People

Plug-In: Religion reporting, Mozart and spirituals -- the formula that drives Adelle Banks

Surely there’s someone out there who doesn’t like Adelle M. Banks.

I just haven’t found that person yet.

A rare soul beloved by colleagues and competitors alike, Banks is a veteran religion journalist who recently celebrated 25 years (that’s an eternity in journalism circles!) with Religion News Service.

“Adelle is one of the sharpest, most thoughtful colleagues on the religion beat,” said Sarah Pulliam Bailey, religion writer for the Washington Post and a former RNS national correspondent. “I know that when I'm reading a story by her, it's going to be smart, timely and well reported. Once upon a time, she would copy edit my stories, and I was ever grateful for her eagle eyes.”

Bob Smietana, editor-in-chief of RNS, described her this way: “You won’t find a better reporter or a better person on the religion beat than Adelle Banks. Throughout her career … she’s reported on religion, spirituality and matters of faith with a steady hand, a skeptical eye and a sense of empathy and understanding about how religion shapes our neighbor’s lives and the world around us. People trust Adelle because she gets the facts rights and always sees to the heart of a story. It’s a privilege to be on the same team as Adelle.”

Here’s something that even Banks’ most loyal readers might not realize: She loves to sing!

She has lended her voice to choirs (think Mozart, in particular) and choruses since the fifth grade. Both in her early years working for newspapers in upstate New York and in her time with RNS in Washington, D.C., she joined local singing groups.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Orson Bean's wild life: Why did Los Angeles Times obit skip God's role in final chapters?

No doubt about it, actor Orson Bean lived a wild life — even by Hollywood standards.

As you would expect, the lengthy Los Angeles Times obituary for Bean — who died at age 91 when hit by two cars — was packed with colorful details. I mean, this is a man whose early life included a run-in with the Hollywood blacklist, yet he ended up as a conservative who helped inspire the career of his son-in-law Andrew Breitbart.

But here is the GetReligion question for this day: Why would the newspaper of record in La La Land avoid one of the key elements of the final chapter of this man’s life, as in his conversion to Christianity?

Surely there was room for a phrase or two about that development in lines such as these?

Bean’s onstage antics included stand-up comedy and magic tricks as he made the rounds on game shows and late-night television. He was fondly remembered by baby boomers for bringing his wit and sophistication to “What’s My Line?,” “I’ve Got a Secret” and “To Tell the Truth” and guest-starring in variety series and talk shows, including “The Ed Sullivan Show,” “The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson” and “The Mike Douglas Show.” Later in his career, he starred in “Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman,” “Being John Malkovich” and “Desperate Housewives” while racking up dozens of guest appearance credits, with “Two and a Half Men,” “The Closer,” “Modern Family” and “How I Met Your Mother” among them.

Bean, who wrote several memoirs and a cookbook for cats, was briefly blacklisted, became a hippie, a peddler of a self-help method and a beloved Venice resident as he bolstered the local theater scene with wife Alley Mills. All along, his true passion was the stage, though he acquiesced to television, films and even commercials just to pay his bills.

The story gets wilder and wilder, which only points to the irony of journalists (the Times was not alone in missing the faith angle here) avoiding any discussion of Bean’s faith — which he made no attempt to hide, as one can see in the videos accompanying this post.

You can see a hint of what is missing in this colorful passage:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Thinking along with Mark Pinsky: On talking with Trump's lawyer who was raised Jewish

I am sorry for the delay on this think piece from The Forward, since really should have run during the impeachment proceedings. However, I never thought of this as a piece about Donald Trump or any of his pack.

No, I thought GetReligion readers would want to see this because it was written by Mark Pinsky, the veteran religion-beat pro best known for his work in the heavily evangelical world that surrounds Orlando.

Pinsky is also the author of a book that I recommend when asked one of the questions that I hear all the time. That question: What is the best book to use in a college or university level course about covering religion news?

Well, of course I am going to recommend this project from my friends and former colleagues linked to The Media Project: “Blind Spot: When Journalists Don't Get Religion.” It includes my essay on religion-beat strategies for editors and publishers, “Getting Religion in the Newsroom.”

But there really isn’t a religion-beat 101 book, a kind of manual for professionals who are starting the process of reading themselves up to speed on the myriad subjects, movements and vocabularies needed to cover this complex subject.

But there is a book that I recommend that does a great job of explaining WHY reporters need to take the challenges of this beat seriously and why they should strive to get inside the beliefs and worldviews of the believers they need to cover. That book is Mark Pinksy’s small volume entitled, “A Jew Among the Evangelicals: A Guide for the Perplexed.

This brings us to the weekend think piece, that recent Forward feature that ran with this headline: “Trump Impeachment lawyer Jay Sekulow says ‘I’ve never felt not Jewish.’

Why did Pinsky land this exclusive interview?

Sekulow said the interview with the Forward was the only one he planned to do ahead of the impeachment trial, and that he agreed to do it because I have been writing about him on and off for more than a quarter century — and because his great-uncle, Sonya Sekular, worked for the Forward in the 1940s, Sekulow said.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Do Catholic dissenters have a constitutional right to Holy Communion?

They are among the most famous words in journalism, combining to form a phrase that — back in the old wire-service days — defined the craft of hard-news reporting and writing.

All together now: These words are “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” “why” and “how.”

That’s the old approach to writing a good hard-news lede (especially on deadline). This formula can be a big clunky, at times, but it does force reporters to think through their material and identify the most important elements of a story.

So, with that in mind, try to identify the various pieces of the W5H puzzle when reading the Providence Journal lede that dominated our discussions during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). The key in this case is to focus on the “why” factor.

The Rev. Richard Bucci, pastor of the West Warwick church where a lawmaker’s sister has said she was sexually molested repeatedly as a child by a now-dead priest, marked the anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision by issuing a flier listing the names of every Rhode Island legislator who voted last year to enshrine the right to an abortion in state law.

So why did this Catholic pastor send out this flier? That’s pretty obvious: He did so in response to a piece of abortion-rights legislation in Rhode Island.

Now, why did the individual legislator mentioned in this train wreck of a lede believe that Father Bucci had taken this action?

It would appear that Rep. Carol McEntee thought this action also had something to do with the Catholic church — or this particular parish — hiding clergy who abuse children. Later, readers also learn that Bucci and McEntee had previously clashed over her right to give a eulogy in the middle of a Catholic funeral.

But what is the main story here? Is this a story about the new abortion law and Bucci’s list of legislators or is it a story about Rep. McEntee and this priest? Does the story offer evidence that proves that McEntee is onto something, with this claim that there are two “why” factors at play in this case? (Hold that thought.)


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Was Romney's faith taken seriously in impeachment coverage? Alas, few surprises here...

In the end, the only drama in the impeachment vote didn’t involve the Democrats and Donald Trump.

No, it involved Sen. Mitt Romney and Trump. If you looked at this from Romney’s stated point of view, the final decision came down to Trump vs. God — as in Romney’s oath to follow his faith and his conscience, as opposed to loyalty to his political party.

The most dramatic moment in Romney’s speech on the U.S. Senate floor — that long, long, long pause as he fought to control his emotions — came as he tried to explain how his decision was linked to his faith and his family.

So how did this obvious faith factor show up in the mainstream coverage of the political story of the day? The results, for better and for worse, were totally predictable.

Take the New York Times, for example. Here is the crucial passage, pushed deep into the main Romney story.

On the Senate floor on Wednesday, Mr. Romney placed his decision in the context of his faith, his family and how history would remember it.

And that was that.

The political desk team at The Washington Post managed to get one snippet of Godtalk into its Romney story. Readers who made it to the 12th paragraph read the following:

Romney said he couldn’t let concerns over breaking with his party guide his vote, which he cast as one of conscience and rooted in his religious beliefs.

“I am aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters, I will be vehemently denounced,” Romney said on the Senate floor. “I am sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Journalism train wreck: Catholic scholar pours acid on news story about abortion and politics

In the summer of 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote a confidential letter addressing one of the most controversial doctrinal issues involving Catholic faith and public life.

We are talking, of course, about whether it is wise for Catholic clergy to deny Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who consistently and openly reject centuries of church teachings on abortion, marriage and other hot-button doctrinal issues.

On one side of this fight are Catholics who say priests should take this stance in an attempt to encourage politicians to confess their sins and receive forgiveness. The goal is to save souls.

On the other side are Catholic progressives (for the most part) who say priests almost always use this tactic to punish Democrats who clash with the church on abortion, while declining to punish Republicans (for the most part) who clash with the church on issues such as the death penalty, immigration, etc., etc.

This is the tip of a giant iceberg, of course, and the cardinal who would then become Pope Benedict XVI has made other statements on this issue. It didn’t help that, at a key moment, then Cardinal Theodore McCarrick blurred (that’s putting things mildly) some of the details of Ratzinger’s 2004 letter.

Why bring this up? All of this is crucial background material for a spectacular online clash between a famous Catholic scholar and editors at The Providence Journal about a truly bizarre story (“Priest: No Communion for R.I. lawmakers who supported abortion law”).

Where to begin? First, let’s flash back to a 2007 National Catholic Reporter story about that Ratzinger letter — “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.”

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia,” Ratzinger wrote.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Plug-In: Journalist's faith -- Memoir tells how justice prevailed n Civil Rights Era murders

“To the One who loves justice.”

That’s the simple dedication at the start of investigative reporter Jerry Mitchell’s long-awaited memoir, “Race Against Time,” which hits bookstores Tuesday.

It reflects the deep Christian faith of the veteran Mississippi journalist, whose stories helped put four Klansmen and a serial killer behind bars.

“God loves justice,” Mitchell, 60, told me in a telephone interview.

Mitchell, a 1982 journalism graduate of Harding University in Searcy, Ark., worked for The Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson, Miss., for 33 years. He left in 2018 to found the Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting, a nonprofit watchdog news organization.

Although Mitchell’s book is written in first person, he stressed that it’s not about him. (Nonetheless, at least one reviewer suggests that readers might conclude, rightly, that he is a “hero.”)

“It’s really about these families, about the journey to justice and what all took place,” Mitchell said. “To me, the larger story is what’s important.”

What is that larger story?

Bestselling author John Grisham put it this way in endorsing the book, published by Simon & Schuster:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Spiritual warfare explainer: RNS pros offered crucial context for 'Satanic pregnancies' sound bite

No doubt about it: There are people who show up in religion-beat news who are hard to quote accurately and fairly.

It’s hard, for example, to find a punchy, bite-sized quotation in your typical papal encyclical, even when you’re dealing with the work of Pope Francis. It’s possible, of course, to rip something out of context that sounds like commentary on this or that political issue that’s already in the headline. Most of the time, that context-free approach sheds more heat than light.

Then there are the charismatic and Pentecostal preachers whose words are drenched in metaphors and images mixing biblical language with their own vivid (they would say “Holy Spirit inspired”) imaginations.

This brings me that Twitter storm the other day (sorry to be late on this) about a colorful (to say the least) sermon by the Rev. Paula White, the charismatic leader best known as a spiritual advisor to President Donald Trump. She has been known to unleash storm clouds of rhetoric that sound more like rock-music lyrics more than the traditional exegesis of scripture.

For example, what — precisely — is a “satanic pregnancy”? Come to think of it, what is a “satanic womb”?

If you yanked her words out of context, as legions of her critics did, it sounded like this sermon contained some inconsistent language about abortion.

Thus, I was glad when veterans Bob Smietana and Adelle Banks of Religion News Service quickly produced a short explainer that found some context to White’s wild words. In this case, that was a really big challenge. Here’s some key material at the top of that report (“Paula White’s sermon comment about ‘satanic pregnancies’ goes viral”).


Please respect our Commenting Policy

In the news? How Kobe Bryant's Catholic faith saved his marriage and turned his life around

Kobe Bryant means a lot of different things to many people. To most, the 41-year-old was the Los Angeles Lakers star and a five-time NBA champion who spent two decades wowing us on the basketball court. He may even be one of the best players to ever dunk a ball.

To others, he’ll forever be the cheating spouse, on trial in 2003 for allegedly raping a woman inside a Colorado hotel room, an encounter he claimed had been consensual. It should be noted that Bryant was married at the time. The case never made it to trial after the woman refused to testify, but she did filed a civil lawsuit against the basketball icon that was settled outside of court. Bryant later issued a public apology, saying he was ashamed for having committed adultery.

Was there more to that story, in terms of Bryant’s apology and his efforts to save his marriage? We will come back to that.

After his retirement, Bryant became known primarily as a doting father, largely shunning the chance to coach or work for the Lakers in some official capacity. It’s no surprise then that he died Sunday with his 13-year-old daughter Gianna, a budding basketball talent herself, on their way to one of her games.

All but forgotten — as well as underreported by the news media since Sunday’s tragic helicopter crash in Calabasas, Calif., that killed Bryant, his daughter and seven others — was his active Catholic faith and how his efforts to practice that faith made him a better man, husband and father.

Bryant had spent a chunk of his childhood in Italy, a majority Catholic country, and was raised in the faith. How devout was Bryant? He attended Mass regularly, including just two hours before he died.


Please respect our Commenting Policy