Get Religion is a national and global journalism site focusing on how the mainstream press covers religion news in politics, entertainment, business and sports.
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:
Media attention following the Hawaiian governor’s veto of a same-sex civil unions bill has been on whether tourists and businesses should boycott the beautiful island chain, a la the LA response to Arizona’s anti-undocumented-alien law.
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.
Last week, we looked at coverage of a magazine article that exposed a pastor’s participation in a group for men “struggling with same-sex attraction.” At that point, I highlighted the good and bad sections of an Associated Press article that covered the fallout of the original article.
The New York Times has published yet another massive (4,000 words this time) hit piece on Pope Benedict XVI.
As Bobby “Bible Belt” Ross Jr. noted the other day, this summer’s meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention did all kinds of interesting stuff. I choose to write about the Gulf of Mexico resolution for Scripps Howard, but, frankly, the divorce resolution was just as interesting and I still hope to dig into that one. It is rare to see conservative believers (or liberal believers, for that matter) point the finger of judgment at themselves.
