research put together a wonderful list of facts recently about Catholic voters in this country. It’s a resource journalists need to bookmark and filled with data that should be included in news stories, but rarely is these days. Biden is seeking to become just the second Roman Catholic president in U.S. history after John F. Kennedy in 1960.

While Catholics backed JFK 50 years ago, there is been a seismic shift in recent decades.

The various kinds of “Catholic voters” (click here for GetReligion post on that term) are a big deal in this election cycle for both Trump and Biden.

The president has already harnessed the power of four Catholics groups to help him win reelection. The former vice president, meanwhile, is trying to attract them after naming three dozen “Catholics for Biden” co-chairs. Aside from what the campaigns out out, journalists need to be on the lookout for other resources on what questions are relevant for these voters, this time around.


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

New podcast: Why is the 'handmaid' image so important in Amy Coney Barrett coverage?

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

The question for the week appears to be: Are you now, or have you ever been, a charismatic Catholic?

In a land in which citizens are divided just as much by entertainment as they are by their religious and political choices, that question leads directly to cable television and a certain blue-zip-code hit focusing on, to quote IMDB, this story hook: “Set in a dystopian future, a woman is forced to live as a concubine under a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship.”

This leads us to the word “handmaid” and strained efforts by some — repeat “some” — journalists to attach it to the life and faith of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. This topic was, of course, discussed at length during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). How could we avoid it?

It’s crucial to know that the word “handmaid” has radically different meanings for members of two radically different flocks of Americans.

For Catholics and other traditional Christians, this term is defined by its use in the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke, during this encounter between Mary and the Angel Gabriel. This is long, but essential:

… The angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. …For with God nothing shall be impossible.

And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

In this context, the word refers to a “female servant.” However, its use in Christian tradition has, for 2,000 years, been linked directly to St. Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Now, let’s move to mass media, where the Urban Dictionary defines the term as:


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

Speaking of people being praised: New York Times offered solid, old-school story about Barrett

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

Guess what? Judge Amy Coney Barrett is being considered, once again, for an open chair at the Supreme Court, the only branch of the United States government that seems to matter in this tense and divided land.

The odds are good that you have read about this development in the national press or even in the few remaining pages of your local newspaper.

We all know what this means, in terms of press coverage. Many of the same reporters who are perfectly comfortable calling Joe Biden a “devout” Catholic — while his actions clash with church doctrines on marriage and sex — are going to spill oceans of digital ink warning readers about the dangerous dogmas that dwell loudly in the heart and mind of Barrett. I am following all of that in social media and elsewhere.

However, let me start these discussions with a post that might surprise many readers. I would like to praise the recent New York Times story that ran with this headline: “To Conservatives, Barrett Has ‘Perfect Combination’ of Attributes for Supreme Court.” Also, I think it was wise to have a religion-beat professional take part in reporting and writing this story.

I am sure that combatants on both sides of this debate will find some sections in this story rather troubling. But here is the key point I want to make: Unlike many Times stories in recent years, almost all of this material comes from qualified sources (left and right) whose names are attached to their opinions and the information they provided. There are attribution clauses all over the place, just like in Times of old.

Near the top there is this short summary:

“She is the perfect combination of brilliant jurist and a woman who brings the argument to the court that is potentially the contrary to the views of the sitting women justices,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion political group, who has praised Mr. Trump’s entire shortlist.

The nomination of a judge whom Mr. Trump was quoted last year as “saving” to be Justice Ginsburg’s replacement would almost surely plunge the nation into a bitter and divisive debate over the future of abortion rights, made even more pointed because Judge Barrett would replace a justice who was an unequivocal supporter of those rights. That is a debate Mr. Trump has not shied away from as president, as his judicial appointments and efforts to court conservatives have repeatedly shown.

As you would expect, Barrett’s critics are given plenty of space to respond — which is totally appropriate. It is also good that these voices are clearly identified, along with information about their organizations.

In other words, the story contains evidence of debate on a serious topic in the news.


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

Arizona columnist 'gets' GetReligion, reacting to thin coverage of attacks on Catholic churches

, , , , , , ,
Arizona columnist 'gets' GetReligion, reacting to thin coverage of attacks on Catholic churches

It’s nice, now and then, to read an article that totally “gets” what this website has been trying to do for the past 17 years or so. In this case we are talking about a op-ed feature in the Arizona Daily Star, which is in Tucson, that ran with this headline: “The press and anti-Christian bias.”

Don’t let that blunt statement scare you away. This piece wasn’t written by an angry local preacher. Instead, it was written by Renee Schafer Horton, a veteran journalist and community activist who is one of the newspaper’s regular opinion columnists. Click here for her Renee Wrote This weblog.

She was responding to a recent Clemente Lisi post that ran with this headline: “Catholic news outlets reporting on church vandalism when mainstream media won’t.” Here is the overture for Horton’s piece:

In late July, I received an article from GetReligion.org, a blog by former religion reporters who highlight both well-done and poorly executed religion coverage in the media. The article claimed that there was scant national news coverage of vandalism at U.S. Catholic parishes between July 10 and 16.

This destruction included the beheading of a statue of Jesus at a Miami parish, graffiti on a monument to unborn children at a New York parish, defacements of statues of the Virgin Mary in four different states and a man setting fire to a Florida parish on July 11 while a handful of parishioners were inside getting ready for mass.

I thought GetReligion had gotten it wrong. As a former religion reporter, I have a homing pigeon instinct for Godbeat news, and surely, I thought, if nearly a dozen Catholic churches were attacked in a six-day period, I would have heard about it.

Still, I don’t check my digital subscriptions to national papers every day, so I realized I could have missed the coverage. I did a quick internet search to check the accuracy of GetReligion’s claim.

It was correct.

Literally, the only thing that I would correct in that opening is that most of your GetReligionistas are, to varying degrees, still active as religion-beat specialists, to one degree or another — writing as columnists, freelancers or in the church press. This small team does have quite a bit of experience covering religion news (something like a combined 150 years or so).


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

Catholicism, faith and soccer: Asking some questions about a Messi religion situation

, , , , , , , , , ,

I often joke with friends that the biggest religion in the world is soccer.

Yes, soccer. It’s kind of a combination of worldview, faith and sociology.

Depending what part of the world you hail from, this sport is also known as football, futbol, calcio, futebol and voetbal. But no matter what you call it, soccer is the passion of millions upon millions of people across the globe (including this super fan) and increasingly so in the United States.

Soccer, in my experience, can be — and has been — a very unifying force. No matter where in the world I may be, just mention that you follow soccer almost automatically results in a conversation. I have found that to be true everywhere I’ve been — from South Africa to Brazil to Russia. I have also found taxi drivers everywhere to be among the biggest, and most knowledgable, fans of the world’s most popular sport.

Soccer has many parallels to organized religion, especially Catholicism. Some of the world’s best players hail from majority Catholic nations (although evangelicals and Pentecostals are on the rise in South America).

True believers gather — at least they did before COVID-19 — on Sundays inside massive stadiums (often likened to cathedrals) to cheer on their favorite teams with a fervor unseen in other sports around the world. It also isn’t unusual for soccer players to make the sign of the cross after a goal or when a team records a victory. Despite all these parallels, it is often lost on journalists that religious faith, and how it impacts a particular player or team, has very real resonance to the story and readers.

Take, for example, Lionel Messi. The Barcelona star (who seemed to be on the brink of signing with Manchester City) decided earlier this month to stay in the Spanish city.

In an exclusive interview with Goal.com, Messi outlined why he decided to stay. Here’s what he said:

“My son, my family, they grew up here and are from here. There was nothing wrong with wanting to leave. I needed it, the club needed it and it was good for everyone.

“My wife, with all the pain of her soul, supported and accompanied me.”

This is a time when journalists, sports writers in particular, have little trouble asking public figures questions related to politics. Indeed, this summer has seen leagues across the United States, for example, openly advocate for social justice by wearing Black Lives Matter shirts or refusing to play altogether in order to make a statement about police brutality.

If politics can be something athletes can care about deeply, isn’t faith also one of them?


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

Tips of the trade: How to cover religion news, even if this is not your regular beat

, , , , , , , ,

The National Press Club, like others, is well aware that reporting staffs are shrinking. Thus, full-time religion-beat specialists are considered even more a luxury than usual.

Savvy newspapers will make sure someone cultivates the field at least part-time, as far as feasible. However, managers in too many news shops even neglect that necessity. Magazines are iffy. Radio and TV are even worse off. The Internet is a zoo.

What should writers do when they’re thrown into coverage about religion, which they may know little about -- and perhaps care little about even though sizable chunks of their audiences do care? Some guidance for such drop-ins and greenhorns might also provide good reminders for religion-beat specialists who will share shop talk September 24-25 at the Religion News Association conference (virtually this year). The RNA also posts a wealth of tips and resources on trending topics here at its ReligionLink website.

Religion can be pitfall hell, so The Guy’s No. 1 point is rather obvious, which is to make absolutely certain everything you write is accurate.

Don’t just assume what we think everybody knows. Articles often say the Catholic Church forbids priests to marry. Truth is, Catholicism forbids “most priests” to marry and in “most situations.” But what about the Eastern Rite clergy? Or men who swim the Tiber from Anglicanism?

Or take the respected columnist who stated confidently that whatever the Bible may teach on male homosexuality it says nothing about lesbianism. With a quick phone call or email check, almost any cleric would have cited Romans 1:26 and avoided an embarrassing correction.

The press club’s Journalism Institute helps out with advice from an interview with Elizabeth Dias, a full-time religion correspondent with The New York Times. (The video at the top of this post is a speech on related issues, drawn from her days at Time magazine — where The Guy worked for many years.)

Dias stresses the importance of simply “listening and asking open questions” with sources because the topic at hand “may be the most important part of their lives.” She explains that “religion at its heart is about people, not just ideas” so she spends more time talking with folk than “reading social media commentary.” On the latter point, The Guy would underscore the value of meaty books and articles about the issue at hand. Too much reportage is thinly informed.


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

'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