Get Religion is a national and global journalism site focusing on how the mainstream press covers religion news in politics, entertainment, business and sports.
I realize that, as a member of an Antiochian Orthodox Christian parish, my concerns about events in Damascus, Syria, are going to focus on religion more than those of the average news consumer. After all, the Patriarchate of Antioch is located in Damascus, on the “street called Straight.” (Acts 9:11)
On Thursday, I highlighted a fine piece of journalism produced by The Associated Press’ filet mignon department â where reporter chefs with unlimited time, space and resources whip up the kind of delectable stories that win big prizes.
In July, we looked at some of the media coverage of a priest who was removed from his parish by Bishop Edward Braxton of Belleville, Illinois. He wasn’t just removed from his parish. Braxton also removed his faculties. There were some problems with the previous story dealing with how those faculties were characterized and what, exactly, were his violations. We knew that he was improvising portions of the mass but we didn’t get specifics.
Back in April, I weighed in on a claim that my former employer, The Associated Press, is “desperately seeking Pulitzers” and relaxing its news standards.
Never a dull moment on the religion news beat. And the latest clash is a full-on battle over blasphemy laws. There’s been a fair amount of coverage. Here’s a Washington Post story headlined “Egyptâs President Morsi tells U.N.: Insults to Muhammad âunacceptableâ.” One thing I liked about the piece was how it gave three full paragraphs of quotes to substantiate this, the fourth paragraph:
If people have long had trouble defining the word “evangelical” — the Rev. Billy Graham once told me he had no idea what the word meant — it only made matters worse when the principalities and powers of Christian publishing started adding the word “emerging” or perhaps “emergent” in front of the already vague “evangelical.”
During the political conventions a few weeks ago, we commented on some disparate coverage of pro-life Democrats and pro-life Republicans. Let’s revisit one aspect of that.
Here is a craft question for you, GetReligion readers. No, I don’t mean freemasonry but journalism. When should a reporter use his editorial voice to correct or challenge an assertion made by the subject of his story? What if the assertion is not central to the story at hand? What if the assertion is in line with convention wisdom, but is not true?
It’s easy to spot so many human errors in religion coverage that sometimes it’s easy to lose sight of why we should read and engage the mainstream media.
