Get Religion is a national and global journalism site focusing on how the mainstream press covers religion news in politics, entertainment, business and sports.
It’s such a simple thing, I guess, but I love the way Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporter Ann Rodgers previews upcoming religious events. It doesn’t matter what my level of interest is going into one of her stories, I always come away something to think about.
I’m not entirely certain how significant the new Vatican norms are for the treatment of crimes considered to be “most serious” within the Church. But I thought it worth looking at just one example of how the church and the secular media exist in two distinct universes.
A few months ago, we covered the free speech campaign called “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” This was the campaign launched by a Seattle cartoonist who was disappointed in Comedy Central’s censorship of a South Park cartoon that, well, didn’t depict Muhammad. But it came too close for comfort and the media network engaged in censorship. Reason Magazine ended up picking up the ball and running with it and you can see the winners of the contest there, as well as some great discussion of the back story.
I’m down here in Houston where my church body — the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod — is having its 64th triennial convention. This is the second convention I’ve attended as an adult and it’s always a lot of fun to catch up with folks from across the country and have those in-depth conversations about theology and practice.
Far and away the best defense of the New York Times article we’ve been discussing comes from Mark Silk, Trinity College professor of religion and public life. Over at Beliefnet, he writes:
As we look into other defenses of the New York Times attack on Pope Benedict XVI, I want to acknowledge at the outset that we’re getting a bit more into the weeds. In fact, some of these discussions might be more technical or murky than we normally encourage. I still think it’s important to have the discussion because the public record is important. But if you are a normal person, you might just want to skip to the next post!
In response to some of the outcry over the New York Times attack on Pope Benedict XVI, there have been a couple defenses worth discussing.
A few weeks ago, there was a bit of a discussion on the internets about whether the mainstream media does a good job of covering honor killings in America. It began with Phyllis Chesler writing:
Happy Independence Day! On Friday, we looked at the 4,000-word New York Times attack against Pope Benedict XVI. Much of the story was a good exploration of the complexity of Vatican canon law that contributed to difficulties in quickly resolving some of the sex abuse crisis. But much of it — including the first breathless paragraphs — was blatant editorializing against Benedict without substantiation. I came out strong against it because it was a deeply unfair piece that argued against where its own reporting led. I thought it would be interesting to review how the piece was being received in other quarters.
