It was the kind of newsroom error that lights up Twitter, while also inspiring more than a few folks in cyberspace to say to themselves, “I need to let GetReligion know about this!”

I am referring to the headline at CBSNews.com that currently proclaims: “First Black American Cardinal said he hopes to begin on ‘positive’ note with Biden after contentious relationship with Trump.”

When that story went online, it said that Washington, D.C., Archbishop Wilton Gregory was the first “Black Cardinal” — period.

See the difference?

Other news organizations made the same error. At Axios, for example, the headline eventually morphed to become: “Wilton Gregory becomes first Black cardinal in U.S.” Note that the URL for that story still contains this: “www.axios.com/washington-archbishop-first-black-cardinal-catholic …”

However, was CBS that left this headline in place for more than a day, until the headline and story were finally corrected.

What was the problem?

For starters, there are currently 14 cardinals from Sub-Saharan Africa alone.

The big question, of course, is why writers and digital producers at a major news organization would, well, forget (or ignore) one of the most important news stories in global Christianity over the past decade or two.

We are talking about the rising tide of believers and leaders from the Global South, and the continent of Africa in particular, and impact of this trend on Catholicism, Anglicanism, Methodism, etc. (Click here for “The Next Christianity,” the 2002 cover story at The Atlantic by historian Philip Jenkins that put this trend on the front burner for journalists who “get” religion.)

Why did this happen at an organization as famous as CBS News?

That’s a topic worth discussing.

As you would expect, your GetReligionistas would start by noting the lack of religion-beat reporters in the world of television news — a major problem that has been around for decades. I mean, anyone who has read ANYTHING about Catholic trends in the past decade or two knows about the importance of African cardinals, especially on the doctrinally conservative side of Catholic life. CBS News has zero people who read major publications that cover religion?

This led some people to assume that there might be more to this error than ignorance.

You see, the new cardinal in this drama is a hero of the liberal side of American Catholicism.

Also, what happens if your news perspective is, in part, shaped by the conviction that the world’s most important news is what takes place in the Acela Zone between Washington, D.C., and New York City?

Or, as one reader asked me, referring to recent changes in journalism editing style, was the point that Washington, D.C., Archbishop Wilton Gregory is the first “black” cardinal or the first “Black” cardinal?

In other words, maybe Catholic doctrinal conservatives from Africa are not truly “Black,” in the woke sense of that word. They are growing in numbers and clout, but they are on (all together now) the wrong side of history. The whole point of the Jenkins Atlantic piece was to argue precisely the opposite, by looking at trends in the world, not America.

But consider the following from the CBS piece:

Since entering the priesthood, a keystone of Gregory's ministry has been welcoming diversity, including the LGBTQ+ community.

One of his most forceful stands has been against the leadership at the White House.

Gregory called it "baffling" and "reprehensible" when President Trump visited the St. John Paul II National Shrine in Washington a day after protesters were forced away so the president — bible in hand — could pose in front of St. John's Episcopal Church.

While they don't share all the same views — most notably on abortion — Gregory hopes to build a very different relationship with President-elect Joe Biden, who will become the second Catholic president in U.S. history when he's sworn in on January 20.

"I want to begin whatever conversations ensue in a positive vein, rather than in an adversarial mode," he said.

Dare I ask this of readers: What do YOU think happened in this case?

Why would journalists make this kind of obvious error?

Just asking.