Hypothetical question: What would happen if a religion news critic had nothing to say?

It might seem crazy what I'm about to say ...

But hypothetically speaking, what would happen if a religion news critic had nothing to say?

Here at GetReligion, I write four posts a week. My role as a contributor to this journalism-focused website is pretty simple: I critique media coverage of religion — sometimes praising, other times criticizing, often pointing out what we characterize here as holy ghosts in coverage.

However, I need a peg. An angle. A reason to highlight a story — either good or bad. 

It's not enough that the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling in a religion case. I need something to say — related to the journalism — about the coverage of that case:

It's not enough to deem a religion story in the Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal or Orlando Sentinel interesting. I need something to say — related to the journalism — about that story:

Most of the time, your friendly neighborhood GetReligionistas — myself included — can't get to everything we want to write about. Each of us calls "dibs" on specific stories and topics as they develop. And yet, we still can't get to everything. Thus, from time to time, we mention our "guilt folders."

But — again speaking hypothetically — what if one's guilt folder dried up? What if a religion news critic had a deadline to post and saw no ghosts at just the wrong time? What if writer's block struck before the week's post quota had been fulfilled?

This has never happened to me, of course.

I'm asking for a friend.

Please respect our Commenting Policy