Gray Lady

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Can journalists imagine 'mirror' cases in which 303 Creative protects liberals?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Can journalists imagine 'mirror' cases in which 303 Creative protects liberals?

If you follow Robert P. George in social media, you probably know several things about this legal scholar.

(1) He is a political philosopher and professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University.

(2) George is a doctrinally conservative Roman Catholic.

(3) He is a skilled Americana musician (think folk, gospel and bluegrass) who plays the banjo and a 12-fret acoustic guitar (I’m a big fan of the latter).

(4) In the public square, he is relentlessly irenic, seeking ways to view issues through the lens of those with whom he disagrees. This approach has been demonstrated during years of joyful and informative pro-tolerance dialogues with his close friend Cornel West, a liberal’s liberal known for decades of provocative classroom work at Princeton, Harvard and Union Seminary.

From a GetReligion point of view, it’s also important that — based at Princeton — George lives right on the edge of what could be called the Archdiocese of The New York Times and he pays close attention to mainstream news coverage of religion and public life.

This is why George played a key role in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), which was a follow-up to my recent post with this headline: “After 303 Creative: Can readers find Twitter voices (hello David French) that help us think?”

After the latest wave of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, George posted a Mirror of Justice commentary in which he noted that Times editors seemed remarkable unaware of the actual contents of the majority opinions. The headline on the Gray Lady’s initial 303 Creative story was, in GetReligion terms, a classic: “Web Designer Wins Right to Turn Away Gay People.”

The problem was that Justice Neil Gorsuch — author of the court’s landmark Bostock decision (.pdf here) backing trans rights — said the opposite of that in his 303 Creative majority opinion (.pdf here).


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

What's up with the Rev. Bart Barber's easy win as SBC president? Don't ask the Gray Lady

, , , , , , , , ,
What's up with the Rev. Bart Barber's easy win as SBC president? Don't ask the Gray Lady

One of the most interesting stories from the 2023 meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention was the easy win by the Rev. Bart Barber, a low-key Texas Baptist who was elected to a second term as president.

Under normal conditions, SBC presidents are elected to a second term without opposition.

However, words like “normal” do not apply to Southern Baptist life in the Internet age — in which there are ordinary conservative Southern Baptists and then there are those gathered in the Conservative Baptist Network tent.

Barber faced opposition from the right, which was a newsworthy fact in and of itself. I would say that the opposition came from the “theological” right, but I haven’t seen strong evidence that this conflict is about theology.

Still, Barber’s easy win in the New Orleans convention was a blow to the rebel conservatives and a win for the establishment conservatives. I found it interesting that some in the elite press didn’t seem to realize this, or appeared predestined to ignore it.

Check out the top of the New York Times wrap-up report on the SBC meeting. The massive double-decker headline tells the readers what really matters:

“Southern Baptists’ Fight Over Female Leaders Shows Power of Insurgent Right.”

Moves this week to oust women from church leadership in the nation’s largest Protestant denomination offer an early look into the psyche of evangelical America ahead of 2024.

Whoa. “Ahead of 2024?” Is this a reference to the next SBC election or a suggestion that what happened in New Orleans is important because it was some kind of symbolic foretaste of what really matters to the religion-desk at the Times — which is the 2024 White House race?

As always, remember: Politics is what is real. Religion? Not so much.

That journalism question, once again: Is this Times sermon “analysis” or “news”?


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

Podcast: New York Times talks to a Catholic 'star' and (#triggerwarning) things went OK

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: New York Times talks to a Catholic 'star' and (#triggerwarning) things went OK

It isn’t everyday that I get emails from Catholic readers, of one tribe or another, praising a New York Times article, especially one in which a Catholic leader is asked tough questions about some controversial points of doctrine.

That’s strange, in a sad kind of way. This phenomena was almost worth a “Crossroads” podcast in and of itself (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

But there are other worthwhile reasons to discuss the New York Times Magazine feature that ran with what was clearly meant to be a grabber headline: “A Catholic Podcasting Star Says Theocracy Is Not the Way.”

Yes, yes, we all know that there are armies of Catholics out there who believe that this diverse and rapidly secularizing nation can be turned into some kind of Catholic or ecumenical Christian theocracy. Try to imagine either of those political options in a culture dominated by Big Tech, Big Academia and Hollywood.

Before we get to the “theocracy” discussion, let’s note the identity and the credentials of the priest featured in this interview. In the end, we want to know: Why was this priest able to emerge relatively unscathed by this dance with the Gray Lady, to the degree that many Catholics were pleased with this encounter? Here is some of the introduction:

Since it was introduced by the Catholic priest Mike Schmitz, who goes by Father Mike, in January 2021, the little-heralded “The Bible in a Year (With Fr. Mike Schmitz)” has been the most popular Apple religion podcast for a majority of 2021 and 2022 and has even, on two occasions, reached the No. 1 spot among all podcasts on Apple’s platform. The show has been downloaded 350 million times and an average of 750,000 times a day.

That’s credibility, in our tech-defined world — even to Times-people. Let’s continue:

Each 20-to-25-minute installment … features two or three short scriptural readings and a pithy reflection by Father Mike, an affable 47-year-old Midwesterner whose upbeat and self-deprecating manner — not to mention regular-guy good looks — exude strong Ted Lasso vibes. The staggering success of the podcast has helped turn its host, whose day job is as a chaplain at the University of Minnesota Duluth and the director of the youth ministry for the Duluth diocese, into a kind of celebrity. He travels the country giving speeches, and some of his YouTube videos have racked up millions of views.

Now, on to the content that provided that click-bait headline for faithful New York Times readers.


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

Boris Johnson's Catholic wedding: Why didn't the New York Times consult a Canon lawyer?

, , , , , , , , , ,
Boris Johnson's Catholic wedding: Why didn't the New York Times consult a Canon lawyer?

When preparing news reports about a chess match, it really helps if reporters quote one or more experts on the rules of chess.

The same thing is true when covering the FIFA World Cup. At some point, it would help to have an expert define “offsides” and some of soccer’s other more complicated rules.

When covering the U.S. Supreme Court, it helps to have a reporter on the team with a law degree and some serious experience covering debates in elite courtrooms.

This brings me that New York Times article the other day about that eyebrow-raising wedding at Westminster Cathedral between the current prime minister of England and his latest of many lady friends. The double-decker question covered many essential facts:

Why Could Boris Johnson Marry in a Catholic Church?

The British prime minister was married twice before, but the church didn’t recognize those unions because they were not Catholic.

Now, this article did some things very well, including offering a crisp, clear summary of Johnson’s complicated history as a husband and lover. Read that, if you wish.

However, I was struck by two words that were missing in this article — that would be, “Canonical” and “form” — even though discussions of this legal term was all over Catholic Twitter once the secret wedding was made public.

What, pray tell, is “Canonical form”? We will get to that in a moment.

In terms of journalism basics, the crucial point is that it really would have helped if the Times team had interviewed one or two Catholic Canon lawyers who understand this term and the history behind the church’s teachings on this subject. As things turned out, readers ended up knowing more about how this rite offended the sensibilities of Catholic LGBTQ activists than the specifics of the church laws that allowed the wedding to take place.


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

New podcast: Franklin Graham comes to Central Park, earning solid quotes in Gray Lady

, , , , , , , , ,

It’s easy to argue about Franklin Graham.

For starters, he is the heir of much of the ministry of the Rev. Billy Graham, and it’s hard to name a figure in mainstream Christianity who was more beloved than Billy Graham.

At the same time, Franklin Graham has openly aligned himself with Donald Trump, turning away from even the modest criticisms he offered during the primary season before the 2016 shocker. His theological critique of all of this has been blunt, to say the least.

That’s his style, and people love to argue about that. As I said in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), Franklin Graham has rarely used a flyswatter when a baseball bat will do.

But the fact that so many people ARGUE about Franklin Graham implies that there are good things to say about him (from multiple points of view) as well as bad things to say (from multiple points of view). It should be easy to write provocative, balanced news stories about him because there are so many people, with so many different perspectives, who have strong opinions about him.

However, mainstream press coverage of Franklin Graham tends to portray him as — let me state this mildly — the tacky son of a great man who is now one of the bigoted evangelical vandals who want to sack the American Rome (that would be New York City).

This brings me to an interesting, and in many ways admirable, New York Time story that ran the other day with this sprawling two-deck headline:

Franklin Graham Is Taking Down His N.Y. Hospital, but Not Going Quietly

His critics accuse him of discriminating against L.G.B.T. people. “Just because I don’t agree doesn’t mean I’m against them,” he said.

This lengthy story contains quite a bit of material in which Graham defends his organization and his own beliefs. It helps that he came to New York City — there is a lesson here for other religious leaders, especially evangelicals — and was willing to stand in front of microphones and answer questions.

The story, however, doesn’t include much in the way of information about what Samaritan’s Purse does and how long Graham and his team has been doing what they do.

Does that matter?


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

Pounding George Pell in the press: The cardinal takes a hit from the Gray Lady

, , , , , , ,

The “trial of the century” of Cardinal George Pell -- the Vatican’s “number 3” man and head of its finances - on sexual abuse charges has been passed by a Melbourne Magistrate to the Victoria County Court for adjudication. On April 30, Magistrate Belinda Wallington found there was sufficient evidence to justify a trial for the 76-year old former archbishop of Melbourne and Sydney, who has been placed on leave by Pope Francis to respond to the charges.

The case has been closely followed by the Australian and Italian press for the past three years, while the US and British press has also covered the spectacle. The coverage has been all over the map. 

Some outlets, like The Australian, have done a thorough balanced job -- others like the New York Times have fallen short in their professional standards. Conservative Catholic blogs have long criticized the coverage of the Pell case as  against the cardinal -- and part of the larger battle of doctrine being waged between progressives and traditionalists within the church.

Not unexpectedly, the Italian press has viewed the Pell case on advocacy-journalism lines - the anti-clerical or liberal papers have already found him guilty, the Catholic papers see him as a martyr to police misconduct, media bias and anti-Catholic sentiment, while the center plays it down the middle with a ‘too soon to tell’ what to think about George Pell approach.

When the charges surfaced last year, the Australian Associated Press (AAP) observed:

The centrist Corriere Della Sera newspaper noted the cardinal was "the highest representative of the Catholic Church every involved in such a case". The liberal La Repubblica warned "the shadow of pedophilia and rape returns to obscure the church". It described the cardinal as the "controversial kangaroo" and branded Australia as "a paradise of the orcs", saying in the past seven per cent of priests had been accused of sexual assault.

Today’s headlines from Italy follow this pattern. The lede in La Repubblica’s story “Abusi sessuali e pedofilia, il cardinale Pell rinviato a giudizio in Australia” (Sexual abuse and paedophilia -- Cardinal Pell indicted in Australia) states: 


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

The New York Times does its 'religious liberty' thing, with zero input from voices in middle

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Back in 2004, the public editor of The New York Times wrote a famous column with a very famous headline, which said: "Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?"

GetReligion readers with long memories will recall that Daniel Okrent followed that headline with this lede: "Of course it is."

That column contained lots of memorable quotations and it remains must reading. However, here is one passage that was especially controversial at the time and it remains controversial to this day.

... (F)or those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading.

Okrent was, let me stress, not talking about the great Gray Lady's editorial page. He wasn't talking about op-ed pieces or even first-person features in the newspaper's magazine. The public editor -- a post recently shut down by Times management -- was trying to describe the urban, blue-zip-code tunnel vision that often slants the newspaper's hard-news coverage, especially on issues of culture, morality and religion.

Thus, I do not know what Okrent would have said about the "Fashion and Style" essay that ran in 2013, written by Times reporter Jeremy W. Peters, with this headline: "The Gayest Place in America?" The lede:

WASHINGTON -- My earliest sense of what it meant to be gay in the nation’s capital came more than a decade ago when I was a summer intern. I was a few blocks from Union Station when a congressman walked by and gave the reporters I was standing with a big, floppy wave hello.

That's fair game for first-person analysis writing. However, I do think that, if Okrent time-traveled to the present, he would raise a question or two about the hard-news Times feature by Peters that dominated my email over the Thanksgiving weekend. The provocative headline: "Fighting Gay Rights and Abortion With the First Amendment."

The subject of this A1 story was the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative religious-liberty group that has become a major voice in cases at the U.S. Supreme Court and elsewhere. Here is the thesis statement, high in the report:

The First Amendment has become the most powerful weapon of social conservatives fighting to limit the separation of church and state and to roll back laws on same-sex marriage and abortion rights.


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

New York Times correspondent pays faith-free visit to #NeverTrump #NeverHillary territory

, , , , , , , ,

As we stagger closer to election day, the political desk at The Washington Post has produced several stories focusing on the fact that many centrist voters (Catholics in particular) are sickened by the thought of going into a voting booth and supporting either Donald Trump or Hillary Rodham Clinton.

What’s the problem? It’s something called “values,” apparently.

However, it appears that journalists believe that this has nothing to do with the whole “values voter” phenomenon seen in recent elections. In other words, this panic out there in many corners of the heartland has nothing to do with faith, morality, culture, religion or what have you. Yes, I have written several posts about this Post trend. In particular, see the recent post with this headline: “Washington Post: USA more pessimistic, divided than ever (and don’t ask about religion).”

Now, the New York Times political desk has bravely sent a correspondent into the heartland and found pretty much the same thing. Lots of folks in red zip codes are upset about the Donald vs. Hillary situation and, what do you know, it appears that there is more to this anger than the state of the economy. The Times headline proclaims: “Reliably Red Ohio County Finds Both Trump and Clinton Hard to Stomach.”

As you can see in the overture, the Gray Lady team visited a rust-free part of Ohio in which the economy is doing just fine. 

DELAWARE, Ohio -- Donald J. Trump is not popular in this prospering county north of Columbus. The Republican nominee’s dystopian language does not resonate here. Signs that read “Now Hiring” outnumber “Trump” campaign placards.
But many residents of this reliably Republican county, which last voted for a Democratic president in 1916, simply cannot imagine voting for Mr. Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. And that goes a long way toward explaining why she has struggled to separate herself from Mr. Trump in this bellwether state.

This doesn’t fit the received wisdom among the chattering-class elites.


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

GOP establishment in a panic! Guess what kind of leaders the Gray Lady ignores?

, , , , , , , , ,

In case you have not noticed, there is a little bit of panic right now spreading among Republican Party leaders. It's in all the newspapers.

If you push the panic to its logical conclusion, one needs to ask how many security professionals will be needed at the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, just to handle the task of tossing out the party faithful who will be hating on the nominee.

So, precisely WHO is in a #NeverTrump panic?

The most common answer is the "Republican Establishment." This is usually defined as the people who are calling the shots in the party. And who is that? For Trump, that term points toward the big-shot donors, Republicans in Congress, the old-guard Republican experts who are constantly interviewed on television, etc., etc.

The New York Times produced a major piece the other day -- "Inside the Republican Party’s Desperate Mission to Stop Donald Trump" -- about this panic attack and, as you would expect, it was packed with familiar names from the GOP establishment Rolodex. But as I read it, I kept thinking: What is the connection between the party's ESTABLISHMENT and its BASE, the people it can count on to turn out on election day?

To be specific, are there leaders of the GOP BASE who are not considered to be honored members of its ESTABLISHMENT? If so, why is that the case? Might that disconnect have something to do with the Trump insurgency? Hold that thought.

This is long, but you need to read the whole overture (Spot the names!) to get into the mood of the story:

The scenario Karl Rove outlined was bleak.


Please respect our Commenting Policy