GetReligion
Sunday, April 13, 2025

MSNBC

, , , , , , , , , ,

The Los Angeles Times presents the Rev. Al Sharpton, with zero signs of God or faith at all

, , , , , , , , , ,

A few years ago, I got out a notepad and wrote a list of the "seven deadly sins" of religion writing in the modern mainstream press.

Right near the top of the list is the tendency among reporters to assume that all religious issues are, in reality, political issues when push comes to shove. It's a kind of militant materialism that assumes the political life is the ultimate reality for all people, since that happens to be the case for legions of people (but not all) in elite newsrooms.

It is especially easy to see this principle at work in mainstream news coverage of the African-American church. Am I the only person that has noticed that major news organizations have started omitting the term "the Rev." when printing the names of many black clergy?

Of course, it must be noted that clergy have – for generations – provided crucial public leadership for the entire black community, including in politics. The fact that this is true does not, however, mean that the work these pastors do in the public square has nothing to do with their faith and their role as church leaders.

This brings us to the Rev. Al Sharpton, a Pentecostal preacher turned Baptist whose high-profile work in politics and mass-media career have made him a controversial figure, including among African-American clergy. It is common to hear his critics say that he doesn't deserve the title "the Rev." – which, in my opinion, only makes it more important for journalists to provide basic facts about who this man is, what he believes and to whom he relates as a minister. The bottom line: He is ordained and he is making faith claims, as well as political claims, when he speaks and/or preaches.

The Los Angeles Times times recently offered up a lengthy news feature on Sharpton that is a perfect, five-star example of all of this. Click on this link and do some searching. Here are some words you will not find in this piece – "God," "Jesus," "faith," "religion," "Bible" and "ordained." The only reason "church" appears is that there are descriptions of rallies held in churches.

Is this a comment about Sharpton, the Los Angeles Times or both?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Welcome to the Newsless Review, care of a post-newspaper New York Times?

, , , ,
Welcome to the Newsless Review, care of a post-newspaper New York Times?

A page-one item in the March 15 New York Times “Sunday Review” section, headlined “How Business Made Us Christian,” highlighted a couple notable fashions in daily newspapering. Princeton history professor Kevin Kruse drew this article from his new book with the provocative title “One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America.”

In part, Kruse revisited the familiar theme of “piety on the Potomac” in the 1950s when President Eisenhower was baptized a Presbyterian, Billy Graham led a D.C. revival meeting, Catholic lobbyists got “under God” inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance and annual Presidential Prayer Breakfasts began.

Kruse’s new emphasis is how business interests promoted “capitalism as the handmaiden of Christianity.” It seems a 1930s Congregational pastor to the elite named James Fifield “paired Christianity and capitalism against the New Deal’s ‘pagan statism.’ ” Kruse fuses that with later businessmen backing Graham’s crusades and Abraham Vereide’s prayer breakfasts.

All rather interesting.

Nevertheless, old-fashioned journalism would immediately raise questions. Is the scenario skewed? What’s missing? Was this cynical service to mammon or authentic piety? Did such efforts have any actual effect on America’s politics and policies?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Los Angeles Times sounds alarms on Boko Haram -- why not just report?

, , , ,

Just one day after Boko Haram pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, the Los Angeles Times was already publishing an instant analysis – without so labeling it.

Whatever happened to cooler heads prevailing? Instead, we get "Yahhhh! They're coming for us!" right from the lede:

The decision by the Nigerian extremist group Boko Haram to pledge allegiance to Islamic State amounts to a significant propaganda coup for the Syrian-based organization, analysts say, and raises questions about whether the Nigerian militants could morph into a more global threat.

Global threat? C'mon, LATimes, stick to what you know. Your article wasn't labeled "Analysis" or "Commentary," and it should have stayed that way. Especially when your article doesn't back up that wild allegation. And in some places, contradicts it.

The Times recites what you already know, if you’ve read any Boko Haram news in the last five years: villages overrun, Nigerian soldiers routed, civilians slaughtered, students murdered in their own schools, girls abducted and sold as slaves, children used as suicide bombers.

The article notes also that the Islamic State uses similar terror tactics, something you also probably knew. The Times then tries to dial up the fear factor by guessing at the implications of a relationship with the Islamic State.

Military support could be one, the newspaper's sources say. But even then, the crystal ball is hazy: "What’s not clear is the extent to which Boko Haram – whose insurgency has been largely a local fight against the Nigerian state – might begin to attack Western targets in Nigeria."

Nor does the Times show that by joining the IS sphere, Boko Haram could become a more global threat (as if it's one now). Not when the paper offers this background:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

What does it mean to be transgendered in India?

, , , ,

Is it possible to write intelligently about sex in the non-Western world for an American media audience? Or, is our culture so narcissistic, so incurious, so parochial that a newspaper would be wasting its time in attempting to explain the difference between our world view and their’s? A recent spate of articles in the American press about Tuesday’s decision by the Indian Supreme Court creating a “third gender” under law prompted these musings. Stories in the Washington Post and MSNBC about the Indian court ruling are so slanted for an American audience (and these outlet’s particular audiences) that there is but a tenuous link between their reporting and reality.

Transgender people in India no longer have to categorize themselves as “male” or “female” in official documents. India’s Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling Tuesday that allows hundreds of thousands of transgender people to identify themselves as a third gender. Human rights groups are lauding the decision as historic and groundbreaking.

The article follows a standard formula for legal news and provides snippets from the decision.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

What does it mean to be transgendered in India?

, , , ,

Is it possible to write intelligently about sex in the non-Western world for an American media audience? Or, is our culture so narcissistic, so incurious, so parochial that a newspaper would be wasting its time in attempting to explain the difference between our world view and their’s? A recent spate of articles in the American press about Tuesday’s decision by the Indian Supreme Court creating a “third gender” under law prompted these musings. Stories in the Washington Post and MSNBC about the Indian court ruling are so slanted for an American audience (and these outlet’s particular audiences) that there is but a tenuous link between their reporting and reality.

Transgender people in India no longer have to categorize themselves as “male” or “female” in official documents. India’s Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling Tuesday that allows hundreds of thousands of transgender people to identify themselves as a third gender. Human rights groups are lauding the decision as historic and groundbreaking.

The article follows a standard formula for legal news and provides snippets from the decision.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Codewords are much easier to find than Waldo

, , , , , ,

Before dissecting this MSNBC story, let’s pause for a round of Spot the Codewords. Start at the top left of the screenshot above. There’s “equality,” an oft-cited banner of gay rights and same-sex marriage, as common as the familiar striped gay pride flag.

Now, the headline: “Anti-gay activists.” Who wants to be anti- anything? The subtext is: “These are people you don’t like.”

Next, we have those scare quotes, which can lend a sarcastic taint even to a neutral phrase like “religious freedom.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, ,

How PR attempt against Life Marchers played out at MSNBC

, ,

Earlier this week, I looked at how a PR push from a progressive group called Faith in Public Life, which attempted to distract from the annual human rights march in defense of unborn children, became a New York Times article. I got a lot of feedback on that piece, and I appreciate all of the kind words about it. I also got quite a bit of feedback from people who suggested I was naive to think this was surprising or noteworthy — as if this is just standard operating behavior from the media.


Please respect our Commenting Policy