Idaho

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

Americans need moving vans? AP says it's politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, etc.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Americans need moving vans? AP says it's politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, etc.

No doubt about it: The rise of the divided states of America is one of the most important news stories of our time, and that has been obvious for several decades now (think red-blue JesusLand cartoons starting in 2000, or thereabouts).

The bottom line: If you don’t own a copy of David French’s 2020 book, “Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation,” then order one right now.

How many times have I quoted that volume’s tense, scary opening sentences? Here’s that passage, again, from my recent red journalism vs. blue journalism piece for the journal Religion & Liberty:

The bottom line: Americans are divided by their choices in news and popular culture, choosing to live in protective silos of digital content. America remains the developing world’s most religious nation, yet its secularized elites occupy one set of zip codes, while most religious believers live in another. These armies share no common standards about “facts,” “accuracy,” or “fairness.”

“It’s time for Americans to wake up to a fundamental reality: the continued unity of the United States cannot be guaranteed,” wrote French. At this moment, “there is not a single important cultural, religious, political, or social force that is pulling Americans together more than it is pulling us apart.”           

The Los Angeles Times published the definitive “This is all about economics, stupid!” piece about this trend, which I discussed in this recent GetReligion post: “Yo, LA Times — Maybe, must maybe, issues of faith, family and culture matter in California?”

The Big Idea in that piece was the truth that, when striving to avoid covering issues of religion and culture, journalists have the option of stressing economic issues, as well as politics, politics, politics. Now, the Associated Press had produced a news feature with a variation on that theme. Headline: “Conservatives go to red states and liberals go to blue as the country grows more polarized.”

This time around, the story does include lots of commentary about “cultural” issues, but culture is defined — quite literally — as politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics. Actually, I may have missed one or two variations on the word “politics” in this AP report.

References to “religion”? Zero. “Faith”? Zip. “Morality?” Nada.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

Bill Buckner's faith makes a cameo appearance in coverage of 22-year major-leaguer's death

, , ,

Ouch!

When you die, imagine your obituary leading with your worst moment.

Enter Bill Buckner, the 22-year major-leaguer who succumbed Monday to a long battle with Lewy body dementia.

This was the opening paragraph from The Associated Press:

BOSTON — Bill Buckner, a star hitter who became known for making one of the most infamous plays in major league history, died Monday. He was 69.

Suffice it to say that the infamous play (as baseball fans know) was not a positive one.

Similarly, the Washington Post got right to the (unfortunate) point:

Former major league first baseman and outfielder Bill Buckner, who won a batting title with the Chicago Cubs in 1980 but was best remembered for the error he committed in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series while playing for the Boston Red Sox, died Monday at 69 after battling dementia.

And this was ESPN’s simple lede:

Bill Buckner, the longtime major leaguer whose error in the 1986 World Series for years lived in Red Sox infamy, died Monday. He was 69.

Is it fair that Buckner’s entire career is boiled down to one error in so many news reports? Nope, says Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy, who wrote:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

A holy ghost? Why an Idaho couple with conjoined twins decided against aborting their babies

, , ,

Is there a holy ghost in the story of an Idaho couple who decided against aborting their babies?

I've been wondering about that since I first read a front-page Houston Chronicle story earlier this month about the Torres family's experience:

Dad held the babies upright on his chest, patting them and swaying, while Mom crammed the last bag between a cooler of donated breast milk and a new portable crib.
“Well,” Chelsea Torres said, closing the trunk and turning to her husband, Nick, “it all fits.”
That was the easy part.
What lay ahead was far more daunting.
Leaving the hospital with a newborn is a moment no parent is ready for. What if the baby screams in the car? What if she won’t take a bottle once you get home? Chelsea, 24, and Nick, 23, have an even darker worry: What if the girls don’t survive the drive?
The doctors assured them everything should be fine, but it’s hard to shake that fear. They’ve carried it for months, ever since the doctor back in Idaho told them Chelsea was pregnant with conjoined twins. Ever since they decided to ignore his recommendation to have an abortion. Ever since they loaded their 3-year-old son, Jaysin, into their Kia Optima six months ago and drove 25 hours to Houston.
“I’ve been dreading the return,” said Nick, dark circles under his eyes after days with little sleep. “I’m just glad we’re making it with two healthy babies.”

My question is simple: Why? 

Why did the couple choose not to have an abortion? Were religious beliefs a factor? The Chronicle story that I read did not explain their thinking, so I Googled in hopes of finding more background.

I came across a more in-depth Houston Press story as well an Idaho State Journal feature from months ago, but neither fully answered my question.

 


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

Religious liberty in Idaho: Going to the chapel, and we're going to get married ... maybe

, , ,

Earlier this month, I dinged Reuters for a "two-sided news story" that really only told one.

I argued that the piece on "a new battleground of religious freedom" was framed almost entirely from the perspective of same-sex marriage activists.

This week, Reuters reported on two Idaho pastors opposed to gay marriage:

(Reuters) - Two pastors in Idaho, who fear they could be penalized for refusing to perform newly legal gay marriages at their private wedding chapel, have filed a lawsuit, saying an Idaho anti-discrimination law violates their right to free speech and religious liberty.
Donald and Evelyn Knapp, who run the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d'Alene, are asking a federal judge to temporarily bar the city from enforcing a local ordinance that bans discrimination tied to sexual orientation in businesses that are used by the public, their attorney said on Monday.
The couple, both ordained Christian ministers, say that under the ordinance, they could face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine each time they decline to wed same-sex couples in line with their religious beliefs.
"The government has no business compelling ministers to violate their beliefs and break their ordination vows or risk escalating jail time and fines," said the Knapps' attorney, Jeremy Tedesco.

Alas, Reuters does a much better job this time of fairly representing the arguments of those with religious freedom concerns.

What's missing? Once again, it's the other side.


Please respect our Commenting Policy