Elon Musk

Podcast: This Gaza matrix is, for journalists, a digital-tech sword with two razor edges

Podcast: This Gaza matrix is, for journalists, a digital-tech sword with two razor edges

I don’t think that the “Crossroads” team has ever focused on the same topic during radio programs-podcasts that are only two weeks apart.

But these are strange times and it seems that everything is moving way too fast. Ask the editors at The New York Times about that.

Thus, consider this week’s podcast an updated and expanded version our previous offering that ran with this headline: “Seeking some Gaza facts, maybe even truth, in today's niche-media matrix.” Now, to tune in this week’s 2.0 take on some of those subjects (and more), CLICK HERE. I kept the same “Matrix” graphics out front for a very simple reason — I still feel like I am living in a bizarre news environment in which it is difficult to tell what is real and what is digital illusion. How about you?

Thus, we are still dealing with the New York Times headline that helped launch a thousand arguments-protests-riots-pogroms in tense urban areas (and campuses of higher learning) around the world.

That news-shaping headline again: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say.” That is a headline in which hard evidence later emerged that every single world in that equation could be scratched out (think red ink) with convincing tech evidence, according to the kinds of sources that journalists usually consider authoritative.

But the whole controversy would have been different — still inaccurate, but much more honest — if the first draft had simply said this: Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, according to Hamas.” Yes, it would have helped if the times had not strategically located, under that headline, a photo of a blasted building in Gaza that was not the hospital (but we will set that aside for now).

The key is that the Times editors have finally deemed it necessary to address this issue, in this rather amazing item: “Editors’ Note: Gaza Hospital Coverage.” I doubt that this wall soothe any nerves in, oh, Istanbul, but it is worth reading.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Seeking some Gaza facts, maybe even truth, in today's niche-media matrix

Podcast: Seeking some Gaza facts, maybe even truth, in today's niche-media matrix

When journalism historians write about the Hamas terror raid on Israel, and the Gaza war that followed, they will need to parse the early headlines about the explosion in the parking lot next to the Ahli Arab Hospital.

I am assuming that something called “journalism” will survive the rise of AI and the fall of an advertising-based, broad audience model of the press. I am an old guy with old dreams. Thus, we dug into this subject during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

What did the mainstream press report? Click here for a “conservative” collection of tweets, headlines and URLs to basic reports from the likes of BBC, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, etc. At this point in time, it’s “conservative” to care about old-liberal standards of journalism ethics.

What matters the most, of course is the New York Times headline that guided the digital rockets, so to speak, fired by elite journalists around the world.

Let’s work through that headline: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say.”

My first question, of many (and I tweeted this one out): “In this tech age, could some satellite imagery tell us the origin of the rocket?”

Whoever wrote that Times headline, or the editor supervising that process, had to know that someone — Elon Musk even — was going to share images and data from space or nearby radar, drones, smartphones, etc., that showed where the rocket was launched and in which direction it was headed.

That information would, of course, come from the United States (one way or the other) or Israel. Thus, the basic question an editor had to ask: Do we produce a banner headline based on information from Hamas, alone? The editor or editors answered, “YES.” The rest is history.

Next question: What part of that headline is accurate, in terms of the evidence now? Israeli attack? No. Was the hospital hit? No. It was a parking lot full of refugees. Did “hundreds” — 500 in one reference — die? It appears the number was much lower than that. Did anyone “strike” or target the hospital? No. It appears that an Islamist rocket malfunctioned, on its way to Israel, and fell in Gaza.

We are left with, “Palestinians say.” Sorry about that.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Plug-In: Does traditional worship have a prayer post-pandemic? New reports offer info

Plug-In: Does traditional worship have a prayer post-pandemic? New reports offer info

Last week we highlighted the return of a Washington state high school football coach who won the right to pray on the field.

Now, after just one game back, coach Joe Kennedy has resigned, “citing family concerns and a lack of support from school district officials,” as the Washington Times’ Mark A. Kellner reports.

In other news, X owner Elon Musk is accusing the Anti-Defamation League of, well, defamation, “claiming that the nonprofit organization’s statements about rising hate speech on the social media platform have torpedoed X’s advertising revenue,” CNN’s Jordan Valinsky writes. At the heart of this battle is an Orthodox Jewish activist who is being defended by, wait for it, Musk.

Musk’s threat to sue the antisemitism watchdog extends the platform’s war of words, Religion News Service’s Yonat Shimron notes. At the heart of this battle is an Orthodox Jewish activist who is being defended by, wait for it, Musk.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s Greek Catholic bishops told Pope Francis that his praise for Russia’s imperial past “pained” Ukrainians, as The Associated Press’ Nicole Winfield details.

This is our weekly roundup of the top headlines and best reads in the world of faith. Our big story concerns the state of worship attendance and giving after COVID-19.

What To Know: The Big Story

Post-pandemic challenges: For houses of worship, encouraging signs that a rebound is taking place are evident in a new study.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Beer drinkers and soccer moms -- changes in boycott 'woke' corporations wars

Podcast: Beer drinkers and soccer moms -- changes in boycott 'woke' corporations wars

In the summer of 1997, the Southern Baptist Convention called for a boycott of the Walt Disney Company, acting in response to some early power mouse gay-rights decisions.

Eight years later, the leaders of America’s largest non-Catholic flock quietly called off the boycott, which was a bit of a dud. The news coverage was, well, joyfully muted.

Why did this boycott fail? Well, for one thing, lots of SBC guys probably found it hard to ditch ESPN and lots of parents who were “conservatives” found it hard to stop using Disney movies as babysitters.

This brings us to the current headlines about Bud Light and Target, which served as the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

Baptists vs. Disney? Kind of a big deal, but not really. Then again, Disney executives may be aware of box-office issues with some of their recent LGBTQ+ themes in big-screen products for children. You think?

Ah, but what about beer drinkers vs. Bud Light? That battle over in-your-face corporate support for trans performance art appears to have legs. See this update from NBC News: “'Nobody imagined it would go on this long': Bud Light sales continue to plummet over Mulvaney backlash.”

Suburban parents (especially in red states) vs. Target? That’s a more complex subject, but there are signs that Tarjey executives have started doing homework on the watered-down beer battles.

This raises a perfectly valid question: Are there religion ghosts in the Bud Light and Target backlash stories? I mean, how many Southern Baptists are Bud Light fans?

The actual question is this: Are there religion ghosts in the neverending wars between Middle America and “woke” corporate support for the ever-changing doctrines of the Sexual Revolution?

I would say, “yes.” But it’s clear that the cultural battles now involve armies larger than people in conservative pews.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: What role did God-talk play in Tucker Carlson's fall at Fox News? Good question

Podcast: What role did God-talk play in Tucker Carlson's fall at Fox News? Good question

Rod “Live Not By Lies” Dreher has shared the following anecdote many times, but it’s especially interesting that he used it, once again, in this Substack post: “Tucker Fired Because Of Religion.”

I am using it to open this podcast post because this week’s “Crossroads” discussion (CLICK HERE to tune that in) isn’t really about Tucker Carlson’s forced exit from Fox News — it’s about whether Carlson was a very good fit with the Fox News political and cultural worldview in the first place.

My theory is that Carlson is a conservative populist — as opposed to being a D.C. Beltway Republican — and that his religious beliefs (especially after he stopped drinking) are part of that mix. This created tension with the dominant Fox News management culture, which is rooted in the Page 3 Libertarian Republican beliefs of titan Rupert Murdoch and the network’s original mastermind, the now disgraced Roger Ailes.

This brings me back to Dreher’s anecdote:

I have long wondered why Fox News doesn’t have much religious reporting, or cover things including a religious angle, even though many of their loyal viewers are religious. Now I know. And you should know too. You might recall my telling the story about how the freelancers Fox hired to cover the 2002 Catholic bishops’ meeting in Dallas, the first one after the scandal broke, asked me to brief them on who the players were, and what the issues were. They took copious notes, but when I told them about the homosexual clerical networks, and their roles in the scandal, they told me to stop. “Orders from the top of the network: stay away from that stuff,” I was told. I told them that you couldn’t understand the scandal without that factor. Maybe so, they said, but we are ordered not to touch it.

Thus, Dreher argues that Carlson’s forced exit should open the eyes of Fox News-hooked religious and cultural conservatives.

Whatever Rupert Murdoch’s internal motivations, the fact is — well, to be precise, what I confidently believe to be the truth — that Tucker Carlson gave an extraordinary speech about the theological aspect of the cultural crisis we are enduring. He talked bluntly, to an audience at Washington’s leading conservative think tank, about the fundamentally spiritual nature of the fights we’re in. And he encouraged his audience to pray for our country.

Several days later, he was fired.

As you would expect, this brings us to the much-discussed Vanity Fair feature that ran with a headline proclaiming, “Tucker Carlson’s Prayer Talk May Have Led to Fox News Ouster: “That Stuff Freaks Rupert Out.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Top trends of 2022? There are plenty of political and religion stories in these tweets

Top trends of 2022? There are plenty of political and religion stories in these tweets

It’s certainly been a volatile year on social media (#DUH).

Twitter is my platform of choice. It does exactly what I need it to do because it’s such a visual medium.

Post a graph. Write 50 or 60 words and then wait a few minutes to see what happens.

In many ways, it’s the antithesis of what it means to be an academic. We are taught to qualify every statement, to never engage in hyperbole, to use 1,000 words when 500 would do. Twitter has been teaching me over the last five years about how to visualize data in the simplest manner possible. It’s taught me that if the average reader can’t understand the point I’m trying to make in 280 characters, then it’s probably not worth making.

Then, Elon Musk bought the whole company. I can’t say that I agree with every decision that he is making in steering the Blue Bird Site, but I honestly don’t have a great alternative. So, I will go down with the ship, I suppose.

But, the end of the year always offers a nice opportunity to pause and reflect on what “worked” on Twitter. Out of the nearly 1,400 tweets I sent this year, I wanted to take the opportunity to catalog the five tweets that got the most retweets in 2022. Here they are in reverse order.

5. Education and Religion

I swear I could post a variation of this one once a month and it would get a ton of attention. It’s a really simple bit of analysis, to be honest.

The conclusion is straightforward and widely known among quantitative scholars of American religion. Folks with a higher level of education are more likely to align with a religious tradition and less likely to say that they are a religious “none.”

This reality replicates in every dataset that I’ve ever seen. Yet, it comes as an absolute shock to people on Twitter. Why is that? Any thoughts?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Thinking about online temptations: Maybe Catholics should log off now and then?

Thinking about online temptations: Maybe Catholics should log off now and then?

If you know anything about religion and social-media, you know that Catholic Twitter can be a wild place.

Niche digital religion is really something. I mean, if Elon Musk decided to swim the Tiber, all of the Big Tech servers would probably turn to pillars of salt. If he became an evangelical Protestant this White House might resort to nuclear weapons.

The question many Catholic priests, and other mainstream religious folks, have asked is rather basic: Is something like Twitter a good, safe, worthy place to invest their talents? Or should they consider it a dangerous waste of time?

I’ve read some interesting essays on topics related to this question and, this time, I will share one as this weekend’s think piece. The headline at RealClearReligion.org is rather blunt: “Catholics, Log Off.” The author is Jack Butler, an editor at National Review Online and a fellow at the Institute for Human Ecology at the Catholic University in America.

Let’s start with the obvious: What would Satan tweet?

The fight against Lucifer was going pretty well — until the devilish enginery appeared. As John Milton depicts the battle of Satan's rebellious angels against the forces of Heaven in his epic poem "Paradise Lost," the demons were on the backfoot, until they devise "implements of mischief" that will "dash/To pieces, and orewhelm whatever stands/Adverse, that they shall fear we have disarmd/The Thunderer of his only dreaded bolt."

Not all artifices are inherently evil. But if the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is true and demons "prowl about the world, seeking the ruin of souls," they can show up in our devices, too. William Peter Blatty suggests this in his novel "The Exorcist." The demon Pazuzu, having possessed a young girl, is asked if it minds being recorded. "Not at all," the demon says. "Read your Milton and you'll see that I like infernal engines. They block out all those damned silly messages from him."

But what does it mean for technology to obstruct our path to God?

To put this in small-o “orthodox” theological terms, technology is merely another development in a world that is both glorious and fallen.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

What is religion's role if powerful social media trends are endangering America?

What is religion's role if powerful social media trends are endangering America?

Whew! Within a matter of days Elon Musk bids $44 billion to get full control of Twitter, Netflix's market value plummets $54 billion, Florida's conservative version of "cancel culture" penalizes the Disney empire, and CNN kills off its streaming service in a month after investing $300 million -- perhaps the worst industry flop since Time Warner's 2001 merger with AOL.

Anchor Kasie Hunt, who left MSNBC for CNN+, embraced a life-goes-on attitude: "The news is the news is the news is the news." (She was quickly named CNN's Chief National Affairs Analyst.)

By the way, a certain influential newspaper in New York City also named a new team of top editors. Did you see those photos of incoming editor Joseph Kahn?

Maybe all that media turbulence is far less important than the inexorable accumulation of 21st Century cultural power by Twitter and other "social media: giants.

Thus, readers will want to consider this warning from Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University's business school, in the May issue of The Atlantic: “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid.”

American democracy is now operating outside the bounds of sustainability. If we do not make major changes soon, then our institutions, our political system, and our society may collapse during the next major war, pandemic, financial meltdown, or constitutional crisis.

Religion writers: Despite Haidt's imagery of failed communication taken from the biblical Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9), his article sidesteps whether faith groups could help restore societal calm and how they're being reshaped by ubiquitous media. Perhaps he'll get into that in his book "Life After Babel Adapting to a World We Can No Longer Share," due from Penguin next year.

Though critics often say conflicting religions erode social cohesion, is it only coincidence that organized religion's slump to near-Depression status since A.D. 2000 occurred simultaneously with the disintegration Haidt decries?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Do athletes have a moral duty to protest Chinese authoritarianism? How about Elon Musk?

Do athletes have a moral duty to protest Chinese authoritarianism? How about Elon Musk?

Do elite international athletes have a moral responsibility to publicly comment or act in a way that acknowledges their awareness of oppressive — or worse — political conditions in nations in which they compete?

Do societal moral standards require them to speak up, even when criticism and confrontation jeopardize their ability to compete and may threaten to derail an entire career?

The Beijing Winter Olympics — scheduled to begin in early February in and around China’s capital city — makes this a timely question.

Several democratic nations have announced “diplomatic” boycotts of the Beijing competition. They include the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, and Japan. (To be clear: democratic claims alone do not necessarily stifle a nation’s darker impulses and render it “moral.”)

That means that no political office holders from the the boycotting nations will attend these Games, but qualifying athletes are free to make their own choices about competing.

The following paragraphs from the above linked Washington Post article explain the limits on free speech China is demanding (with International Olympic Committee acquiescence).

The IOC has said athletes will be free to express themselves during the Games as long as they abide by IOC rules barring any demonstrations during sporting events or medal ceremonies.

Athletes could raise any number of issues, including allegations of cultural genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the erasure of civil freedoms in Hong Kong, and the arrests of human rights lawyers, activists and outspoken Chinese citizens. [Note that the Post left Tibetan issues, a major international sticking point for the West, off this list.]

But Chinese authorities are extremely sensitive to criticism about the country’s human rights record, its role in the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic, and even the country’s efforts during the Korean War.


Please respect our Commenting Policy