If you read the comments threads on the Divine Mrs. MZ’s recent post on Notre Dame, President Barack Obama and the U.S. Catholic bishops (or some of them, at least), you can see that we are veering back into familiar territory. I am referring to the tendency among many mainstream journalists to make references to trends among “Catholic voters,” “American Catholics” and other broadly defined terms that reveal next to nothing in terms of usable information.
Got news? A special Casey?
Secular media hero? Or a Trojan horse among Catholics? This week, Pennsylvania senator Bob Casey, Jr., was portrayed as both.
So how many bishops back Notre Dame now?
With so many Roman Catholic bishops speaking out against Notre Dame University’s decision to honor President Barack Obama at this year’s commencement, we’ve seen quite a few stories in the mainstream press. When Mary Ann Glendon declined to receive the Laetare Medal in protest, we saw even more. But it’s been hard to put the story in perspective or context since there have been few stories looking at the overall scenario.
Obama seeking right church on left?
Now that the White House has settled the puppy issue, folks inside the DC Beltway have returned to whispering about the even more symbolic issue — the First Family’s church home. This means it’s time for a trip into tmatt’s folder of GetReligion guilt.
We need a better torture discussion
Yesterday we saw quite a bit of coverage of new Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life analysis which had — to the many who read it splashed across the interweb, cable television, and newspapers — some shocking results. Here’s CNN, for instance:
Oh my, L-word used for Souter
I can hardly believe it. Here inside the Beltway (and the elite media that are honorary members of the Beltway tribe), it is very rare to hear a person tagged with THE L-WORD.
Aiming for accuracy
Earlier this week, Elizabeth opened a discussion about what standards religion journalism blogs should be held to. Some mainstream reporters insert quite a bit of personal opinion while others retain their journalistic distance. Some use the blogs as a means of unloading information that couldn’t make it into brief stories. Many use a slightly more personal tone.
Stoned soul pastors?
As “old media” seek to reach new audiences through the use of online technologies, we’ve seen journalists, like the Boston Globe’s Michael Paulson develop blogs (his is “Articles of Faith”). Sometimes these are a way of posting less formal comments on a topic. Sometimes they offer another place to discuss issues that journalists can’t fit into the traditional news hole.
How do you say "we're sorry"?
Rather than update my previous Armenian genocide post with a link to Julia Duin’s article on its anniversary in the Washington Times, I wanted to highlight it separately. I noted that most stories about the events of 1915 were solely or almost exclusively political. Very few touched on religion in any meaningful way.
