WWW-Tech

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

When politics shatter relationships: Does anyone else sense a religion ghost in Reuters report?

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

It's a story that, in one form or another, has become a mainstream news staple during the media meltdown after the election of Donald Trump as president. I am talking about the Wars On Facebook phenomenon, the whole idea that this election has driven painful, emotional wedges into families and circles of friends, severing the ties that bind.

It's a hot story because, for many people, it's absolutely true. This is really happening out there in social-media land and in the real world or real people. The question, of course, is "Why?" What are these divisions really about?

In most of the coverage the key issue is Trump himself -- period.

For journalists, it appears, Americans are either for Trump or against him. However, anyone who has read deeper into the coverage -- especially polls focusing on religious voters -- knows that millions of voters did not vote for Trump because they wanted Trump. They voted against Hillary Clinton, in part because of their concerns about moral and social issues (think religious liberty, as well) and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thus, at the very least, there are three divisions at the heart of the Wars On Facebook phenomenon. Anyone -- oh, like me -- who was #NeverTrump #NeverHillary knows that.

So what are these highly personal social-media spats really about? Yes, might there -- if "pew wars" principles remain in effect -- be a religion ghost or two haunting these faith-free stories?

The other day, Mark "KMark" Kellner sent out a perfect example of this phenomenon, care of Reuters. I call this story it perfect because it contains absolutely zero content about religion and/or moral and social issues. The headline: "From disputes to a breakup: wounds still raw after U.S. election." Here is the overture:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Burning passions over Donald Trump's presidency are taking a personal toll on both sides of the political divide. For Gayle McCormick, it is particularly wrenching: she has separated from her husband of 22 years.


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

A blog's life: GetReligion turns 13, still clinging to hope that more journalists will get it

, , , , , , , ,

You know the old saying that one year in the life of a dog is equal to seven years for its owner?

Well, if people talk about the relative value of "dogs years," is there some kind of corresponding scale for comparing years in ordinary human life with those in digital, online and social-media life? I mean, how old are Apple iPhones? They seem like they have been here forever. Every year on Twitter equals how much time in the real world?

I bring this up because GetReligion turns 13 today. What does it mean when a weblog lasts long enough to become a teen-ager? 

If your evolving team of GetReligionistas has been at this media-criticism thing for 13 years on regular analog calendars, how long is that in "blog years?" By the way, we have published, oh, 10 million words or so of new material here in that amount of time.

Why do we keep doing what we do? (Click here for our "What we do, why we do it" trilogy.)

To be blunt, we still believe that it's impossible to understand real events and trends in the lives of real people living in the real world without taking religion really seriously. We still believe that the more controversial the religion-news story, the more journalists should strive to accurately cover the crucial voices of believers and thinkers on both sides. The word "respect" is crucial in that equation. Ditto for "balance." We believe that doctrine and history matter. We believe that, when in doubt, you should report unto others as you would want others to report unto you. We remain committed to the old-school (as historians would put it) American model of the press.

Trust me, we can go on. And we plan to. After all, the editor of The New York Times recently saidt: "We don't get religion. We don't get the role of religion in people's lives." Who knows what will happen in the next 12 months? 

But as we mark Feb. 2 once again, let me point readers toward a recent essay that ran at the The Common Vision website with this double-decker headline:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

Southern Baptist offers poor churches free websites; RNS does compelling story

, , ,

One thing I’ve noticed about churches is how awful their online presence is. Having an effective website isn’t optional these days. Yet, I’ve been amazed at the sheer sloppiness of most churches’ online offerings. And then they wonder why no one attends their services.

I always thought a model website should have a “coming attractions” kind of ad for the upcoming sermon. Churches have been asking visitors to accept on faith that the sermon will apply to them that week, only to find out that the sermon’s about marriage, but the visitor is single. Or the sermon deal with God and the workplace while the visitor homeschools her kids.

So I was glad to see Religion News Service’s piece on a Connecticut firm that’s offering to build free web sites for churches, especially those too poor or technology-phobic to get their own.

(RNS) Members of Trueworship Tabernacle used to walk their Corpus Christi, Texas, neighborhood, passing out fliers about upcoming events.
But in March, the small, multicultural church got a new website.
Six months later, its online postings helped boost attendance at its “Youth Car Wash and Enchilada Sale” as well as its “Hallelujah Night” on Halloween.
In February, TicketNetwork executive Don Vaccaro started Grace Church Websites to meet a need he discovered while talking to his friend, the Rev. Boise Kimber of New Haven, Conn.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Comments with real content: More about that bride and the man with her father's heart

, , , , , ,

Longtime readers of this site know that the evolving GetReligionista team has been in the blogging business for a dozen years, which means that we have seen quite a few trends in social media come and go through the years. Yes, I confess that I once thought Twitter was a joke.

Early in the digital revolution, one of the elements of the new medium that excited people the most was the potential for solid, even insightful material emerging through comments from readers, comments that might even result in constructive dialogue between journalists and readers. Then along came the trolls and may online editors lost faith.

Comments have always been a part of what we do here at GetReligion, even though some of the most important comments come in the form of private emails from journalists who, for various reasons, cannot leave public posts on the site.

The problem, from Day 1, has been that the vast majority of comments on our posts consist of commentary -- often very blunt -- about religious and political issues mentioned in our posts, as opposed to commentary about the pros and cons of how mainstream journalists cover these issues. As folks here have stressed many times: This is not a religion news blog. GetReligion is a blog focusing on the good and bad in news media efforts to cover religion news.

Thus, we send about 75 percent of all of the comments we receive into the digital trash. In journalism lingo, we spike them. Frankly, we wish that more people would take the time to read our commenting policy, which began long ago with a memo from GetReligion co-founder Doug LeBlanc.

Want to read it?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Your weekend think piece: So is Crux officially a 'Catholic publication' these days?

, , , , , ,

Your GetReligionistas were exchanging emails the other day, just talking shop, and I suggesting taking a look at a news feature that had just gone online at Crux. One of the gang responded by asking this question: Do we still view Crux as a mainstream or "secular" news outlet, as opposed to being part of the world of official and semi-official Catholic news and commentary publications?

In other words, is Crux still a publication striving to use the American model of the press -- with a commitment to balance, fairness and accuracy -- or is it now an advocacy publication covering news from a distinctively Catholic point of view? After all, it used to be part of the Boston Globe operation and now it's a nonprofit publication linked, financially, to the Knights of Columbus.

These days, Crux runs copy from all over the place, including Catholic wire services as well as mainstream news from Religion News Service, the Associated Press and its own veteran scribes. Of course, there's lots of clearly-labeled commentary and op-ed work, as well.

As you would expect, the head man at Crux has been asked that question plenty of times, including by yours truly in an interview for a Universal syndicate column. Now John L. Allen, Jr., has written an "Editor’s note on Crux redesign and vision" to update his readers.

So what does he have to say?

First, here is what Allen told me several months ago, after "Crux 2.0" opened on April 1. This was a crucial test case for the whole "nonprofit journalism" model that is becoming so common today in this tense, troubled age for independent journalism. During its Globe run, Crux had plenty of readers, but the digital advertising dollars were not adding up. Thus, goal in this new nonprofit hybrid model:


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

Beam me up, Church of Scotland: Some details missing in mini-feature about online baptism

, , , , , , , , ,

Religion News service had me at the headline on this report from the other side of the pond: "Church of Scotland to consider online baptisms, Communion."

I think that's part of my problem with this very, very short news story.

Now, when you hear the phrase "online Communion," what image do you get in your mind's eye? At the very least, is has to be a rather Protestant image in that it involves worship taking place in a digital, online, visual environment -- with the person on the other side of this liturgical encounter actually consuming analog bread and wine (or something).

Where do the Communion elements come from? Are they shipped to the online flock members, perhaps through a liturgical variation on Amazon Prime? Do the worshippers provide their own elements (raising the previously "or something" issue).

These are questions that any journalist would ask, right? I mean, don't we need to define our terms?

This brings me to the totally new sacramental concept -- at least for me, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian -- that is included in this report. What, precisely, is a rite of "online baptism"? Here is the context:

CANTERBURY, England (RNS) -- The Church of Scotland will launch a two-year investigation into the possibility of introducing online baptisms, Communion and other Christian sacraments.
The church, known as The Kirk, has seen its rolls fall by almost one-third between 2004 and 2015, to just under 364,000 members. 


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

What e-tithing means for the future of church giving in America might surprise you

, , ,

I wrote a post a week ago about a dude who likes to say "dude" a lot.

Speaking of which, a Bloomberg Businessweek feature out this week has a "How's it going, dude?" feel about it. That's not to say the piece about electronic giving isn't timely — and fascinating.

From the "skinny jeans" in the lede to the "Hell, yeah" quote at the end, this spritely, 645-word report is not your grandfather's religion trend story.

Then again, that's precisely the point, I guess.

The dude (sorry, couldn't resist) featured up high is a 25-year-old megachurch attendee named Dylan Ciamacco. The news peg is that Ciamacco reaches not for his wallet — but for his phone — when the collection plate is passed:

Ciamacco gives each week, using the Tithe.ly app. It takes fewer than five taps, and built-in geolocation means he can contribute at any of the 1,000 churches that subscribe—a feature that’s especially useful around holidays like Easter, when many people travel. Tithe.ly lets worshipers set up automatic recurring payments, but because Ciamacco’s paycheck fluctuates with his work as a freelance video producer, he tithes on demand—usually about 10 percent of whatever he’s brought in.

"E-tithing," of course, isn't a brand-new concept. I wrote about the trend for The Associated Press in 2003


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

God, cancer, a videogame: Did WIRED dig deep enough into the facts of this mystery?

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

I have had the following debate several times with editors over the past 40 years or so, while working on news features or columns about religious issues and the believers involved in them.

In terms of reaching mainstream readers, an audience that is both secular and religious, which of the following two methods is best?

When writing the final version of the piece, should you include lots of specific facts and information about the religious beliefs and practices of the people involved, for the simple reason that these details are crucial to their lives and, thus, the story?

Or maybe you need to turn that around. Should you write about their faith in a very general way, so that more readers have a chance to get involved in the story without baggage or prejudices? After all, saying that a story focuses on a circle of "evangelical" Christians will turn off people who are angered by that whole "evangelical" thing.

For many people, this is another version of the old debate between "spiritual" storytelling and "religion" news.

Let's look at a perfect example of this debate in practice. I'm interested in how readers react to the decisions that writer Jason Tanz and the editors at WIRED made while producing the absolutely wrenching feature story called "Playing for Time." The kicker for that headline: A father, a dying son, and the quest to build the most profound videogame ever."

Yes, once again we are dealing with another "theodicy" story that revolves around ultimate questions about God, pain, evil, sickness and death -- when bad things happen to good people. The people at the center of the story are videogame pro Ryan Green, his wife Amy and Josh Larson, the co-designer of the game called "That Dragon, Cancer."


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Meet The Guardian's 'Protest' section -- a sign that the times, they are a-changin'

, , , ,
Meet The Guardian's 'Protest' section -- a sign that the times, they are a-changin'

Go to the Website of The Guardian, the left-leaning British newspaper, and you'll find an array of stories grouped by subject, just as you will at other online news sites. It's the usual line up. There's world news, science, business, fashion, travel, tech, sports, opinion and others.

But, lo and behold, there appears to be something new under the sun in the news gathering business on display at The Guardian, one of the most-accessed news sites around. Or at least something new when it comes to organizing that which has been gathered.

Click "All Topics" on the The Guardian's home page and you can find a category intriguingly named, "Protest." You can also find it via the world section, or, easiest of all, just plug "protest" into the site's internal search engine.

Protest? Sounds like some '60s underground paper out of Berkeley. Or more to the point, a finger on the pulse of the current level of global discontent.

I don't see The Guardian print edition so I'm in the dark as to whether it, too, has a Protest section. But I doubt it does.

That's because on some level, most news stories have an element of protest at their core -- natural disasters, NFL playoff games, obituaries, freak accidents and similar stories not withstanding. Protest stories are scattering across all sections in deadwood products. It's easy to cross-post on line, but you can't run the same story in multiple sections in print.


Please respect our Commenting Policy