Tech

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: It's just good business? The growing debate about America's news-silo culture

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: It's just good business? The growing debate about America's news-silo culture

Yes, this is another post about my new essay at the Religion & Liberty journal published by the Acton Institute. The headline: “The Evolving Religion of Journalism.”

Part of me wants to apologize for yet another GetReligion look at this topic. But I’m not going to do that, for at least three reasons.

(1) For me, it’s most important thing I’ve written about journalism since my 1983 essay for The Quill — “The religion beat: Out of the ghetto, into the mainsheets,” which helped spark a national debate about religion-news coverage, including a Los Angeles Times series by the late, great media-beat specialist David Shaw.

(2) It demonstrates (think “technology shapes content”) that Internet culture and commerce have either killed the American Model of the Press or are poised to do so. That’s hard for me to say, since I have spent my career defending old-school American journalism from enemies on the right and, now, the illiberal left.

(3) The Acton piece (there’s no way we could have planned this) came out just as several other important articles raised similar issues about journalism’s future and the role of niche/advocacy journalism in splintering American public discourse.

Such as? Click here for a recent GetReligion podcast-post that includes discussion of “Newsrooms that move beyond ‘objectivity’ can build trust,” by former Washington Post editor Leonard Downie, Jr. Also, see this new Bret Stephens op-ed in the New York Times: “How to Destroy (What’s Left of) the Mainstream Media’s Credibility.”

As a result, GetReligion readers will not be surprised that this week’s “Crossroads” podcast focused on these themes (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

The key: My essay is not another hot-take on media bias and religion-news coverage.


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

What if mass media can't get rid of misinformation (or agree on what the term means)?

, , , , , , ,
What if mass media can't get rid of misinformation (or agree on what the term means)?

Panelists on the final episode of the media-analysis show “Reliable Sources,” axed after three decades by CNN’s incoming management, gave voice to widespread angst about America’s news and information environment.

Rampant misinformation is among the top concerns these days. Social media have blocked COVID discussions regarded as misleading. The Biden Administration launched an Orwellian-sounding Disinformation Governance Board under the Department of Homeland Security, but quickly shelved the effort.

By the way, “misinformation” means incorrect knowledge of any sort, whereas “disinformation” is false knowledge that’s spread deliberately.

One commentator recommends that we all chill.

Only sheer “arrogance” could create “confidence that we can accurately and productively root out misinformation,” contends Isaac Saul, who heads up www.ReadTangle.com, an online newsletter that offers non-partisan summaries of the best arguments from various sides of political issues. (Check it out.) He titled a July article “Misinformation Is Here To Stay (And That’s OK).”

The Guy does not necessarily embrace all of Saul but considers his contentions important for media toilers, critics and consumers to ponder. Thus this Memo condenses the essence as follows.

For starters, Saul cleverly notes that many things each of us believes right will prove “utterly wrong” and history proves it. As recently as a century ago, doctors believed in bloodletting cures using leeches or scalpels. U.S. women had just obtained the vote over against the common belief they were too emotional. The Milky Way was the outer limit of the universe.

Only two decades ago, experts were telling us mass opioid prescriptions were safe and that switching from paper to plastic bags would save trees and thus help the environment. More recently, Twitter and Facebook barred accurate New York Post reportage on Hunter Biden’s loaded (in several senses of that word) laptop, and established sources branded as a conspiracy theory COVID’s origin in a China lab leak, now regarded as possible or even likely. Add your own examples.


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

Concerning 'good' faith and the Christian/pagan priest who believes Google AI is sentient

, , , , , , , ,
Concerning 'good' faith and the Christian/pagan priest who believes Google AI is sentient

Let’s start with some basics as we look at a recent New York Post story that ran with this headline: “Google engineer says Christianity helped him understand AI is ‘sentient’.”

For decades, I have been arguing with people, mostly cultural conservatives, who say things like: “Journalists hate religion.”

This is simplistic. In my experience — first, while working in newsrooms, and second, while reading and writing about media-bias issues — many journalists don’t care enough about religion to work up a good batch of hate. They tend to be indifferent or apathetic, unless certain types of religious folks start interfering in politics, which is the true religion of many or most news professionals.

No, it’s crucial to understand that many reporters love certain types of religion and oppose others. Always remember the following passage in that Jay Rosen PressThink essay, "Journalism Is Itself a Religion.” Yes, this involves interaction with one of my “On Religion” columns, but I can’t help that, nor can I help that this is quite long. So, what is the religion of the press?

A particularly telling example began with this passage from a 1999 New York Times Magazine article about anti-abortion extremism: “It is a shared if unspoken premise of the world that most of us inhabit that absolutes do not exist and that people who claim to have found them are crazy,” wrote David Samuels.

This struck some people as dogma very close to religious dogma, and they spoke up about it. One was Terry Mattingly, a syndicated columnist of religion: “This remarkable credo was more than a statement of one journalist’s convictions, said William Proctor, a Harvard Law School graduate and former legal affairs reporter for the New York Daily News. Surely, the ‘world that most of us inhabit’ cited by Samuels is, in fact, the culture of the New York Times and the faithful who draw inspiration from its sacred pages.”

Yet here is the part that intrigued me: “But critics are wrong if they claim that the New York Times is a bastion of secularism, he stressed. In its own way, the newspaper is crusading to reform society and even to convert wayward ‘fundamentalists.’ Thus, when listing the ‘deadly sins’ that are opposed by the Times, he deliberately did not claim that it rejects religious faith. Instead, he said the world’s most influential newspaper condemns ‘the sin of religious certainty.’ “


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

Dramatic story of Kyrgyz Christian swept up in China's Uyghur repression gets very little ink

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dramatic story of Kyrgyz Christian swept up in China's Uyghur repression gets very little ink

In all the stories about Ukraine and the genocide/war happening there, it’s easy to forget the other genocide going on in western China.

A number of weeks ago, Axios.com published a short about China’s “crime’s about humanity” there, particularly against the more than 1 million Muslims who are imprisoned in this 21st century gulag.

Lost in the details of this story is a second angle that would be of great interest to lots of readers in the United States and elsewhere — that Christians too have been caught up in the dragnet.

A Christian Chinese national who spent 10 months in a Xinjiang detention camp has arrived in the United States after months of behind-the-scenes lobbying by U.S. lawmakers, human rights activists and international lawyers.

Why it matters: The man, Ovalbek Turdakun, will provide evidence that international human rights lawyers say is vital to the case they have submitted to the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor arguing that China has committed crimes against humanity in Xinjiang.

Here are several crucial details in this overlooked story:

* Ovalbek and his wife and child were authorized to enter the U.S. on significant public benefit parole, which permits entry for special purposes such as testifying in a proceeding, but does not grant immigration status, because of the value of the testimony they are expected to give. Ovalbek crossed the borders of several Asian countries to get out, finally landing at Dulles Inernational Airport on April 8. Thus:

The big picture: Ovalbek Turdakun is a unique witness to Chinese government repression in Xinjiang, according to international lawyers, U.S. officials and others with knowledge of the case.


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

Concerning Elon Musk, the Babylon Bee and the wise teachings of Jesus

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Concerning Elon Musk, the Babylon Bee and the wise teachings of Jesus

At the end of each podcast, Babylon Bee leaders ask guests the same 10 questions, including this stumper: "Calvinist or Arminian?"

That caught Elon Musk by surprise, and he needed clarification on the difference between Arminian believers and persons from Armenia. After some background on Protestant history, he said: "My mind would say 'determinism' and my heart says, 'free will.' "

Why was the mastermind behind Tesla and SpaceX -- a man worth $278 billion at the end of 2021-- talking to a Christian satire website? The answer: Musk has 69.7 million Twitter followers, and he frequently responds, even if it's a U.S. senator questioning his taxes.

"You know, he engages with our content from time to time," Bee CEO Seth Dillon told Fox News. After email exchanges about a meeting, Musk said: "Fly to me and we'll do it."

The result was 100-plus minutes of conversation in Austin, Texas, ranging from satire to science, from politics to pop culture. Topics included why entrepreneurs are fleeing California, sustainable energy, superheroes (Musk would choose to be "Irony Man"), the physics of reusable rockets, cyborgs, how "wokeness" threatens humor, CNN morality and the future of a planet near an expanding sun.

Musk discussed his journey from South Africa to America, including his days as a manual laborer while struggling to pay student loans. Then he dove into computer coding and online commerce, making millions of dollars that led to Tesla. The rest is history.

On celebrity websites, Musk is often described as an atheist or agnostic. Asked if he prays, Musk once replied: "I didn't even pray when I almost died of malaria." But after the success of the first manned Falcon rocket mission, Musk said, in his public remarks: "You know, I'm not very religious but I prayed for this one."


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

Fallout from Pelosi's Roman holiday continues: More proof journalistic objectivity is dead?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Fallout from Pelosi's Roman holiday continues: More proof journalistic objectivity is dead?

Debates about the concept of objectivity in news coverage have been around for a long time — but now they are heating up to shockingly intense levels.

Objectivity, as it pertains to reporting, refers to fairness and nonpartisanship on the part of journalists and news organizations in the way they cover stories. An emphasis on objectivity is also linked to journalistic standards for balance, accuracy and showing respect for citizens on all sides of public debates.

This so-called “American model of the press” (click here for background) first evolved in the post-Civil War era and in the early 20th century as a way for U.S. newspapers to report and disseminate information to a wide, diverse body of readers. It allowed for a consistent method of testing that information so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine accuracy.

In a polarized digital age, the practice has been criticized and objectivity is all but dead as news outlets test new business models for struggling newsrooms. As a result, alternatives have emerged, most notably, in the form of a more partisan press that preaches to choirs of digital subscribers.

That brings us — no surprise — to the latest news story to inflame U.S. Catholics.

Despite it being almost two weeks since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Pope Francis at the Vatican, the fallout and reaction from that October 9 private audience continues to reverberate across the American political landscape, especially among Catholics across the doctrinal spectrum. Naturally, some are concerned about how the news media we consume has covered it all.

If facts are what matters here, it’s obvious that San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordelione should play a major role in these debates — since he is Pelosi’s bishop. Thus, he plays a crucial role in determining her sacramental status in the church. Who included his voice in this discussion and who didn’t?


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

Conservative Catholic media set the journalism agenda on Latin Mass and Burrill resignation

, , , , , , , , , ,
Conservative Catholic media set the journalism agenda on Latin Mass and Burrill resignation

It’s been a busy month on the Catholic beat. There’s rarely a dull moment, especially in the Pope Francis era, as debates over the past few weeks focused on the Latin Mass and Grindr-clicking gay clergy in high places.

These are two different issues, of course, but ones where conservative Catholic media outlets have excelled. I’d even go as far as to say that the coverage in various corners of the Catholic press has set the agenda on these two raging issues — for everyone.

I have written about the importance of the growing independent Catholic press before. At a time when mainstream media very often ignores one side on hot-button issues, a healthy alternate media that covers the church and isn’t afraid to give those voices space has helped readers fully understand the broader spectrum of U.S. and global Catholicism.

The health scare that Pope Francis recently went through has seemingly inflamed the culture wars within Roman Catholicism. There is a feeling that this pope’s time may be coming to an end and that reformers need to move quickly before conservative bishops and priests embark on a takeover.

I have lauded The Pillar in this space for their ability to explain complicated issues as well as break stories and embark on investigations. This has been a wonderful month for them, even as they have been catching flak from the Catholic left (and, thus, from key mainstream news outlets).

The story they broke on July 20 is what we in the journalism business call “a bombshell.” The story revealed that Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill, former general secretary of the U.S. bishops’ conference, had resigned after The Pillar “found evidence the priest engaged in serial sexual misconduct, while he held a critical oversight role in the Catholic Church’s response to the recent spate of sexual abuse and misconduct scandals.”

This is what The Pillar’s reporting found (this is long, but essential):


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

Are religious and culturally conservative groups silenced on the Internet?

, , , , , , ,
Are religious and culturally conservative groups silenced on the Internet?

Not all religious believers are conservatives.

I get that. But many are and not a few in this group have seen their posts frozen out of Facebook and other social media simply because some moderator thinks they’re spreading hate speech (which is usually posts defending centuries of Christian doctrine).

Big Tech has gotten reamed on this by members of Congress (which they seem to ignore) on the grounds of crushing political dissent. But what about religious views?

The National Catholic Register recently posted this thoughtful story about how the silencing of religious views (and the morality that emanates from them) affects Catholics who number some 51 million U.S. citizens or one-fifth of the population. This is not a small group. Here’s how the feature begins:

Lila Rose is no stranger to the tactics social-media giants Facebook and Twitter employed in banning former President Donald Trump from their platforms.

As head of the pro-life group Live Action, Rose has seen the organization she founded permanently banned from Pinterest, barred from advertising on Twitter and its entire TikTok account temporarily removed for unnamed “community violations.”

Rose gained some fame for her sneaking into abortion clinics as a teenager, posing as a girl seeking an abortion while recording everything with a video camera in her backpack to later accuse Planned Parenthood of looking the other way on statutory rape. She’s pictured with this post.

In remaining engaged on social media, where she and Live Action have a combined total of 5 million followers, Rose said she sticks to her message and tries to follow each platform’s guidelines. When an issue arises, she attempts to determine whether it was the result of a misunderstanding or mistake before pursuing a challenge.

“If you don’t have a clear case, saying you do when you don’t is not helpful,” she said. “I would caution people that just because your post is not getting a lot of shares or likes or you lost followers doesn’t mean it’s a nefarious scheme to destroy you. It’s important to have a lot of common sense and be thoughtful and discerning about whether this is truly the case.”

Still, for Catholics and others with conservative views, examples of Big Tech’s heavy hand abound, providing plenty of reasons to be concerned about access to social media.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Polls apart: Pew Research switching methodologies with its much-used U.S. religious surveys

, , , , , ,
Polls apart: Pew Research switching methodologies with its much-used U.S. religious surveys

Political journalists give lavish attention to polls and often slide past those footnotes about a "95 percent level of confidence" and "margin of error plus or minus 4 percentage points."

Thus, numbers are never exact and a three-point edge could actually be seven points ahead or one point behind. Not to mention that even the best poll is merely a time-bound snapshot of reality (and it always pays to check how questions are worded).

After Election Day 2020, complaints about misleading political polls were as loud as usual, perhaps even louder. Take the bizarre Maine Senate race data. Polls consistently showed incumbent Susan Collins would lose, and she was behind 6% in the one closest to Election Day. She won easily by an 8.6% margin.

Or consider recent surveys about whether Americans plan to get COVID-19 shots. The Wall Street Journal notes that "yes" answers have ranged from 20% to 63% depending on the methodology, the wording and, especially, whether respondents were offered more than two options.

These days the "response rates" among those in randomly selected samples are so low it's tough to tell how representative the people are.

That's among the major problems raised by eminent Princeton sociologist Robert Wuthnow in his 2015 book "Inventing American Religion: Polls, Surveys, and the Tenuous Quest for a Nation's Faith.”

Gallup data about U.S. religion are important because the firm has asked consistent questions across so many decades. But 21st Century religion writers rely heavily upon the Pew Research Center (where Alan Cooperman, a former Washington Post colleague, is director of religion research). Pew's expertise often provides all-important distinctions between white "mainline" and white "evangelical" Protestants, and between white and Hispanic Catholics.

Pew is changing the way it surveys religious behavior and attitudes, so the media will want to be aware of why and how.

Of major importance is how this affects writing about trend lines over time that uses past surveys.


Please respect our Commenting Policy