If you were going to create an FAQ built on complaints from ordinary news consumers about the journalism biz, some variation on this question would have to be at or near the top of the list: “Why do journalists cover so much bad news? Why do they ignore all the good things that people do in our town/city/country/world and focus only on the bad things that a small handful of people do?”

I believe it was the late Walter Cronkite of CBS Evening News fame who said something like this (I’ve been hunting, but can’t find the quote): It would be a terrible thing if we lived in a world in which good news was so rare that everyone considered it unique and truly newsworthy.

If you pay attention to religion threads on Twitter, you know that we are living through a textbook case study of people arguing about this subject. This time, the question looks like this: Why are the few pastors who reject “shelter in place” orders getting so much ink with their face-to-face worship services, while the vast majority of clergy who have moved their rites online — often for the first time — are getting little or no coverage? I have already written about this twice at GetReligion — look here and then here.

Some people are upset, I think, because the rebels are all independent church leaders who, as a rule, perfectly match each and every stereotype of the angry white evangelicals and Pentecostals who back, you know, Citizen Donald Trump. In a way, this is a life-and-death example of the great evangelical monolith myth. Here is what people are feeling: How come some angry preacher deep in the Bible Belt is getting all this coverage and, well, online efforts by the still massive Southern Baptist Convention are ignored?

Frankly, the leap to online worship hasn’t been ignored. It has been covered over and over in local and regional news and in a few national stories that have not received all that much attention.

It’s also true — you know this if you follow Twitter — that Catholic and Eastern Orthodox people have been arguing about “shelter in place” rules, as well. The news there is that bishops have been making decisions to protect their priests and laypeople (see my most recent “On Religion” column). That’s a big story, too.

So what do these mad-preacher stories look like? For some reason, Reuters seems to be Ground Zero. Consider this headline: “The Americans defying Palm Sunday quarantines: 'Satan's trying to keep us apart'.” The story opens with a brave woman near Cincinnati who is staying at home and then jumps to this:

The Ohio megachurch down the road, Solid Rock, has charted a different course. Despite warnings from local and state officials, Solid Rock had been holding its 1,000-strong gatherings in person, and plans keep the church open on Palm Sunday, the beginning of Holy Week in Christian churches. …

The local mayor and health officials have asked the church to close, so far to no avail.

Solid Rock did not respond to a request for comment from Reuters but in a statement on its website said, in part, that “we are taking all necessary precautions to ensure the health and safety of anyone who comes to Solid Rock Church. We have scaled back our normal services; and there are not large numbers of worshipers in the facility, but we are we are open and continuing to practice and sustain our faith.”

Let me note that, ever since the mid-1980s, researchers into the megachurch phenomenon have defined these congregations as flocks of 2,500 and larger. The nation’s most influential megachurches have 15,000 members or more.

Thus, I question the use of this term for a congregation with services of about 1,000. That’s a big church, but not one that fits the M-word label.

Back to the story. At this point, Reuters offers this small, but crucial, block of material:

Millions of American Christians will observe Palm Sunday at home this weekend, as the vast majority of U.S. churches have moved services online to comply with stay-at-home rules.

But, like Solid Rock, pockets of churches from Florida to Texas and across to California are keeping their doors open and inviting worshipers to attend services this weekend.

Frankly, I like the language there, as in “vast majority” and “pockets of churches.” This is largely a Sunbelt story, but I do wonder if there are a few rebel churches in other parts of America.

A different Reuters story on this trend included:

Some other Christians around the United States defied rules meant to curb the spread of the coronavirus and observed Palm Sunday at church. Many churches opted instead to post video of virtual services on social media.

But here is the question some readers are asking: Why aren’t we seeing big, national stories about flocks — in almost every conceivable tradition — that are making the leap online? Then, buried down in the text, there would be a tiny block of material that mentions the tiny number of flocks that are putting their neighbors at risk by carrying on with big worship as usual. Where’s that story?

Many of these discussions center on research by Lifeway, as summarized in a report by Baptist Press. Here is the key material:

On the weekend of March 1, 99 percent say they gathered, while 95 percent held services the next weekend. By March 15, that number dropped to 64 percent. And by March 22, 11 percent of pastors say their churches gathered in person. On March 29, only 7 percent of pastors say their congregations met in person.

"Gathering for worship as a local church is a fundamental expression of the body of Christ, but so are valuing life and loving others," said Scott McConnell, executive director of LifeWay Research. "As mitigation guidance first impacted large churches, the majority of churches with 200 or more attendees were not meeting by March 15, and only 1 percent of them met March 22 as guidance continued to shift."

Almost half of churches (47 percent) say they have already decided they will not meet in person for Easter. A small number (3 percent) say they will have an in-person gathering no matter what.

A significant number say they are in a wait-and-see situation. Almost 1 in 5 (18 percent) say they will have an in-person gathering if authorities allow gatherings of that size. Another 15 percent say they will do so if local authorities do not recommend against it. Fewer (7 percent) say they will have an in-person Easter gathering if in their own judgement they feel it is safe. One in 10 say they're not sure.

It’s important to note that this is a survey of Protestant leaders. Include thousands of online rites in the crucial liturgical traditions — think Rome and the East — and the numbers would skew even stronger in the direction of online worship and attempts to honor “shelter in place” orders.

Ah, but we all know that rebellious Trump-type churches are more newsworthy these days. Right?

In conclusion, let me note another trend that I think is influencing this debate.

There have been some fine stories that attempt — talk about an impossible job — to write the “going online” story at the national and global level. As you would expect, Vatican worship rites tend to dominate some of these.

Take this USA Today story, for example: “Palm Sunday ceremonies in Vatican City, Jerusalem limited over coronavirus fears as Easter restrictions loom.” The overture starts like this:

As Palm Sunday ceremonies kick off the start of Holy Week, the coronavirus pandemic has forced religious institutions and worshippers to scale back to practice social distancing and heed orders that prohibit large gatherings.

Normally, thousands of people congregate in the Vatican to observe Palm Sunday in an outdoor Mass. Pope Francis instead held Mass Sunday in St. Peter’s Basilica in front of his aides, a few invited prelates, nuns and laypeople. Each commanded his or her own pew, and they sat far apart to follow social distancing directives aimed at minimizing the risk of spreading the virus. A male choir sang hymns but also practiced social distancing.

That’s a valid story. However, everyone already knows that Pope Francis is a good guy in this story. Everyone already knew that he would do the right thing (as opposed to all of those evangelicals). Right?

Here is another totally valid “good news” story, care of The Washington Post. The headline: “With Passover, Easter and Ramadan looming, clergy scramble to create holidays at a distance.”

Where is this story set? Who are the “good news” guys in this drama?

The Rev. Richard Mosson Weinberg canceled the Boston ferns and the yellow daffodils for the Easter service ordered for his Episcopal church in Washington’s affluent Kalorama neighborhood. Rabbi Levi Shemtov scrapped plans for the 200-person Seder dinner for Passover in his Chabad synagogue nearby. And Imam Yahya Luqman called off the Ramadan dinners at his mosque down the street.

These three faith leaders, who normally lead worship within walking distance from each other in Northwest Washington, are all scrambling to find socially distant ways to celebrate major religious holidays this month. They are joined by clergy and the faithful around the world, including at well-known Christian, Jewish and Muslim sites in Jerusalem and beyond.

On Sunday, Christians will launch Holy Week with Palm Sunday, preparing to recount the biblical story of Jesus’s death and resurrection. Since St. Margaret’s canceled services, including for Easter on April 12, Weinberg has been working on a sermon about the life and message of Jesus that he will post on YouTube.

“People are dealing with profound loss, so we have to adapt,” Weinberg said.

This is a totally valid and creative story. Also, this was a good way to localize the global elements of the story, as well.

But, once again, who is missing here? Are Episcopalians the “typical” Protestant body in the United States these days? This makes we wonder what is happening, right now, at the gigantic McLean Bible Church (other than what we learn in this op-ed by its pastor)?

The Washington, D.C., area has many big, influential evangelical and charismatic/Pentecostal churches (some classic megachurches). However, I guess going online is old news in these settings? How many congregations in Beltway land have had to dive into cyberspace for the first time?

That’s a big story. It’s valid to note the lack of big-picture stories about that. However, also remember that newsrooms — crushed by years of nasty economic trends — can’t send out waves of reporters to research that kind of giant, complex story right now. Also remember that many reporters and editors are sheltering in place and trying to stay safe. Some stories are easier to report by telephone than others.

How does that affect the news? It makes it easier for editors to stick with stories that whack at old stereotypes and also to stay with safe overviews. Sad, but true.