David McHam

New York Times: LGBTQ rights are a key factor in Ukraine (even if many Ukrainians disagree)

New York Times: LGBTQ rights are a key factor in Ukraine (even if many Ukrainians disagree)

When I was a sophomore at Baylor University (soon after the cooling of the earth’s crust) the great journalism professor David McHam had an interesting pre-computer way of demonstrating what he wanted to see when a student prepared a second draft of a news story.

Taking a metal straight edge (think pica pole), he would tear the copy into horizontal blocks of text. Then he would rearrange these into a different order, locking them in place with clear tape. Then he would say something like this: “You buried some of the most important information. Go rewrite the story in this order.”

This brings me to a New York Times story about religion, culture, politics and war in Ukraine. There’s a lot of interesting material here, but readers who want to know some crucial basic facts will need to be patient — because they are buried deep in this report. The double-decker headline offers the basic framework:

War Spurs Ukrainian Efforts to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

The role of gay soldiers, the lack of legal rights for their partners, and the threat of Russia imposing anti-L.G.B.T. policies have turned the war into a catalyst for change in Ukraine.

Now, before I go any further, let me note that, yes, I am Orthodox and I attend a parish that includes Slavic believers, as well as lots and lots of American converts. Also, my two visits to Kiev left me convinced Ukraine is — as the Soviets intended — a tragically divided nation. My views are identical to those of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, on that subject.

When Russian began its evil invasion, I posted a note on Facebook that ended with this:

EU-USA was arrogant enough to think they could — with money, culture and military tech — turn Eastern-Russian Ukrainians into Europeans. Will Putin be arrogant enough to think he can, with blood, turn Western-European Ukrainians into Russians?

I raise this issue because, at a crucial point deep in this Times story, I believe it is relevant. Hold that though.

The anecdotal lede for this story focuses on the fears of a young Ukrainian combat medic named Olexander Shadskykh. That leads to the thesis statement:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Ask this: Why did many flocks survive or thrive in pandemic, while others were hit hard?

Ask this: Why did many flocks survive or thrive in pandemic, while others were hit hard?

Does anyone remember typewriters?

Long ago, I took my very first reporting class at Baylor University. The legendary Jprof David McHam ran this lab as a mini-newsroom. McHam would sit in the “slot” of a U-shaped desk, working with students as we turned in our rough drafts.

I heard him say this many times: “The story is all here, but you wrote it in the wrong order,” or words to that effect. McHam would take his copy-desk pica pole (the birthday cake cutter of choice in newsrooms) and rip our typewriter copy into multiple horizontal pieces, before putting them in a new order, secured with a long strip of clear tape. Then he would say: “Go write the story in that order.”

More often than not, the wise Jprof found crucial information and pulled it higher in the story — if not into the lede itself. In many cases, this was information that created a tension with a simple version of the “news” in the lede. In other words, he was pushing us to acknowledge that many stories were more complex than we wanted to think they were.

With that in mind, let’s look at an important COVID-tide story from the Associated Press: “At many churches, pandemic hits collection plates, budgets.”

Note the word “many” in that headline. I think many readers would assume that the coronavirus pandemic has caused disasters in pews and pulpits and that is that. The evidence, in this story, is more complex than that — especially with a little bit of cutting and pasting. Here is the overture:

Biltmore United Methodist Church of Asheville, North Carolina, is for sale.

Already financially strapped because of shrinking membership and a struggling preschool, the congregation was dealt a crushing blow by the coronavirus. Attendance plummeted, with many staying home or switching to other churches that stayed open the whole time. Gone, too, is the revenue the church formerly got from renting its space for events and meetings.


Please respect our Commenting Policy