Feminism

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Welcome to New York Times 'religion' feed? A kissy-kissy chat with exiting NARAL boss

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Welcome to New York Times 'religion' feed? A kissy-kissy chat with exiting NARAL boss

Does anyone else remember RSS feeds?

The whole idea of RSS — Really Simple Syndication — is that websites can allow you can set up an automated feed that feeds you updates on specific topics in a standardized, computer-readable format.

The key is that computer algorithms are supposed to detect when stories address issues that interest a specific reader.

Anyway, I received this item the other day in my RSS feed devoted to New York Times stories about religion. In this case, the Times defines the RSS criteria, not me.

In terms of religion news, this one is pretty weird — even for today’s Times. The headline: “Ilyse Hogue, Influential Abortion Rights Advocate, Will Step Down as NARAL Chief — In an interview, Ms. Hogue discussed a tumultuous era for abortion rights and the future of Roe v. Wade.”

In other words, this is a kissy-kissy Q&A marking Hogue’s exit after eight years as leader of NARAL Pro-Choice America. The Times informs readers that “abortion rights are at something of a crossroads, with Democrats facing the choice of whether to try to deliver on their promise of codifying Roe v. Wade.”

All right, says I, let’s see the many points in this report that touch on religion. After all, the RSS algorithms put this in the “religion” feed.

I found three, and even that it is stretching it. Can you spot the religious content in the following three bites from this news feature? The questions, obviously, are in bold type:

Let’s start with perhaps the biggest question: Is Roe v. Wade safe?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Watch what Biden does, not what he says: Executive orders will widen rift within U.S. bishops

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Watch what Biden does, not what he says: Executive orders will widen rift within U.S. bishops

Can you feel the unity yet? That’s the joke among political conservatives as the Biden administration closed out its first week.

Within hours of taking the oath of office on his family’s massive Bible, President Joe Biden signed a raft of executive orders — something that went on in the ensuing days — to undo strategic executive moves during Donald Trump’s presidency. During that process, Biden fan afoul of traditional Catholic teachings and, once again, placed the spotlight on his Catholic faith.

Political and religious conservatives (not always the same thing) can agree that Biden’s actions over the past week didn’t foster unity. If anything, this blitz of activity highlighted the differences between two ever-divergent Catholic camps in this country, something that revealed itself on Day 1 among the U.S. bishops and across the Atlantic Ocean in Rome as a result of dueling statements and the polemics it unleashed, all of which pointed to old fights and old wounds. Can you say “Theodore McCarrick”?

Biden, the first Roman Catholic president since John F. Kennedy in 1960, is often identified as “devout” (click here for background), when journalists describe his faith. Of course, the doctrinal side of Biden’s piety isn’t something journalists dig into. We don’t know what is in Biden’s heart or even his head.

But here is the key point for journalists and news readers: What we do know — as is the case with every politician — is what he does and says. Options about church teachings on marriage and sexuality are one thing. Biden’s decision to perform an actual gay union rite represented open conflict with the teachings of his church.

Journalists can (and should) report and show where there is overlap regarding church teachings and where there is clear contradiction. The Religious Left will soon learn that it shouldn’t hitch their wagon to any political ideology. The Religious Right learned that the hard way with Trump — something that could take years to unspool when it comes to credibility.

With Biden being a Democrat, however, I don’t expect the mainstream press to do any of this. Instead, we see puff pieces from The New York Times calling Biden “perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief in half a century.” Guess they forgot that George W. Bush was a born-again Christian who regularly attended services. What about Jimmy Carter’s decades teaching Sunday school?

Here’s the key excerpt from that very feature that ran this past Saturday:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Yin-yang of Washington Post on Amy Coney Barrett: Wait. Pope Francis embraces charismatics?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It would appear that the goal on the cultural and religious left is to find a way to link Judge Amy Coney Barrett to all of that strange charismatic Christian stuff like healing and speaking on tongues while avoiding anti-dogma language that would raise warning flags for Sunday-morning-Mass Catholics. She may as well be a fundamentalist Protestant!

Here is the Big Idea that is right up top, in a story that uses the term “handmaid” 11 times — early and often.

Oh, this will also require tip-toeing around the awkward fact that millions of charismatic Christians are found in Latino and Black pews — Catholic and Protestant.

Will this play a role in the hearings that are getting underway as I type this? We will see.

In the branch of the Democratic Party known as Acela Zone journalism, the key to the news coverage has continued to be a steady drumbeat of references to the word “handmaid,” which in cable-television land calls to mind all kinds of horrible fundamentalist terrors, starting with sexual slaves in red capes and white bonnets.

It’s hard to know what to write about the People of Praise-phobia angle of this story right now, since your GetReligionistas have been on it for some time now. See my podcast and post here: “Why is the 'handmaid' image so important in Amy Coney Barrett coverage?” Also, Julia Duin’s deep dive here into 40 years of history linked to the People of Praise and charismatic Christian communities of this kind. There there is Clemente Lisi on three big questions that reporters need to face linked to Barrett’s faith.

There are too many elite news stories on the handmaid angle to parse them all, so let’s focus on that recent Washington Post feature from a team led by the scribe who brought you the hagiography of Christine Blasey Ford during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

For starters, this would be a good time to remind readers that reporters rarely play any role in the writing of the headlines atop their work. The headline on a piece such as this one primarily tells you the angle that editors thought would launch it into social-media circles among the newsroom’s true believers. Thus we have: “Amy Coney Barrett served as a ‘handmaid’ in Christian group People of Praise.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There they go, there they go again: New York Times views #ACB through eyes of conservative women

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I recently raised a few eyebrows with a post that — #TriggerWarning — praised The New York Times for a piece about Judge Amy Coney Barrett and why her nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court was so symbolic for cultural and religious conservatives. The headline on that post: “Speaking of people being praised: New York Times offered solid, old-school story about Barrett.”

Why was that Times report so important?

Well, no surprise here, but it was crucial that the team that produced the story include a religion-beat professional — as opposed to coming from the Donald Trump-era political desk. I also noted:

… Here is the key point I want to make: Unlike many Times stories in recent years, almost all of this material comes from qualified sources (left and right) whose names are attached to their opinions and the information they provided. There are attribution clauses all over the place, just like in Times of old.

Lo and behold, the Times followed up on that story with another religion-team feature that dug deeper on a perfectly valid point that was hinted at in the previous feature. Here’s the double-decker headline on that second story, which drew quite a bit of praise from conservatives on social media:

For Conservative Christian Women, Amy Coney Barrett’s Success Is Personal

Judge Barrett is a new kind of icon for some, one they have not seen before in American cultural and political life.

This is another fine story. However, I have one criticism of it that some may find a bit ironic, or even hard to take seriously.

The story does a fine job of demonstrating that the pro-ACB women are not a simplistic choir of cloned conservatives each with precisely the same point of view in terms of politics and culture. For example, it’s clear that some of these women are not all that fond of Trump the man or even the president. What unites them are commitments to specific values and concerns about specific moral, cultural and political issues.

This is where Judge Barrett comes into the picture. They applaud her because of her personal life, faith and choices, as well as her intellectual prowess and sparkling legal career.

So what is missing? The story briefly mentions the fierce opposition to Barrett, but never digs into the views of progressives — thus allowing Barrett supporters to debate them.

Yes, this is a Times story that needed MORE on-the-record material from the cultural left.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New podcast: Why is the 'handmaid' image so important in Amy Coney Barrett coverage?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The question for the week appears to be: Are you now, or have you ever been, a charismatic Catholic?

In a land in which citizens are divided just as much by entertainment as they are by their religious and political choices, that question leads directly to cable television and a certain blue-zip-code hit focusing on, to quote IMDB, this story hook: “Set in a dystopian future, a woman is forced to live as a concubine under a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship.”

This leads us to the word “handmaid” and strained efforts by some — repeat “some” — journalists to attach it to the life and faith of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. This topic was, of course, discussed at length during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). How could we avoid it?

It’s crucial to know that the word “handmaid” has radically different meanings for members of two radically different flocks of Americans.

For Catholics and other traditional Christians, this term is defined by its use in the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke, during this encounter between Mary and the Angel Gabriel. This is long, but essential:

… The angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. …For with God nothing shall be impossible.

And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

In this context, the word refers to a “female servant.” However, its use in Christian tradition has, for 2,000 years, been linked directly to St. Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Now, let’s move to mass media, where the Urban Dictionary defines the term as:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

Conservative Catholics could be energized if Trump picks Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

, , , , , , , , , ,

It was back in January — eons ago in the context of 2020 news — that Donald Trump became the first U.S. president to appear at the annual March for Life. At last month’s Republican National Convention, a conservative nun named Sister Deirdre “Dede” Byrne called Trump “the most pro-life president that this nation has ever had.”

This brings us to now and the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The expectation is that Trump will put forth a nominee — a shortlist that sees Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the frontrunner — that has a record of being opposed to America’s post-Roe v. Wade abortion laws. That will inflame activists on the cultural left and exacerbate tensions in this country following the pandemic and protests surrounding racial injustice.

The focus on abortion will, once again, challenge journalists to produce balanced, accurate, on-the-record material describing the religious beliefs of the potential nominees.

How will this affect the final weeks of the 2020 campaign? Attacks from some Democrats on Barrett during the confirmation process, should she be the nominee, could very well help Trump with some Catholic voters. In turn, attacks on Barrett would hurt Biden, a Catholic trying to get Catholic swing voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio to vote for him. If anything, anti-Catholic attacks against Barrett could both galvanize GOP voters and tip some undecided Catholic voters across the Rust Belt toward Trump.

The 48-year-old Barrett, a native of New Orleans, and her husband Jesse Barrett, a former prosecutor, have seven children, including two adopted from Haiti and one with Down syndrome. Barrett learned of her son’s diagnosis during a prenatal test, but decided to have the baby. Aside from being a federal judge, Barrett teaches law at Notre Dame. She is a former law clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, with The New York Times reporting that her fellow clerks saying she was his favorite. She graduated from Notre Dame Law School and joined the faculty in 2002.

If nominated and confirmed, Barrett would be the youngest member of the Supreme Court in history and, thus, could help shape many future decisions.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Press gets mythic about Ruth Bader Ginsburg's timely death on Rosh Hashanah eve

, , , , , ,

Before every U.S. presidential election, there is almost always an “October surprise” that throws everything awry and has the potential to swing the contest in a completely different direction.

This year’s “surprise” happened Sept. 18 with the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The term “black swan” is also popular in social media, when talking about this kind of plot twist.

Barely a few minutes had passed after the announcement when a lot of folks noticed that she’d died just before the start of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, giving her instant mythic status with reporters from everything from NPR to Reuters. The latter described what last Friday was like for American Jews.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — Just as many Jews in the United States were sitting down to a post-sunset Rosh Hashanah dinner on Friday, preparing to dip apples in honey to signal the sweetness of the year to come, news came of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

Ginsburg, the first female Jewish member of the U.S. Supreme Court, died on one of the holiest days in Judaism, as many of the country’s nearly six million Jews welcomed the new year 5781, based on the Hebrew calendar…

Her death on the eve of Rosh Hashanah also has significance in Jewish tradition, rabbis and friends said. “One of the themes of Rosh Hashanah suggests that very righteous people would die at the very end of the year because they were needed until the very end,” said Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, which has been giving wall-to-wall coverage of RBG’s death, encapsulated why the mourning for Ginsburg has been so intense — because the justice “had come to represent the liberal American feminist spirit for so many.”

JTA asked Jewish leaders around the country what their congregants were doing when the news came through.

(Durham, N.C. Rabbi Matt) Soffer’s tribute was among countless salutes made by rabbis and Jewish community members this weekend as the news of Ginsburg’s death broke over Jewish communities like a wave in the first moments of the Jewish New Year, or the last moments of the one that was just ending.

In some parts of the country, many synagogues had already launched their Rosh Hashanah services on Zoom and many families had already sat down for a holiday meal when the alert came.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New podcast: New York Times lets Planned Parenthood spin bad news about Margaret Sanger?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Soon after the founding of Amazon.com in 1995, I began offering the following research tip to my journalism students.

When reporting about a person or a topic, especially when the subject is controversial, go to Amazon.com and type in two or perhaps three search terms — including a proper name or the keyword linked to the topic you are researching.

Of course, reporters should do broader searches online and in professional-level periodical collections — looking for experts and activists on both sides of the story being covered. What an Amazon.com search gives you is a look at who has been doing, well, book-length studies of a person or a topic.

So let’s take a look at an Amazon.com search linked to this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). Let’s search for “Margaret Sanger” and “eugenics.” We are looking for sources that could have been used in the New York Times piece that ran the other day with this sobering double-decker headline:

Planned Parenthood in N.Y. Disavows Margaret Sanger Over Eugenics

Ms. Sanger, a feminist icon and reproductive-rights pioneer, supported a discredited belief in improving the human race through selective breeding

That’s a very controversial topic and this Times piece, we shall see, includes some rather blunt information about this “icon” of the cultural left.

What the story does not contain, however, is a single quote from a scholar or activist who has done years of research to gather information critical of Sanger and her legacy in American life and culture.

Right at the top of that Amazon.com search are books by two experts who, to my eyes, look solid.

One book is entitled “War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race.” The author is not a scribe at a right-wing think tank. Instead, Edwin Black — on his Amazon.com biography page — is described as:

Edwin Black is the award-winning, New York Times and international investigative author of 200 bestselling editions in 20 languages in more than 190 countries, as well as scores of newspaper and magazine articles in the leading publications of the United States, Europe and Israel.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

In Phyllis Schlafly biopic on FX, evangelicals got all the acid -- but Schlafly was Catholic

, , , , , ,

“Mrs. America,” a nine-part biopic on Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly and her philosophical opposites in the 1970s feminist movement, ended last week on Walt Disney’s FX Channel. Depressingly, the show never got down to the religious convictions that drove this cultural pioneer.

I last wrote about the show here in the hopes that this infotainment extravaganza might get better. It did not. You could see this in the shows. You could see this in news coverage of the series.

Instead, this media event became a lesson on how blue-staters (and I live in one such locale) perceive the universe. Conservative — and usually religious — characters were one-dimensional jerks while the folks on the left were interesting, complex people with much inner turmoil. The latter group was always true to their nobler selves whereas Schlafly was never true to anything except her own scheming self.

As I watched episodes week by week, I was surprised that conservative and religious-market media — Catholic media, for example — weren’t tracking this rewrite of history, despite accusations being lobbed at Schlafly such as her being in bed with the Ku Klux Klan.

Never mind that even Slate said evidence was sketchy at best that Schlafly colluded with that group. The Klan was anti-Catholic and Schlafly was Catholic. But let’s not let the facts get in our way, in a series that many news outlets took seriously as a commentary on that era.

The real heroes of the show were the founding members of the National Women’s Political Caucus such as U.S. Reps. Bella Abzug and Shirley Chisholm, author Betty Friedan, Republican operative Jill Ruckelshaus and Gloria Steinem, co-founder of Ms. Magazine. Their beliefs and assumptions — including an unstinting advocacy on behalf of abortion — are never questioned, whereas Schlafly is continually portrayed as a racist who specializes in weird put-downs of her black housekeepers. Has anyone offered on-the-record, journalism-level proof that there incidents ever happened?

Schlafly does have a biographer, David Critchlow, but no one checked with him before airing the show. Here’s what he told The Federalist about all the factual errors in the series.

The show took such liberties with reality that even the Los Angeles Times ran fact-checker pieces after each episode explaining what was made up and what was true.


Please respect our Commenting Policy