Get Religion is a national and global journalism site focusing on how the mainstream press covers religion news in politics, entertainment, business and sports.
Here’s an interesting story from Reuters. Written by Philip Pullella, it’s headlined “After stinging report, Pope softens tone for U.S. nuns.” And the lede reinforces that claim:
Since I’m always complaining at all of those awful stories with headlines such as “Catholics To Ordain First Female Priest,” I knew I had to highlight a story that does a good job of explaining how a group can have the word “Catholic” in its name but not be under the Bishop of Rome.
About a year ago, Gallup did a poll showing that Americans are completely ignorant of what percentage of the population identifies as homosexual. Mainstream studies indicate that the actual figures are somewhere in the low single digits, but Americans believed — on average — that 25 percent of the population is gay. This includes data showing that 35 percent of Americans think that more than 25 percent of the population is gay.
One of the media templates we see frequently in discussion about whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions or other groupings is a supposedly rhetorical question about how such a change in law would ever affect anyone other than gay couples. I’ve always thought it showed a surprising lack of imagination for reporters to not be able to realize that changing marriage law, whether you support it or oppose it, is radical. It was radical when marriage law was changed to allow married couples to dissolve their unions with ease, for instance. It had massive changes for American society and men and women and children. And it would be radical, of course, to change the law to say that gender or number are unimportant characteristics or limitations on marriage.
It may only be seven sentences long, but I was happy to see this Associated Press report briefly explaining that U.S. Roman Catholic bishops have formally rejected the Obama administration’s proposed modifications to the Health and Human Services rule requiring employers to provide health insurance that covers free contraception, abortion drugs and sterilization:
Embedded here is a clip from CNN’s Reliable Sources, headlined “Media embrace same-sex marriage story,” where host Howard Kurtz discusses the media coverage of President Barack Obama’s announcement regarding same-sex marriage with Terence Smith, Nia-Malika Henderson and Lauren Ashburn. Are media rooting for Obama on same-sex marriage? Should ABC have agreed that the Obama administration could pick the host to do the big interview regarding this news? And should journalists have pressed Obama about his claim he didn’t support same-sex marriage when everyone “knew” he did? Readers interested in media coverage of this issue will find this bit interesting. Later in the show, Kurtz interviewed Matt Lewis and John Aravosis about similar topics.
One of the things that unites readers and reporters is that we are writing or reading news because we’re curious about the world around us. USA Today runs a story about something quite common — the celebration of Mother’s Day — and yet I found it interesting because it satiates some of that curiosity I have about Mother’s Day.
A few readers sent along an interesting story about a Catholic school in Arizona that defaulted rather than play a co-ed baseball team. It reminds me a bit of the New York Times story about the all-girl prom at Hamtramck High School. Both are stories about religion, while the all-girl prom was done for Muslim sensibilities.
Reuters runs a piece about how a “Gay-led Los Angeles parish breaks with Presbyterian Church.” It begins with some dramatic language:
