March 12, 2021

Women, Terry Mattingly, Social Media, Sex, Sexual abuse, Politics, Podcasts, People, Marriage & Family, LGBTQ, Kellerism, Godbeat, Evangelicals, Episcopalians, Clergy, Baptists

'Total Woman' redux: Obscure white evangelical says stupid things and it's national news

Terry Mattingly

March 12, 2021

Women, Terry Mattingly, Social Media, Sex, Sexual abuse, Politics, Podcasts, People, Marriage & Family, LGBTQ, Kellerism, Godbeat, Evangelicals, Episcopalians, Clergy, Baptists

'Total Woman' redux: Obscure white evangelical says stupid things and it's national news

About the time that I started teaching journalism in Washington, D.C., I saw a movie in which Beltway professionals (including speechwriters) played a rather cynical bar game. I think the movie was “Speechless,” with Michael Keaton and Geena Davis.

If my memory is correct, the game was called “Spot the soundbite.” The goal was to watch a long, complicated political speech and then to accurately predict the tiny, often sensational 5-10 second “bite” that would make it into television news reports.

The message, of course, was that substance and nuance didn’t mean much in public life. Emotions and feelings linked to a fleeting soundbite — which could be funny or emotional or whatever — were what mattered. All together now: “Where’s the beef!” It was also clear that it was easy for journalists to pick good, sharp soundbites from “good” candidates and bad, stupid soundbites from “bad” candidates.

This brings us to this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), in which host Todd Wilken and I discussed the latest example of a preacher getting caught, in the age of YouTube and social media, failing to understand the rules of “Spot the soundbite.”

I heard about this epic news story when a former student — who has national print and television experience — sent me a wry email that said: “It’s weird that this random preacher’s sermon merits an NBC News story, no?” Indeed. In the world of short attention spans and tiny online news reports, this sermon by an unknown preacher, in a tiny church, in the middle of nowhere, in an obscure denomination, deserved a 900-word report.

My witty former student knew, of course, why this sermon received lots of national news coverage — including staff (not wire service) coverage in The New York Times (we will get to that shortly).

Yes, this preacher said some genuinely bizarre and disturbing stuff about women and marriage, especially when viewed through a #ChurchToo lens. However, was it national news that an unknown pastor said these things? Well, it is if the sermon contains the word “Trump” and this pastor can be turned into an archetypal symbol of white evangelicals in flyover country, the rubes many journalists blame for electing Orange Man Bad in the first place.

This preacher did not understand how to play “Spot the soundbite.”

Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: Yes, cover RFRA; but Equality Act coverage has also been quiet on local stories

What we have here is a logical question that journalists (and news consumers) should be asking at this point in coverage of debates about the Equality Act. It’s also one of the questions that “Crossroads” host Todd Wilken and dissected during this week’s podcast (click here to tune that in).

That question: How many religious health organizations, schools, recreation centers, homeless shelters, campgrounds, day-care centers and other forms of faith-driven ministries and nonprofit groups are located in the zip codes covered by the newsrooms of your local media outlets?

Earlier this week, I wrote a post (“Puzzle: Many reporters ignoring Equality Act's impact on this crucial Schumer-Kennedy legislation”) noting that a few mainstream news organizations have covered the ways in which the Equality Act would edit or even crush the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, which passed in the U.S. Senate vote of 97-3. That vote symbolized both the bipartisan nature of that legislation and stunning left-right coalition of sacred and secular groups that supported it.

That remains a valid angle for coverage. However, the more I thought about this topic, and the more Equality Act reports that I read, the more I focused in on another “quiet zone” in the mainstream news coverage — including at the local and regional levels.

For starters, let’s look at two pieces of a major New York Times report on the Equality Act:

It was the second time the Democratic-led House had passed the measure, known as the Equality Act, which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add explicit bans on discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in both public and private spaces.

Now, that’s remarkably broad language. What kinds of groups and institutions, pray tell, are included under “both public and private places”? And remember this old journalism mantra: All news is local.

Later on, the story adds:

In a landmark decision in June, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1964 civil rights law protects gay and transgender people from workplace discrimination, and that the language of the law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, also applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. House Democrats sought to build on that ruling with the Equality Act, which would expand the scope of civil rights protections beyond workers to consumers at businesses including restaurants, taxi services, gas stations and shelters.

Please respect our Commenting Policy

Yo, Nashville Tennessean: What does 'people of faith' mean in a political argument?

When I arrived at the Rocky Mountain News (RIP) long ago — think early ‘80s — I quickly learned that the city-desk team had an informal way of checking the Colorado pulse on religious issues.

Basically, they were interviewing clergy at the churches in downtown Denver. That was pretty much it. They would also call the Denver Catholic archdiocese (rather progressive at that time) and the “local seminary,” as in the already “woke” Iliff School of Theology, nationally known as an edgy United Methodist campus. It appeared no one knew about the larger Denver Seminary (evangelical) only a few blocks from Iliff.

What kind of churches were downtown? Almost all of them were mainline Protestant congregations and very few of them were showing any sign of life, in terms of attendance and growth. But they were nearby and most were progressive, so that was that. Why talk to folks at the region’s growing megachurches?

Hang in there with me. I am working toward a recent Nashville Tennessean article that ran with this headline: “Hundreds of people of faith call on Tennessee's Republican congressional delegation to repudiate lies about election fraud.” The key question: Define “people of faith”?

Back to Denver, for one more comment. Early on, I attended a press conference linked to the Colorado Council of Churches. Here is how I described what happened in a post back in 2013:

The key was that the organization … was claiming that it spoke for the vast majority of the state's churches. The problem was that, by the 1980s, the conversion of the Colorado Front Range into an evangelical hotbed (including evangelicals in many oldline Protestant bodies) was well on its way. Also, a more doctrinally conservative Catholic archbishop had arrived in town, one anxious to advocate for Catholic teachings on public issues on both sides of the political spectrum. …
Still, it was an important press conference that helped document one side of a religious debate in the state.
Near the end of the session, I asked what I thought was a logical question: Other than the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver, did any of the CCC leaders present represent a church that had more members at that moment than during any of the previous two or three decades?

Well, hey, I thought it was a fair question.

Please respect our Commenting Policy

Puzzle: Many reporters ignoring Equality Act's impact on this crucial Schumer-Kennedy legislation

I have been following the Equality Act coverage and, so far, a crucial piece in this puzzle has been missing.

Thus, here is a one-question pop test. That question: Name the piece of stunningly bipartisan legislation — vote was 97-3 in U.S. Senate — from the Bill Clinton era that will be gutted by passage of the Equality Act? Hint: It was introduced in the House by Rep. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993, and in the Senate on the same day by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA).

We are, of course, talking about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In today’s advocacy-media age that would, of course, be the “Religious Freedom” Restoration Act, complete with “scare quotes.”

The key is the impact the Equality Act would have on religious parachurch groups, social ministries, hospitals and educational institutions, from preschools to universities.

Now, does everyone agree on how the Equality Act would impact the First Amendment rights of religious believers and their doctrine-defined ministries?

Of course not. There are strong, credible voices on both sides of that debate that deserve serious, accurate, informed coverage by the mainstream press. However, this process — let’s call it “journalism” — would require newsroom managers to admit that this issue exists.

That’s why Andrew Sullivan — one of the world’s best-known gay public intellectuals — called the introductory Washington Post Equality Act story a “press release” (think PR) for the Human Rights Campaign. Here is that story’s description of the legislation’s impact:

The Equality Act would amend existing civil rights laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act, to explicitly ban LGBTQ discrimination in the workforce, housing, education, credit, jury service and other areas of American life.
If passed, the legislation would provide the most comprehensive LGBTQ civil rights protections in U.S. history, advocates say, significantly altering the legal landscape in a country where more than half of states lack explicit legal protections on the basis of sexuality or gender identity. …

Please respect our Commenting Policy

Clemente Lisi

February 25, 2021

Abortion, Catholicism, Churches, Clemente Lisi, Coronavirus, Education, Journalism, Kellerism, Politics, Pope Francis, Religious Liberty, Science

'Follow the science': Is there room for Catholic voices in COVID-19 news coverage?

Clemente Lisi

February 25, 2021

Abortion, Catholicism, Churches, Clemente Lisi, Coronavirus, Education, Journalism, Kellerism, Politics, Pope Francis, Religious Liberty, Science

'Follow the science': Is there room for Catholic voices in COVID-19 news coverage?

The phrase “follow the science” may very well be one of the most annoying to emerge from this pandemic. It’s proudly used by politicians, often to talk down to the rest of us when they are trying to chide political conservatives or religious people (not always the same thing) on an array of issues.

Was New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo “following the science” when his executive order last year forced elderly patients with COVID-19 be returned to nursing homes rather than kept in hospitals? He eventually reversed the order — but his administration remains in hot water after admitting they covered up the number of nursing home deaths. At least he didn’t fly to Cancun in the middle of all of it.

While he received wave after wave of positive press coverage, Cuomo’s actions last year were anti-science, since understanding how the virus was spreading at the time was critical to stopping it nationwide. The U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn and the FBI are now investigating the matter.

“Follow the science” is a phrase that has been used by politicians and mimicked by the mainstream press. A Google News search of the phrase yields 203,000 mentions. In mainstream news outlets, particularly last year when Donald Trump was president, the phrase became an attack on the administration’s handling of the virus. Post-Trump, the phrase continues to be one that journalists, especially in newsrooms like The New York Times are eager to quote.

This piece — “Studies Examine Variant Surging in California, and the News Isn’t Good” — began like this:

A variant first discovered in California in December is more contagious than earlier forms of the coronavirus, two new studies have shown, fueling concerns that emerging mutants like this one could hamper the sharp decline in cases over all in the state and perhaps elsewhere. …
“I wish I had better news to give you — that this variant is not significant at all,” said Dr. Charles Chiu, a virologist at the University of California, San Francisco. “But unfortunately, we just follow the science.”

This pandemic may have led to the wide use of this feel-good phrase, allowing government officials (copying what they hear from scientists) to exert enormous powers. However, other politically polarizing issues — such as abortion, transgender rights and climate change — have also led to its overuse. For many journalists, it means something like this: We have the truth on our side, while the rest of you believe in conspiracy theories. It’s a way to stifle debate, while offering lopsided news coverage.

What does it mean for journalism and particularly the impact of Catholic voices in news stories?

Please respect our Commenting Policy

Joe Biden era puts transgender rights atop newsroom agendas (which creates religion news)

Among American "social issues," freedom of abortion is long-settled as a matter of law, so foes largely nibble at the edges. Courtroom victories for gays and lesbians have put dissenters on the defensive seeking to protect conscience claims.

Meanwhile, in the Biden-Harris era the transgender debate -- emotion-laden, multi-faceted and religiously weighty -- is moving to the top of the news agenda. {The Guy admits at the start he brings no psychological insight to this complex terrain and has personal knowledge of only two such situations.}

Democrats' zeal is the major new factor. President Joe Biden has said that he believes "transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time. There is no room for compromise." Last year, Donald Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch made the case for "gender identity" rights in the Supreme Court's Bostock ruling, but this covered only secular employment. During his first hours in office, President Biden issued an executive order that extends this outlook across the board.

The president declared, for instance, that school kids shouldn't have to worry about their "access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports," nor should adults be mistreated "because how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes." He directed each government agency to spend the next 100 days reframing all gender policies accordingly.

Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez, elected leader of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, immediately responded that on this and other matters like abortion, America's second Catholic president "would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity." Chicago's Cardinal Blasé Cupich assailed Gomez's Inauguration Day statement as "ill-considered." (Click here for GetReligion post and podcast on this topic.)

Then New York's Cardinal Timothy Dolan and four other chairmen of bishops' committees jointly declared that by reaching beyond the Supreme Court ruling Biden "needlessly ignored the integrity of God's creation of the two complementary sexes, male and female," and threatened religious freedom. This protest echoed the 2019 Vatican pronouncement "Male and Female He Created Them (.pdf here).”

A second Biden executive order Feb. 4 defined the new "LGBTQI+" approach in U.S. foreign policy. He directed 15 Cabinet departments and agencies to press other countries to comply with America's new stance, using diplomacy and, as needed, financial sanctions or visa restrictions. The State Department is to report annually on problem nations.

Please respect our Commenting Policy

Once again, AP accuses big Catholic bosses of abusing government coronavirus relief efforts

There they go again.

In this case, “they” refers to whoever is in charge of religion-news coverage these days at the Associated Press. Someone there needs to take a remedial course in (a) church history, (b) church-state law in the United States or (c) both.

Let’s start by flashing back about six months, when the AP rolled out an investigation of what its editors clearly thought was a scandal of epic proportions. Does anyone remember this lede, and this GetReligion dissection (“AP explains why it was wrong for local-level Catholic employees to get coronavirus relief money“), of the expose)?

NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. Roman Catholic Church used a special and unprecedented exemption from federal rules to amass at least $1.4 billion in taxpayer-backed coronavirus aid, with many millions going to dioceses that have paid huge settlements or sought bankruptcy protection because of clergy sexual abuse cover-ups.

That was a bizarre, but honest, opener. The entire story was built on the assumption that there is such a thing — corporately and legally speaking — as a “U.S. Roman Catholic Church.”

As I said at the time, this is “like saying that there is an ‘American Public School System,’ as opposed to complex networks of schools at the local, regional and state levels.” One could also note that there is a Planned Parenthood of America. However, government coronavirus aid in the paycheck-support program went to 37 regional and local Planned Parenthood groups.

The Associated Press has now produced a sequel, with this headline: “Sitting on billions, Catholic dioceses amassed taxpayer aid.” While the editors avoided the “U.S. Roman Catholic Church” label this time around, this lengthy story is built on a similar misunderstanding of what happened when Catholic parishes, schools, nonprofits and other ministries applied for coronavirus aid.

As readers can see in the headline, in the sequel AP leaders focused on finances at the diocesan level, as opposed to a mythical national Catholic structure. This is closer to the truth, but it still misses the mark. While many issues of church authority are linked to local bishops, in local dioceses, the crucial issue here was paycheck-relief money reaching staff members in individual parishes, schools and ministries that had been rocked by falling donations during the COVID-19 crisis. Let’s start with the overture:

Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: Are tensions between Speaker Pelosi and her archbishop a valid news story?

The following is not a hypothetical case or a parable. This is the heart of the news story that was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

Step one: Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a guest on Hillary Clinton’s “You and Me Both” podcast. As you would expect, since this was recorded a week after the stunning January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, they spent some time discussing their views on the Donald Trump years.

This led to a discussion about the choices made by pro-life voters in the 2016 election. Here is some crucial material from a Catholic News Agency story about the exchange.

… House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that support of pro-life voters for former President Donald Trump was an issue that “gives me great grief as a Catholic.”
“I think that Donald Trump is president because of the issue of a woman’s right to choose,” she said of abortion, implying that pro-life voters boosted Trump to victory in 2016. She added that these voters “were willing to sell the whole democracy down the river for that one issue.”

Other than the “sellout” implication, the key phrase there is “as a Catholic.”

Step two: The archbishop who — canonically speaking — is charged with overseeing Pelosi’s life as a Catholic believer was not amused by this assertion. Here is another chunk of that CNA report.

“No Catholic in good conscience can favor abortion,” said Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, Pelosi’s home diocese. … “Our land is soaked with the blood of the innocent, and it must stop.”
Pelosi has long supported abortion despite her Catholic faith. In 2008, she said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” regarding when life begins, “over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition.” She said that her Catholic faith “shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to choose.” …
Archbishop Cordileone clarified that "Nancy Pelosi does not speak for the Catholic Church. … And on the question of the equal dignity of human life in the womb, she [Pelosi] also speaks in direct contradiction to a fundamental human right that Catholic teaching has consistently championed for 2,000 years.” …

Step three: Write a mainstream news story?

Please respect our Commenting Policy

Terry Mattingly

February 3, 2021

Worship, Vatican, Terry Mattingly, Surveys & polls, Social Media, Social Issues, Sex, Pope Francis, Politics, Journalism, Got news?, Kellerism, Catholicism, Abortion

Happy birthday (I guess): GetReligion will keep highlighting 'religion ghosts' in the news

Terry Mattingly

February 3, 2021

Worship, Vatican, Terry Mattingly, Surveys & polls, Social Media, Social Issues, Sex, Pope Francis, Politics, Journalism, Got news?, Kellerism, Catholicism, Abortion

Happy birthday (I guess): GetReligion will keep highlighting 'religion ghosts' in the news

Growing old is complicated.

This is especially true during these bizarre COVID-19 days in which one day runs into another and sometimes it’s hard to remember what is what and when is when.

Oh well, whatever, nevermind. I being this up because GetReligion.org launched on Feb. 2, 2004 (even though the first post was written a day earlier). I think that means we just turned 17 and are headed into year No. 18, but my aging mind goes rather numb just thinking about it.

This blog has always had two essential goals.

The first is to highlight what we call “ghosts” in mainstream news coverage, as in essential facts and themes about religion that journalists — on lots of beats — frequently miss when covering news stories, big and small. A side effect of that task has been urging newsroom managers to hire experienced religion-beat reporters to strengthen their newsrooms.

Goal No. 2 is related to that. We have tried, year after year, to defend what is frequently called the American Model of the Press (see this .pdf) — with its emphasis on accurate, fair-minded, even balanced coverage of stories in which there are competing, or even clashing, viewpoints. For a taste of what that sounds like, check out this famous 2003 memo by the late, great, Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll. Here’s a crucial chunk of that, after his critique of a one-sided story:

The reason I'm sending this note to all section editors is that I want everyone to understand how serious I am about purging all political bias from our coverage. We may happen to live in a political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times.

I'm no expert on abortion, but I know enough to believe that it presents a profound philosophical, religious and scientific question, and I respect people on both sides of the debate. A newspaper that is intelligent and fair-minded will do the same.

In recent years, economic, cultural and political forces have greatly weakened the American Model of the Press (see this recent Celemente Lisi post on that topic). Some people say this model is outdated, in a digital age in which opinion is cheap and information is expensive and the safest business model — producing mouse-clicks and loyal subscribers — is to tell your niche audience what it wants to hear.

Please respect our Commenting Policy