Pop Culture

, , , , , , , , ,

Washington Post says blue USA needs 'a healer': So Oprah and Michelle are in savior biz?

, , , , , , , , ,

Over and over, this recent Washington Post news feature proclaims “This is not a political story,” “This is not a political story,” “ This is not a political story.”

Thus, the headline proclaims: “Greetings from the alternate universe where Oprah and Michelle Obama are running for president.”

But, of course, the whole point is that there are many blue zip-code Americans who wish, wish, wish this was a real political story. They are looking for a savior, with a small “s.”

Then again, this article — in addition to not being a political story — is not a religion story.

Maybe. It depends on how one defines “religion” right now, in the giant shopping mall of self-empowerment lingo that is American public discourse. See if you can spot a clue or two in the overture:

NEW YORK — It wasn’t long after Oprah Winfrey took the stage … for her 2020 Vision: Your Life in Focus tour — equal parts Weight Watchers pitch, gospel revival and wellness fair — before she said what was on the tip of the audience’s tongues.

“In the early stages of the tour, we had trouble coming up with the right title,” she said. “We did talk about ‘Oprah 2020.’ And then I thought you would get the wrong idea.”

No, for the millionth time, Oprah is not running for president. And neither is her guest of honor that day, Michelle Obama, the nation’s most famous empty-nester, who told Winfrey she’s trying to figure out “how I want to spend the rest of my life.”

“President!” came a shout from the audience. “White House!” yelled some others.

OK, I will ask: What does “gospel” mean in this context?

Anyway, that reference opens the door for a rush of semi-spiritual lingo in this piece — even though there is no attempt to reference a brand-name religion of any kind.


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

Orson Bean's wild life: Why did Los Angeles Times obit skip God's role in final chapters?

, , , , , , , , ,

No doubt about it, actor Orson Bean lived a wild life — even by Hollywood standards.

As you would expect, the lengthy Los Angeles Times obituary for Bean — who died at age 91 when hit by two cars — was packed with colorful details. I mean, this is a man whose early life included a run-in with the Hollywood blacklist, yet he ended up as a conservative who helped inspire the career of his son-in-law Andrew Breitbart.

But here is the GetReligion question for this day: Why would the newspaper of record in La La Land avoid one of the key elements of the final chapter of this man’s life, as in his conversion to Christianity?

Surely there was room for a phrase or two about that development in lines such as these?

Bean’s onstage antics included stand-up comedy and magic tricks as he made the rounds on game shows and late-night television. He was fondly remembered by baby boomers for bringing his wit and sophistication to “What’s My Line?,” “I’ve Got a Secret” and “To Tell the Truth” and guest-starring in variety series and talk shows, including “The Ed Sullivan Show,” “The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson” and “The Mike Douglas Show.” Later in his career, he starred in “Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman,” “Being John Malkovich” and “Desperate Housewives” while racking up dozens of guest appearance credits, with “Two and a Half Men,” “The Closer,” “Modern Family” and “How I Met Your Mother” among them.

Bean, who wrote several memoirs and a cookbook for cats, was briefly blacklisted, became a hippie, a peddler of a self-help method and a beloved Venice resident as he bolstered the local theater scene with wife Alley Mills. All along, his true passion was the stage, though he acquiesced to television, films and even commercials just to pay his bills.

The story gets wilder and wilder, which only points to the irony of journalists (the Times was not alone in missing the faith angle here) avoiding any discussion of Bean’s faith — which he made no attempt to hide, as one can see in the videos accompanying this post.

You can see a hint of what is missing in this colorful passage:


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

GetReligion isn't an entertainment blog: But entertainment and news often run together

, , , , , , ,

Your GetReligionistas received an interesting note this week (via our comments pages) that reminded me that I haven’t offered an update on how things are going one month into GetReligion 4.0.

GetReligion 4.0? Well, GetReligion 1.0 was quite small, with me and co-founder Doug LeBlanc striving to get one or two items online day after day while doing other jobs. Then, in 2.0, I did the blog part-time for a decade while leading the Washington Journalism Center — with contributions from a wonderful pack of scribes, such as Daniel Pulliam, Elizabeth Eisenstadt Evans, M.Z. Hemingway, Sarah Pulliam Bailey, George Conger and others. The 3.0 version just ended, with me blogging and editing full-time with the members of the current gang contributing throughout the week.

With 4.0, I’m part-time, again and we’re part of the First Amendment work at the Overby Center at the University of Mississippi. The site has downsized a bit and we do need financial support from readers. We also share some content with the online magazine Religion UnPlugged.

Now, the following letter from reader Mark Gammon came in response to a recent piece by Catholic-news specialist Clemente Lisi that ran with this headline: “HBO's 'The New Pope' serves up lots of sinful sizzle, but no substance worth discussing.” Here is what Gammon had to say:

Oh no. Is this what this website is going to be now? I always appreciated reading about the press’ blind spots or unconscious hostility toward religion. As a theologian, I found it a valuable service.

This piece, on the other hand, is just whining about a TV show.


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

HBO's 'The New Pope' serves up lots of sinful sizzle, but no substance worth discussing

, , , , , , , ,

There is often a Hollywood fascination with all that’s morbid about religion. This has traditionally included a profane approach when it comes to the Catholic church — dramatizing reality into what can sometimes be an ugly trope.

This is exactly what we get with HBO’s new TV mini-series The New Pope. As is often the case, it’s also easy to see this entertainment as a form of semi-journalistic commentary about the state of the church.

As always, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights spoke up: “We have been tracking what The New York Times and The Washington Post have been saying about the Catholic Church for decades, and it will shock no one to learn that they are not exactly our biggest fans. More proof was offered today with the reviews of the first episode of ‘The New Pope.’ What they said tells us as much about them as it does HBO, another media outlet that likes to stick it to the Church.”

This new series picks up from “The Young Pope,” starring Jude Law as the fictional (and very conservative) Pius XIII, that ran in 2016. That series ended with the young fictional pontiff deep in a coma. The second series, which premiered on January 13, gets even crazier — and more sacrilegious — with the introduction of a new pope, played in over-the-top form by John Malkovich as John Paul III.

The biggest issue with this new mini-series — coming on the heels of the fictionalized Netflix movie “The Two Popes” — is the total lack of respect there is for the church and faith. The Vatican and the men who run it appear to be more into power and greed than saving souls.

The first episode did pack plenty of drama and intrigue, but that ultimately isn’t enough in this case to sustain a meaningful series.


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

Tim Tebow marries Miss Universe: It's tabloid heaven, but there's a deeper story there

, , , , , , , , ,

Let’s face it. A New York City tabloid is going to do what a New York City tabloid is going to do.

So, if you had to make a prediction, what do you think would be in the lede of a New York Daily News report about Tim Tebow marring a woman who had been named Miss Universe?

Think it through. What aspect of Tebow’s life have more than a few journalists (and activists with lower motives) probed ever since That Press Conference during his playing days at the University of Florida?

So here we go:

Tim Tebow has scored.

The former NFL quarterback and current Mets minor leaguer, who has said he planned to remain a virgin until he gets hitched, is now a married man.

Tebow wed 2017 Miss Universe Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters in Cape Town, South Africa, about a year after getting engaged, People reported.

Believe it or not, the Page Six team at The New York Post stayed quite tame, with: “Tim Tebow marries former Miss Universe Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters.” I don’t know what I expected, but that wasn’t the Post headline I thought that we would see.

So what was the story here?

On one level, of course, this was a celebrity wedding. Thus, the stories had all the details about the bride’s gown, the groom’s tux, the menu for the reception (Tebow has a special diet when he is in training for baseball), etc., etc. Readers also need to know why Tebow has been so controversial, in the first place. Thus, the Daily News tossed in this passage late in the story:

Tebow’s personal life has been a hot topic over the years, including him stating in 2009 that he planned to practice abstinence until marriage due to his Christian faith. He proposed to Nel-Peters in January 2019 at his family’s farm near Jacksonville, Fla.

In addition to his baseball career, Tebow works as a college football analyst for ESPN’s SEC Network.

USA Today offered a kind of wink-wink passage high in its report, centering on Tebow’s expectations about this event:


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

Category: Game shows. Question: How did Jeopardy! stumble into the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire?

, , , , , , , , , ,

The mega-hit TV game show “Jeopardy!” is not my thing; I can’t recall ever watching it for more than a few minutes. But chances are that more than a few GetReligion readers are fans. Some undoubtedly were among the approximately 15-million viewers who tuned in to the show’s prime time “The Greatest of All Time” competition.

In the world of TV game shows this was, I understand, a big deal. As such, it constituted legitimate entertainment news and has been extensively covered the past several days. Some of this is, of course, linked to legendary host Alex Trebek and his battle with stage 4 pancreatic cancer.

The wave of news about “The Greatest” has not been the only recent “Jeopardy!” encounter with the news. And while the headlines generated by “The Greatest” episodes were a public relations gold mine, the show’s second news media spotlight was anything but.  

Rather, the second “Jeopardy!” story was a public relations disaster on an international scale. (I’m guessing here, but I figure the old show business adage, “say anything you want about me as long as you spell my name right,” longer boosts ratings in the #MeToo era.)

Why was it a global downer? 

Because the show was caught rewarding an incorrect answer to a geopolitically fraught question. And because the error concerned the always incendiary Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the incident went viral. 

As is the norm these days, the flub ricocheted around the web, garnering attention way beyond any rational measure of its real-world importance. 

Here’s the top of a Washington Post story on the brouhaha to get those of you who need it up to speed.

The “Jeopardy!” category was “Where’s that Church?”

The clue, for $200, was about an ancient basilica, “built in the 300s A.D.," in the West Bank city of Bethlehem.

And the answer? That might depend on whom you ask.


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

On M.Z. Hemingway, The New Yorker and the return of the vast Opus Dei conspiracy

, , , , , , ,

Since I am not living in Washington, D.C., during this current acid-bath of an era (thank you, Jesus), I no longer get to hang out every now and then with former GetReligionista Mollie Hemingway. I wish I could, though. She’s a witty riot of a conversationalist and it doesn’t matter if she’s surrounded by packs of liberals or conservatives (or both).

We probably wouldn’t talk about politics, since I’m still enforcing my policy that Donald Trump’s face is not allowed to appear on the television in my sports-and-movie cave. (I’m bracing myself for Hillary Clinton’s comeback, when I can renew her ban.) We could talk about journalism, of course, since we both enjoy the work of reporters who quote lots of on-the-record sources (as in the “Justice on Trial” book that MZ wrote with Carrie Severino).

I am sure that we would discuss mainstream media coverage of religion news, since that’s a topic she frequently raises in her work with Howard Kurtz on the MediaBuzz show. (Why does that have to air on Sunday mornings?)

That brings me to that very MZ blast the other day about that piece in The New Yorker that ran with this headline: “William Barr, Trump’s Sword and Shield.” This feature by David Rohde — with a big dose of paranoia about conservative Catholics — served as a reminder that there are dangerous religious believers in the world other than white evangelicals.

Here’s MZ:

… (In) the second paragraph, Rohde writes about a speech Barr recently gave at the University of Notre Dame. Barr asserted that declining religious influence in American life has left the country more vulnerable to government dependency. He also noted that some of the left’s secularists are not particularly tolerant.

For Rohde, the speech was “a catalogue of grievances accumulated since the Reagan era, when Barr first enlisted in the culture wars. It included a series of contentious claims. He argued, for example, that the Founders of the United States saw religion as essential to democracy. ‘In the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people — a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order,’ he said.”


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

About that semi-apology by Chick-fil-A czar: Is this a mainstream news story or not?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

As we approached New Year’s Day, and this new era in GetReligion.org work, religion-beat patriarch Richard Ostling started floating some trial balloons in our team’s behind-the-scenes email chatter.

For example, he suggested that we needed to run short, punchy commentary items every now and then when there was an interesting religion-beat story breaking or there was a potential story lurking somewhere in the digital weeds.

Long ago, GetReligion even had a “Got News?” logo for that kind of thing, atop posts that pointed to interesting, potentially newsworthy items in denominational wire services or other alternative sources of religion-beat information.

So what would this look like? Maybe something like this. Have you seen any mainstream news coverage of the leader of Chick-fil-A writing a letter admitting that his company messed up the whole ties-that-bind situation with Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

This story is all over the place in conservative Christian media, but, so far, I’m not seeing anything in the mainstream press. Here is the headline at DISRN: “Chick-fil-A CEO laments “inadvertently discrediting outstanding organizations" in giving strategy switch.”

So is this a story or not? It’s obvious that the original funding shift was a story, because it caused a firestorm in elite media (must-read Bobby Ross post here). Now there is this, care of DISRN:

In an open letter to the American Family Association (AFA), Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy expressed that the company "inadvertently discredited several outstanding organizations" when the fast food giant announced it would be restructuring its philanthropic strategy by halting donations to the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes last year.

AFA President Tim Wildmon had written Cathy asking if Chick-fil-A would publicly state that both ministries are not hate groups because of their beliefs concerning sexuality, marriage, and family.

Cathy responded:


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

Latter-day Saints march out: AP needed to talk to religious groups that still back Scouting

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

For leaders of the organization formerly known as the BOY Scouts, the clock is ticking toward a radically different New Year that will change all kinds of equations in the struggling organization that once occupied the safe middle-ground in American culture.

I am referring to the moment when entire troops of boys in the faith group formerly known as the Mormons will begin hitting the exit doors of Scouting. (Click here for lots of GetReligion posts on this topic.)

This is the kind of symbolic event that deserves a big feature story from the Associated Press — ”Mormons pulling 400,000 youths out of struggling Boy Scouts“ — which will run in mainstream newspapers from coast to coast — as it should.

It’s a good story. The question, for me, is whether it needed to dedicate two or three paragraphs to the big picture — as in other angles linked to religion that will affect Scouting in the near future. Hold that thought, because we will return to it. Meanwhile, here is the overture of this new AP piece:

KAYSVILLE, Utah (AP) — For decades, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was one of Boy Scouts of America’s greatest allies and the largest sponsor of troops. But on Jan. 1, the Utah-based faith will deliver the latest blow to the struggling organization when it pulls out more than 400,000 young people and moves them into a new global program of its own.

The change brings excitement and some melancholy for members of the faith and may push the Boy Scouts closer to the brink of bankruptcy as it faces a new wave of sex abuse lawsuits. 

Losing the church will mean about an 18% drop in Boy Scout youth membership compared with last year’s numbers and mark the first time since the World War II era that the figure will fall below 2 million. At its peak in the 1970s, more than 4 million boys were Scouts.


Please respect our Commenting Policy