George Cornell

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Crossroads: Failing to 'get' religion helped create schism between readers and newsrooms

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Crossroads: Failing to 'get' religion helped create schism between readers and newsrooms

Questions. Yes, we have some final (sort of) questions about journalism and religion news.

One one level, this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in) focused on all those headlines about the red ink and devastating layoffs in elite newsrooms such as Sports Illustrated, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. For a quick summary of the drama, see this mini-report at Axios.

The news is staggering for people like me who have spent decades in journalism education — encouraging students to seek careers in traditional and online newsrooms at the local, regional and national level.

Thus, it’s hard to cheer about these disasters in the lives of many professionals. However, millions of millions of Americans — especially in red zip codes — have given up on the mainstream press. What about them? Should they cheer as major news organizations implode?

This week’s podcast is the last one that will be featured here at GetReligion, as we close a week from today, on this weblog’s 20th birthday. However, future episodes of Crossroads will continue to be available through the podcast page at the GetReligion.org archive, at my own Tmatt.net, the Religion Unplugged website, Lutheran Public Radio and the Apple podcasts page.

In this (sort of) finale, it was obvious to ask: Does the current newsroom employment crisis have anything to do with decades of journalism leaders failing to, you know, “get” religion when covering one of the most complex religious cultures in the Western world?

After recording the podcast, I had a flashback to a story that Rod “Live Not By Lies” Dreher shared about his years at the Dallas Morning News. Then, lo and behold, Dreher retold key parts of the story in a new Substack post (“Journalism Continues To Crash, Burn”).

A few of his colleagues were worried about the increasingly liberal — in terms of religion, culture and politics — product that the News was producing for the region it served.

“It aggravated us to no end that our readers were mostly conservatives — they really were; we had the audience research to prove it — but too many in the newsroom were bound and determined to act as if that wasn’t true.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Once again, why is religion a 'green frog' topic in many mainstream newsrooms?

, , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Once again, why is religion a 'green frog' topic in many mainstream newsrooms?

The news editor at the Champaign-Urbana News Gazette — my first real newsroom gig — had an interesting name for for a certain kind of over-the-top reader who would call to complain about the news.

It didn’t really matter if the reader’s criticism was right or wrong. It was all about tone and, especially, whether or not the reader was complaining about a subject that editors took seriously.

My editor referred to these callers as “green frogs.”

You see, many of these adamant readers were complaining about issues linked to religion, morality and politics. (At that time, the born-again Jimmy Carter was in the White House and the Religious Right was just starting to organize.)

As the complaining went on and on, the news editor’s eyes would glaze and he would put the caller on hold. That’s when I would hear the following, since everyone knew that I wanted to become a religion-beat pro: “Mattingly, there’s a green frog on the phone! You talk to them.”

This brings us to this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), in which host Todd Wilken asked a question that, in various forms, I have heard a thousand times over the past 40+ years.

Yes, that would be: Why don’t journalists “get” religion?

However, there are many variations. Why don’t editors hire trained religion-beat reporters? Why do newsrooms mess up the basic facts in some many religion stories? Why do many, not all, journalists IGNORE essential religion issues and themes in important news and events? Why do religious issues show up so often in studies probing media bias? Long ago, back when journalists in major newsrooms dared to fill out surveys about their work, why did half of pros in elite newsrooms write the word “none” in the space describing their religious faith?

I could go on and on. My chosen wording is this: Why don’t newsroom managers handle religion news with the same old-school journalism methodology — hire reporters who have training and experience on this beat and let them do their work — that they apply to subjects that they respect (such as politics, sports, law, arts, business, etc.)?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

This is not a new question for religious leaders: Does secrecy ever help? Does it work?

, , , , , , ,
This is not a new question for religious leaders: Does secrecy ever help? Does it work?

QUESTION:

Does secrecy help the church? Does it work?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

This issue erupted in the news with the surprise decision by Pope Francis to clamp unusual strict secrecy upon the Synod of Bishops he has summoned to the Vatican this month. (The synod’s second and concluding session will occur a year from now). This indicates to church leaders the extent to which bishops are facing internal difficulties.

The media typically portray Francis as a relatively liberal pontiff. But it may not be coincidental that the pope’s native Argentina has a dicey record on journalistic and political freedoms. And Father Thomas Reese, who has observed Vatican Synods for decades, says “Pope Francis does not like the press, especially the western media, which, he believes, only writes about issues of concern to the Global North.”

True, western media — and their audiences — are especially interested in the ongoing sexual molesting scandals, women’s role in the church, LGBTQ+ concerns, Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics or shared with Protestants and proposals to end the celibacy mandate for   priests.

All those controversies, and more, were part of the discussions leading up to this synod. That’s news.

Regular meetings of Synods are a new idea authorized in 1965 by the Second Vatican Council because the world’s bishops “share in the responsibility for the universal Church” along with the pope. For decades, these meetings have occurred behind closed doors but with informative press briefings and helpful explanations on the ongoing discussions from participants. Francis himself preserved this tradition at his four prior Synods.

Not now. On the eve of the meeting, Vatican regulations, reinforced in the pope’s opening address, directed delegates to say nothing about the discussions, including even what they themselves said. Moreover, the ban is in force perpetually after the Synod concludes (though a spokesman for the Holy See said violators are not under a formal threat of excommunication).

One result of closed doors is that outside interest groups affect news coverage of an event when the actual participants cannot.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: David Brooks is still trying to describe the 'flexidoxy' DNA in American elites

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: David Brooks is still trying to describe the 'flexidoxy' DNA in American elites

People who spend years riding commuter trains — Baltimore to Washington, D.C., for me — learn that there are community rules. For example: Don’t crack up laughing and make a lot of noise.

I violated that written law several times while reading a snarky, hilarious 2000 book by David Brooks called, “Bobos In Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There.” The term “Bobo” was short for “Bourgeois Bohemians.”

But what is a religion writer supposed to do while reading its “spirituality” chapter, which ended with a vision of "Bobo Heaven.” Brooks offers a tweedy angel of death sentencing an urban lawyer to spend eternity in her chic, “green” summer house, with National Public Radio on every channel. Heaven or hell?

Readers who have been online lately will know where this is going, because of the multi-media firestorm ignited by his New York Times column: “On Anti-Trumpers and the Modern Meritocracy.” That Brooks essay provided the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). Here’s a sample:

The meritocracy isn’t only a system of exclusion; it’s an ethos. During his presidency, Barack Obama used the word “smart” in the context of his policies over 900 times. The implication was that anybody who disagreed with his policies (and perhaps didn’t go to Harvard Law) must be stupid.

Over the last decades, we’ve taken over whole professions and locked everybody else out. When I began my journalism career in Chicago in the 1980s, there were still some old crusty working-class guys around the newsroom. Now we’re not only a college-dominated profession; we’re an elite-college-dominated profession. Only 0.8 percent of college students graduate from the super-elite 12 schools (the Ivy League colleges, plus Stanford, M.I.T., Duke and the University of Chicago). A 2018 study found that more than 50 percent of the staff writers at the beloved New York Times and The Wall Street Journal attended one of the 29 most elite universities in the nation.

Now, let’s leave Orange Man Bad out of this. I’d like to focus on the fact that Brooks has been writing about this phenomenon for several decades now.

As you would expect, I appreciated that Brooks dared to mention the ice-blue trends in elite journalism. I started paying attention to that in the late 1970s (hold that thought). However, I have to admit that I wondered why Brooks defined his meritocracy in terms of class (correct), zip codes (correct), resume credentials (correct), but — in this case — ignored the obvious religion themes in this drama.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Final 2022 podcast: What parts of the Roe v. Wade story deserved additional coverage?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Final 2022 podcast: What parts of the Roe v. Wade story deserved additional coverage?

Everyone had to know that the fall of Roe v. Wade would be the top pick in the Religion News Association’s annual poll to determine the Top 10 religion-beat stories of 2022. That would have been the case, even if the RNA hadn’t created two lists this year, one for U.S. stories and one for international stories.

Why? I’ve been following this poll closely since the late 1970s and once interviewed the legendary George Cornell of the Associated Press about his observations on mainstream religion-news coverage trends during his decades on the beat.

Let’s briefly review some of the factors that shape this list year after year, since this topic was discussed during the final 2022 “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). This episode was recorded while we wrestled with rolling power blackouts here in the frigid hills of East Tennessee. See if you can guess where we had to do a patch and start again!

First of all, the RNA top story will almost always be a hot political event or trend — with a religion angle. Politics, after all, is REAL news. Think White Evangelicals and Bad Man Orange. Second, it helps if stories feature clashes between religion and sex, usually in one of the progressive Mainline Protestant churches or, ideally, Roman Catholicism. Think Joe Biden, Catholic bishops and just about anything (especially if Pope Francis is involved). After that, you have slots for wars, natural disasters and newsy papal tours.

The fall of Roe v. Wade had it all, putting a core Sexual Revolution doctrine at risk, to one degree or another, depending on the blue, red or purple state involved.

I will not run through the contents of the whole RNA list. However, it’s interesting to note the wordings in some poll items, paying attention to what is included and what is NOT included therein. For example, here is No. 1 in the U.S. list:

The Supreme Court overturns the 1973 Roe v. Wade precedent and says there is no constitutional right to abortion, sparking battles in courts and state legislatures and driving voters to the November polls in high numbers. More than a dozen states enact abortion bans, while voters reject constitutional abortion restrictions in conservative Kansas and Kentucky and put abortion rights in three other states’ constitutions.

What is missing in that complex item?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Here's a flashback into religion-beat history, with the help of the legendary Lou Grant

, , , , , ,
Here's a flashback into religion-beat history, with the help of the legendary Lou Grant

If anyone ever writes a book about the history of religion news in the mainstream press it will need to include a photo of the glowering, and often smirking, mug of Lou Grant.

Lou Grant was a TV character, of course, played by the Emmy-winning actor Ed Asner, who died on Sunday (August 29) at age 91. But for millions of Americans, he provided -- in "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" and the sequel "Lou Grant" -- an archetypal image of what old-school journalism was all about.

One 1977 "Lou Grant" episode certainly captured some of the attitudes I encountered while interviewing journalists for my 1982 graduate project at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, which focused on why few newsrooms made serious attempts to cover religion events and trends -- unless they were linked to politics.

Quite a few editors sounded like Lou Grant.

In this episode, entitled "Sect," the city editor of the mythical Los Angeles Tribune was wrestling with two problems at the same time. The problems seemed to be unrelated.

First, the Trib had lost its veteran religion editor. Grant searched and searched, but no one was interested in filling that empty desk. After all, what self-respecting journalist wanted to be stuck with the religion beat?

Problem number two was how to get rid of lazy, often-drunk, no-good reporter Mal Cavanaugh. All through this episode the newsroom's leaders had been searching for a way to get Cavanaugh to resign. Then came a spark of inspiration. The printed script is simple:

LOU: Well, Mal, you've been with this paper a mighty long time. As you say, this is your family.

CAVANAUGH: (All that humility) Aw, well, it's nice to be appreciated.

LOU: And I think I've found a place where we'll be able to use that special, sweet style that is Mal Cavanaugh.

CAVANAUGH: (Those eyes are getting moist; he sees himself getting a column) What's that, Lou?

LOU: Congratulations, Mal. You're the Trib's new religion editor.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

So what went wrong in #2020, other than that whole coronavirus pandemic thing?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

End of the year wrap-up features are a great time to study the priorities that shape the news produced by many powerful newsrooms. There’s no way around the fact that creating a Top 10 list of “big” stories is an exercise in which editors state that some stories (or entire genres) are more important than others.

Back in the fall of 1981, when I started researching my graduate project (short version here) at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, I had several conversations with the late George Cornell of the Associated Press. He was a trailblazer on the religion beat — period.

Cornell said many things that stuck with me, For example, he said that — over the decades — he kept a file of annual reports about the AP’s Top 10 news stories. It was extremely rare, he noted, to have a year in which there were not five or more stories containing obvious links to religious facts, themes or historic trends. Yet the religion beat remained a one-man operation and a low priority with editors.

Cornell may or may not have said that these stories were “haunted” by religion. All I know is that, in 2003, his insight was on my mind when Doug LeBlanc and I started work on what would become GetReligion.org and, while doing so, created the concept of “religion ghosts” that haunt many major news stories.

So what was 2020 all about, other than the the COVID-19 pandemic?

From coast to coast, many news consumers will see an Associated Press report with a headline something like this one: “A divided nation asks: What’s holding our country together?” This is a political story, of course, since that is what really matters in life. Here’s the overture:

Elections are meant to resolve arguments. This one inflamed them.

Weeks after the votes have been counted and the winners declared, many Americans remain angry, defiant and despairing. Millions now harbor new grievances borne of President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud. Many Democrats are saddened by results that revealed the opposition to be far more powerful than they imagined.

And in both groups there are those grappling with larger, more disquieting realizations: The foundations of the American experiment have been shaken — by partisan rancor, disinformation, a president’s assault on democracy and a deadly coronavirus pandemic.

Now, there are lots of ways to define the bitter schism at the heart of American life and that list includes several obvious factors. But what is the factor that Cornell would note is missing and, in fact, is linked to several of those hot-button topics?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Listen to Yogi Berra! Flashback to previous New York Times religion-beat puzzle

, , , ,

It’s one of the major challenges of writing for GetReligion.

What are we supposed to do when major news organizations make the same error over and over or professionals leave the same religion-shaped holes in major stories? Are we supposed to write the same posts over and over?

Actually, what we usually do is write new posts about the new errors and link back to the old posts, thus, noting that what we are hearing are echoes of the old errors.

Yesterday, Julia Duin wrote that kind of post — but with a major difference. She noted that a new job notice for a New York Times religion-beat reporter (hurrah for the creation of that national beat slot) contains some strange language that we have heard before (as in a 2017 Times job notice for a similar religion-news job).

In other words, it’s time to quote Yogi Berra — again. In this case I would like to do something that I have never done before, which is re-up my entire post from two years ago about that earlier Times job search. By doing this — especially one day after the new Duin post — I am trying to stress how important it is that Times editors use this hire to address their national religion-news concerns in a way that reflects the symbolic role their newsroom plays in American journalism.

So here we go. Back to 2017.

Readers: Feel free to use our comments pages to offer your views on this journalism puzzle.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Has this historic term -- 'fundamentalist' -- outlived its usefulness as journalistic lingo?

, , , , , , , ,

Believers who perpetuate the prophet Joseph Smith’s polygamy teaching are commonly called “Mormon fundamentalists” in the media, which is, presumably, one reason President Russell Nelson wants to shed the familiar “Mormon” name for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which forbids polygamy.

Meanwhile, debate persists over the frequent term “Muslim fundamentalists” for politicized or violent groups more precisely called “Islamists” or hyper-traditionalist “Salafis.”

The Religion Guy is now wondering whether the F-word has become so problematic that the news media should drop it altogether.

I say that because of a July 21 New York Times book review of Amber Scorah’s book “Leaving the Witness,” about her experiences within, and eventual defection from, Jehovah’s Witnesses.

(The Guy has not seen Scorah’s opus, but it’s hard to imagine it outclasses the superb pioneering Witnesses memoir “Visions of Glory” by the late Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, which goes unmentioned in the Times. While Scorah has left God behind, dropout Harrison turned Catholic.)

Reviewer C. E. Morgan, who teaches creative writing in Harvard Divinity School’s ministry program, repeatedly calls the Witnesses “fundamentalists,” which — historically speaking — is a religious category mistake of the first order.

Thus the question arises: If teachers at Ivy League theology schools, and copy editors at the nation’s most influential newspaper, don’t know what “fundamentalism” is (even as defined in the Associated Press Stylebook), maybe it’s time for the media to banish the word.


Please respect our Commenting Policy