Kellerism

, , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Once again, why is religion a 'green frog' topic in many mainstream newsrooms?

, , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Once again, why is religion a 'green frog' topic in many mainstream newsrooms?

The news editor at the Champaign-Urbana News Gazette — my first real newsroom gig — had an interesting name for for a certain kind of over-the-top reader who would call to complain about the news.

It didn’t really matter if the reader’s criticism was right or wrong. It was all about tone and, especially, whether or not the reader was complaining about a subject that editors took seriously.

My editor referred to these callers as “green frogs.”

You see, many of these adamant readers were complaining about issues linked to religion, morality and politics. (At that time, the born-again Jimmy Carter was in the White House and the Religious Right was just starting to organize.)

As the complaining went on and on, the news editor’s eyes would glaze and he would put the caller on hold. That’s when I would hear the following, since everyone knew that I wanted to become a religion-beat pro: “Mattingly, there’s a green frog on the phone! You talk to them.”

This brings us to this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), in which host Todd Wilken asked a question that, in various forms, I have heard a thousand times over the past 40+ years.

Yes, that would be: Why don’t journalists “get” religion?

However, there are many variations. Why don’t editors hire trained religion-beat reporters? Why do newsrooms mess up the basic facts in some many religion stories? Why do many, not all, journalists IGNORE essential religion issues and themes in important news and events? Why do religious issues show up so often in studies probing media bias? Long ago, back when journalists in major newsrooms dared to fill out surveys about their work, why did half of pros in elite newsrooms write the word “none” in the space describing their religious faith?

I could go on and on. My chosen wording is this: Why don’t newsroom managers handle religion news with the same old-school journalism methodology — hire reporters who have training and experience on this beat and let them do their work — that they apply to subjects that they respect (such as politics, sports, law, arts, business, etc.)?


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

Inside a tense huddle in Baltimore: U.S. Catholic bishops wrestle with Vatican criticism

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Inside a tense huddle in Baltimore: U.S. Catholic bishops wrestle with Vatican criticism

The U.S. Catholic bishops are gathered in Baltimore, once again, which means that reporters are listening to waves of friendly words in public, while trying to get bishops to be candid in the tiny windows of time when they are free to meet with outsiders.

The more tense the atmosphere, the smaller the windows of open discussion. Long ago, during meetings in a hotel ballroom in Washington, D.C., several reporters (including moi) blocked the service door to the kitchen so that we could ask questions when bishops tried to slip out that back door.

The issue? Vatican efforts to discipline a bishop who was getting out of line on doctrinal issues. Back then, it was a progressive bishop who was in trouble with the pope.

Times change. Today, it’s doctrinal conservatives who are worried, since they are on the wrong side of trends in Rome. For more background, see my recent post: “Attention U.S. Catholic bishops: You are not allowed to say that this pope isn't Catholic.”

This early Associated Press report punches several crucial buttons:

BALTIMORE (AP) — Catholic leaders called for peace in a war-torn world and unity amid strife within their own clerical ranks on Tuesday, as U.S. bishops gathered in Baltimore for their annual fall meeting.

The meeting came soon after two actions by Pope Francis that illustrated the divisive challenges facing the Catholic Church – removing one of his harshest conservative critics from his role as bishop of Tyler, Texas, and releasing a document conveying a more welcoming stance to transgender people than the official positions of the U.S. bishops.

The key is that Catholics everywhere are supposed to be talking more openly, bowing to the spirit of “synodality.” That is, of course, a reference to the first major meeting of the Synod on Synodality, which featured strong efforts to prevent participants from speaking to journalists or releasing texts of speeches or remarks that were not cleared by synod leaders chosen by Pope Francis.

The AP report turned to American politics, of course, and offered this “tsk, tsk” analysis:

The bishops elected Toledo Bishop Daniel Thomas over a more prominent cultural warrior, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, as the new head of their committee on pro-life activities. The committee’s chair serves as the conference’s point-person in efforts against abortion, a top priority for the bishops.

Jamie Manson, head of Catholics for Choice, called it an ironic choice, given that Thomas serves in Ohio where Catholic groups “just spent more than $12 million fighting a losing battle against abortion access.” Ohio voters enshrined abortion rights by ballot amendment last week.


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

Sexy pop star Sabrina Carpenter ruffles feathers, and a badly-covered news story is born

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Sexy pop star Sabrina Carpenter ruffles feathers, and a badly-covered news story is born

Religion and pop culture frequently intersect and this can create some rather strange bedfellows.

Can we see this in the news? Well, the mainstream media is largely a secular place, but pop-culture reporting — especially when it comes to celebrities — may be the most-secular niche of them all. 

This brings us to recent headlines. The name Sabrina Carpenter may not mean anything to anyone over 25, but she was at the center of a major religion story just last week. Search the name “Sabrina Carpenter” and the word “church” in News Google and you’ll see what I’m referring to. 

The pop singer made news — and not just for her music — after her latest music video "Feather,” which was filmed at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Church in Brooklyn, New York.

The video shows Carpenter in an outfit not suitable for church as several men fight over her. It also shows her attending their funerals at the church with candy-colored coffins. One off those coffins includes the inscription "RIP B - - - -.”

There was fallout. This is what Fox News reported on its website once church officials in Brooklyn caught wind of what had happened:

"The parish did not follow diocesan policy regarding the filming on Church property, which includes a review of the scenes and script," the statement read.

While the parish initially claimed that the video’s production company "failed to accurately represent the video content," an investigation into the matter concluded that documents given to the parish "while failing to depict the entirety of the scenes, clearly portray inappropriate behavior unsuitable for a church sanctuary."

As a result, Brennan announced that the parish’s vicar, Monsignor Jamie Gigantiello, was relieved of his position and temporarily replaced with Auxiliary Bishop Witold Mroziewski, who took over all administrative responsibilities. 

John Notaro, executive director of the Catholic Foundation of Brooklyn and Queens and Futures in Education, has also taken over Gigantiello’s administrative responsibilities for those respective organizations. Gigantiello, however, will still remain in the church as a pastor.

Prepare for a very important detail of a liturgical nature.


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

When it comes to Speaker Mike Johnson, some journalists have become unhinged

, , , , , , ,
When it comes to Speaker Mike Johnson, some journalists have become unhinged

Much to the rejoicing of the American populace, the House of Representatives got back to work Oct. 25 when the Republicans finally agreed on a speaker after an agonizing three weeks with no one in charge.

But to read media reports about the new speaker, you’d think the Rev. Jerry Falwell had risen from the dead and was occupying the spot. There’s an evangelical Christian at the podium and that’s red meat for a lot of scribes out there.

Watch the above video and listen to the two anchors scoff at the very idea of monitoring your kid’s internet content. Imagine, they said, being concerned about whether your son is watching porn!

It’s hard not to listen to such repartee without one’s mouth falling open. Youth suicides are soaring; kids are watching stuff online and carrying it out and these folks just think it’s all so ridiculous. I know the parents of a 13-year-old who was into really dark stuff online. By the time they figured out what he was up to, it was too late. They found his body in the garage.

A lot of America does believe in monitoring their kids’ internet viewing, porn included; a concept that some of the media I’ll be discussing cannot comprehend. Some of the most unhinged coverage has come from the Rolling Stone and finally backlash over the Stone’s over-the-top coverage is starting to emerge. More on that in a moment.

At the base of the media hysterics is the news about a father/son arrangement between Johnson and his 17-year-old son, to use a shared software program to make sure the other hasn’t been looking at porn. My prize for the most faux rage headline comes from the New Republic:

Mike Johnson and His Son Monitoring Each Other’s Porn Intake Is Worse Than You Think

The House speaker admitted to a wild new detail about his personal life. And it’s a bigger deal than it seems.

 First off, this headline is deceptive. What Johnson has said is not that the two of them are perusing dark websites on the sly; the point is neither of them are looking at porn at all.


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

Rolling Stone readers will be shocked: Flamy Grant's cock-and-bull tale of oppression

, , , , , , ,
Rolling Stone readers will be shocked: Flamy Grant's cock-and-bull tale of oppression

Ethan Millman of Rolling Stone had an amusing story on his hands, if ideology had not prevailed and rendered it into an uncritical public relations piece.

The story is this: The Recording Academy changed the category of the album “Bible Belt Baby” by Flamy Grant from Contemporary Christian Album to Best Pop Vocal Album. Millman reports that the change was the result of vulgarities in the song “Esther, Ruth, and Rahab,” which includes this line: “God would only hear a prayer/If it came from a person with a cock.”

Millman quotes this statement from the Recording Academy that confirms its reason for making the change: “Re-categorizing recordings with explicit language/content has been a standard practice for the Gospel & CCM genre committee, given that the Gospel & CCM Field consists of lyrics-based categories that reflect a Christian worldview.”

And that’s the point when the detachment of traditional journalism concludes. I am sure that is shocking to Rolling Stone readers.

The rest of the story hands the microphone to Matthew Blake (the offstage name of Flamy Grant), who has a sense of humor about a great many things other than his victimization narrative. In this story, his word is printed as gospel.

First Blake complains about the category change — one that most purveyors of Contemporary Christian Music would welcome, given the genre’s reputation as being bland and dull.

But Blake believes the change “completely buried me” because, as Millman explains, Blake would “now be measured against the likes of the world’s biggest superstars as opposed to a smaller niche of peers from the Christian music community.”

Next, Blake presents as a naif in the woods of Big Music: “This is all so new to me; I’m pretty clueless about the inner workings of the music industry.”


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

Here is a solid news peg for the severely under-covered story of Christian persecution

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Here is a solid news peg for the severely under-covered story of Christian persecution

With all-important developments in the Middle East and Ukraine, it seems off-kilter to state that another major international story is being severely neglected, and has long been so. But such is The Guy’s opinion about mainstream media neglect of the waves of evidence for ongoing global persecution of Christians, on which we now have a Nov. 1 news peg.

A previous GetReligion Memo addressed the plight of Armenian Christians within Islamic Azerbaijan.  That’s just one of many tragedies detailed in the annual “Persecutors of the Year” report for 2023, just issued by International Christian Concern (ICC).

Yes, followers of other world religions also face inexcusable abuse in several nations. The parallel 2023 report produced last May by the federal government’s independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which is also important to check out, emphasizes the plight of both Christians and other minorities in Iran but “sounds the alarm regarding the deterioration of religious freedom conditions in a range of other countries.” Click here for that report (.pdf).

But the scale is distinctive if, as ICC reports, “there are an estimated 200 to 300 million Christians who suffer persecution worldwide.” There’s corroboration of such a vast problem in the latest edition of the “World Christian Encyclopedia.”

The overall global scenario warrants coverage, but many specific situations are newsworthy.

In ICC’s estimation, the world’s five worst individual persecutors today are Yogi Adityanath, the Hindu chief minister of India’s most populous state; Isaias Afwerki, Eritrea’s dictator; the better-known President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and atheistic Communist dictators Xi Jinping of China and Kim Jong Un of North Korea.

Here’s the ICC list of the most bloodthirsty non-governmental organizations: Allied Democratic Forces (Islamic State affiliate operating in Congo and Uganda), Al-Shabab (al-Qaida affiliate in Somalia), ethnic Fulani jihadists in Nigeria, the five terrorist groups jointly disrupting Africa’s Sahel region, the Tatmadaw (Myanmar’s army) and the famous Taliban who again rule Afghanistan.

The ICC material from 50 researchers, half at Washington headquarters and half working overseas, shows that action against Christians is frequently linked with oppression of ethnic minorities and of political dissenters.


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

Podcast: This Gaza matrix is, for journalists, a digital-tech sword with two razor edges

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: This Gaza matrix is, for journalists, a digital-tech sword with two razor edges

I don’t think that the “Crossroads” team has ever focused on the same topic during radio programs-podcasts that are only two weeks apart.

But these are strange times and it seems that everything is moving way too fast. Ask the editors at The New York Times about that.

Thus, consider this week’s podcast an updated and expanded version our previous offering that ran with this headline: “Seeking some Gaza facts, maybe even truth, in today's niche-media matrix.” Now, to tune in this week’s 2.0 take on some of those subjects (and more), CLICK HERE. I kept the same “Matrix” graphics out front for a very simple reason — I still feel like I am living in a bizarre news environment in which it is difficult to tell what is real and what is digital illusion. How about you?

Thus, we are still dealing with the New York Times headline that helped launch a thousand arguments-protests-riots-pogroms in tense urban areas (and campuses of higher learning) around the world.

That news-shaping headline again: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say.” That is a headline in which hard evidence later emerged that every single world in that equation could be scratched out (think red ink) with convincing tech evidence, according to the kinds of sources that journalists usually consider authoritative.

But the whole controversy would have been different — still inaccurate, but much more honest — if the first draft had simply said this: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, according to Hamas.” Yes, it would have helped if the times had not strategically located, under that headline, a photo of a blasted building in Gaza that was not the hospital (but we will set that aside for now).

The key is that the Times editors have finally deemed it necessary to address this issue, in this rather amazing item: “Editors’ Note: Gaza Hospital Coverage.” I doubt that this wall soothe any nerves in, oh, Istanbul, but it is worth reading.


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

Pope's media blackout created a shadowy Synod on Synodality, with its own 'sideshows'

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Pope's media blackout created a shadowy Synod on Synodality, with its own 'sideshows'

Sometimes the boring stuff is the most important. Anyone who has ever worked in journalism for several decades, such as myself, can attest to this. 

Whether you’re sifting through legal documents or financial statements, there’s more often than not a story — or at the very least some important information that can be used as supporting material — that can be gleaned from such an exercise.  

The same often goes for materials and documents released by the Vatican. I often try to read Holy See correspondence in Italian (like the United Nations, the Vatican often puts out information in a variety of languages) on the Vatican website or in its official newspaper l’Osservatore Romano.  

But information out of Rome, often resembling a fire hose, was down to a trickle over the past month. That was the story that loomed over the whole Synod on Synodality story.

For several weeks, there were no documents to read through and very few notable news conferences. You ended up with talking points about the lack of talking points. It was, to be blunt, next to impossible to know what was happening. Maybe that was the point?

We know, now that this second phase of the synod has come to an end, that the Vatican issued a document that “said it was ‘urgent’ that women have a larger role but postponed discussion of major issues such as ordaining women as deacons and failed to address outreach to L.G.B.T.Q.+ Catholics.”

That’s what The New York Times reported this past weekend upon the synod’s conclusion. It should be noted that the final phase will take place in October 2024. At that point, recommendations on what doctrinal changes — yes, doctrinal changes — the church should adopt will be put in front of Pope Francis for consideration.

While there was plenty of coverage once the meeting was over, there was little to no coverage of the synod while it was taking place. At least no coverage that informed readers in general, and Catholics in particular, on what was actually going on inside the Vatican these past few weeks. Almost all “information” available was second-hard or from Vatican approved voices. There were no transcripts or videos of crucial speeches, for example.

The reason for all of this was a simple one. Pope Francis wanted a media blackout.

That’s right. A meeting meant to inspire open dialogue was held under a veil of silence.


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

Surprise! Speaker of the House is pro religious liberty, which means he's ultra-conservative

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Surprise! Speaker of the House is pro religious liberty, which means he's ultra-conservative

Before diving into the valid religion-angle hooks in the life and career of Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, please allow me to address that “election denier” thing, since I am a pedigreed (nod to Religion News Service editors) #NeverTrump, #NeverClintonBiden voter.

Yes, I have closely followed election-denial issues from 2016, when the deniers were elite Democrats haunted by Russia ghosts. Ditto for 2020, when the deniers were Republicans, who kept losing court cases — even when the judges were selected by Donald Trump. I do think Big Tech efforts to cancel hot news stories affected the election (but maybe not, since the nation seems frozen 50-50 in red/blue concrete).

Truth is, I am more interested in Johnson’s First Amendment activism than I am in Trump stuff. “First Amendment,” of course, means religious liberty, free speech and freedom of association. Is Johnson concerned about religious liberty for all or for some? His legal career should include on-paper info on that.

Meanwhile, the mainstream coverage of his surprise election stressed his “anti-gay” work and related religious convictions. On X, I tweeted a question: “Does anti-gay rights mean pro-First Amendment?”

Everything you need to know on press views of that can be found in this double-decker headline at the New York Times, serving as a kind of editorial memo to the news industry as a whole:

For Mike Johnson, Religion Is at the Forefront of Politics and Policy

The new House speaker has put his faith at the center of his political career, and aligned himself with a newer cohort of conservative Christianity that some describe as Christian nationalism.

Obviously, “Christian nationalism” is currently one of the hot terms in journalism. Also, it’s clear that many journalists are concerned about the success that Alliance Defending Freedom lawyers are having at the U.S. Supreme Court and elsewhere. Again, there is a crucial question there: Is this First Amendment group winning victories for a variety of religious minorities?

The Times editors simply went with this, stating that Johnson spent time as a “lawyer and spokesman for the anti-abortion and anti-gay rights group Alliance Defense Fund.” Of course, that puts him in interesting company — with Times columnist David French (whose First Amendment work I have admired for two decades).

It’s important to know that Johnson declined a Times interview request. I think that he should have done that interview, with an agreement that he could post a transcript online. Would the Times have agreed? The speaker should test that.


Please respect our Commenting Policy