MSNBC

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Carefully entering the hall of mirrors created by the 'God Made Trump' video

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Carefully entering the hall of mirrors created by the 'God Made Trump' video

I will not apologize for the fact that this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in) contains lots of questions and few answers.

In a way, the whole “God Made Trump” video ruckus is a house of mirrors full of questions.

Nevertheless, you cannot follow what Americans call “politics” without pondering the role that religious language is playing these days. At the same time, it’s impossible to ignore the role of humor — including brutal satire — in all of this. Put religion and humor together (with a dash of AI) and all hades breaks loose.

The New York Times offered a straight-faced news story about a trend that is a threat to democracy when used by conservatives and, in particular, the MAGA Orange Man Bad team. What about the satire on the other side, which is usually offered by billion-dollar platforms in mainstream media and late-night entertainment? That isn’t relevant. Meanwhile, here’s that double-decker Times headline:

Iowa Pastors Say Video Depicting Trump as Godly Is ‘Very Concerning’

The viral video shows the former president, in starkly religious, almost messianic tones, as the vessel of a higher power sent to save the nation.

The big question here that the Times team never asks: To what degree is the “God Made Trump” video satire or a wink-wink salute to a certain tribe of Trump supporters in some pews? Hold that thought, because asking that question leads to those hall-of-mirrors questions.

This Times piece is all serious all the time. Here is a key byte of that:

The clip’s authors are members of the Dilley Meme Team, an organized collective of video producers who call themselves “Trump’s Online War Machine.” The group’s leader, Brenden Dilley, describes himself as Christian and a man of faith, but says he has never read the Bible and does not attend church. He has said that Mr. Trump has “God-tier genetics” and, in response to outcry over the “God Made Trump” video, he posted a meme depicting Mr. Trump as Moses parting the Red Sea.


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

Pointers for journalists covering the neverending U.S. Protestant LGBTQ+ wars

, , , , , , , , , ,
Pointers for journalists covering the neverending U.S. Protestant LGBTQ+ wars

Few expect to find religious substance on cable-news channels and websites.

But on New Year’s Eve, MSNBC posted a liberal overview of the same-sex dispute that is splitting the large United Methodist Church (UMC) and affects U.S. Protestantism over-all. The writer was Robert Allan Hill, dean of the chapel and New Testament professor at Boston University.

The Guy assumes that MSNBC has neither sought nor posted any theological article on this by a doctrinal traditionalist, any more than we’d expect Fox News to post a liberal’s religious commentary on this topic. Such are the “silos” that shape today’s cable “news” offerings and audiences.

As of December 31, the dispute over the Bible and sexual morality caused 7,660 congregations, roughly a quarter of the UMC, to depart, the largest U.S. schism since the Civil War. But Hill is upbeat because there’s now “a way forward” for “creative repositioning” in the UMC.

Sexual traditionalists have won every UMC showdown the past 52 years, but their voting power is seriously weakened by the big U.S. walkout, raising the odds that liberals can finally change official belief at the General Conference in Charlotte April 23 to May 3, or else at a special 2026 conference called by the bishops.

The media still have some difficulty explaining why this conflict has been so persistent and disruptive, so The Guy will sketch some pointers from the immense literature on this from scholars. Whatever the case with Catholic and Orthodox churches, for Protestants it’s all about the Bible, what it says and how that’s to be interpreted and applied.

Hill charged that current supporters of the Christian teaching across the centuries “have apparently not read all of the Bible, or at least have not read some parts of it carefully, faithfully and fully” so that the issue “is biblically misunderstood.”

For starters, he says there’s a “paucity of any biblical material” on homosexuality, with only six passages. Traditionalists cite a larger number but, leaving that question aside, they argue that both the Old and New Testaments clearly teach a moral aversion to same-sex activity and no verse tolerates it.


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

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
, , , , , , , , , ,

Are white evangelicals devoted to Fox News? Do atheists flock over to MSNBC?

, , , , , , , , , ,
Are white evangelicals devoted to Fox News? Do atheists flock over to MSNBC?

One of my favorite things to do when the weather is nice is walk my dog. She’s a seven-pound Yorkshire terrier named Lucy. Oftentimes she wants to take a stroll around the neighborhood in the early evening and it’s a good excuse for me to stand up from the computer and actually move around a bit.

It helps to know that I live in an older neighborhood in the Midwest where many houses were built close together and only 10 feet from the sidewalk. So, I can easily see in someone’s living room when I am walking by with the dog.

I love to catch a glance at what’s on their television. Lots of times it’s the St. Louis Cardinals, but that’s a less frequent occurrence as the team has been terrible this year. But if it’s not baseball, it’s usually the news. I see a little MSNBC, a bit more of CNN, but a whole lot of Fox News. If you go to a local doctor’s office, it’s what is on the television in the waiting room. It’s really the default channel for most public spaces in rural, deep-red America.

I am not a scholar of media and politics, but there have been dozens of books written about the 24 hours news cycle and the rise of polarized outlets like Fox News and MSNBC and the impact that they are having on society and politics. But I’ve never really seen a whole lot written about religion and media consumption. It’s time to change that.

The Cooperative Election Study asks people if they have watched a variety of media outlets in the prior 24 hours. They get all the legacy networks (NBC, CBS, ABC) but also the news channels like FNC, MSNBC and CNN. The results are fascinating and every time I look at the heat map, I seem to find a little nugget that I didn’t see the previous time.

The big networks still do pretty well, honestly. A decent chunk of America is watching NBC, CBS and ABC on a regular basis. And what’s interesting is that there’s not a ton of variation from top to bottom. For example, ABC hovers between 30% and 50% for basically every group (aside from Black Protestants). The other networks are in that same range, too. There’s pretty wide penetration across all kinds of religious groups.

I was surprised how broad the viewership is for CNN.


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

American College of Pediatricians: How many times must we hear about its religious ties?

, , , , , , , , ,
American College of Pediatricians: How many times must we hear about its religious ties?

It started as a data breach at a faith-friendly medical group that opposes transgender therapies and same-sex parenting.

It morphed into a quasi-investigative piece co-written by three Washington Post reporters and one contributor –- none of them a religion specialist –- about “conservative doctors” who have influenced public discussion about abortion and transgender individuals.

When I first saw this, I wondered what issue was so important that it required a triple byline, especially since the story was originally broken by other outlets weeks before. The following piece — “Documents show how conservative doctors influenced abortion, trans rights” — ran last week in the Post:

A small group of conservative doctors has sought to shape the nation’s most contentious policies on abortion and transgender rights by promoting views rejected by the medical establishment as scientific fact, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post that describe the group’s internal strategies.

Actually, the entire “medical establishment” doesn’t reject these views. This is another example of erasing an important debate.

The records show that after long struggling to attract members, the American College of Pediatricians gained outsize political influence in recent years, primarily by using conservative media as a megaphone in its quest to position the group as a reputable source of information.

The organization has successfully lobbied since 2021 for laws in more than a half-dozen states that ban gender-affirming care for transgender youths, with its representatives testifying before state legislatures against the guidelines recommended by mainstream medical groups, according to its records. It gained further national prominence this year as one of the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit to limit access to mifepristone, a key abortion drug.

That put it in the media crosshairs, for sure.

Despite efforts to invoke the credibility of the medical profession, the American College of Pediatricians is viewed with skepticism by the medical establishment. For years, the group has presented statistics and talking points to state legislators, public school officials and the American public as settled science while internal documents emphasize how religion and morality influence its positions.


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

Podcast: Thoughts on a third of a century as a columnist (and a symbolic SCOTUS ruling)

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Thoughts on a third of a century as a columnist (and a symbolic SCOTUS ruling)

This week marked a rather symbolic anniversary for my national “On Religion” column, which I have been writing now for (#GULP) a third of a century.

As you would imagine, I spend some time thinking about the subject for this week’s column: “Why 'religious liberty' has ended up inside quotation marks.” This column was also the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

Anyone who has followed my work with GetReligion and “On Religion” will not be surprised that I chose to write about the First Amendment and and a highly symbolic religious liberty case (no scare quotes there) at the U.S. Supreme Court.

But hold that thought. I’d like to walk through what are, for me, four symbolic columns I have written in the past, as I head into year No. 34.

That first column in 1988 was rather newsy: “Pat Robertson, evangelicals and the White House.” Here’s the lede on that:

On the morning before Easter, Pat Robertson stood in a pulpit under an American flag and a banner that read, "King of Kings, Lord of Lords."

Alas, change the name of the candidate and that still sounds rather relevant, considering the state of warfare inside American evangelicalism these days (see this must-read Richard Ostling post).

On the 10th anniversary of the column — that seemed like a long time, back then — I focused on a classic book by sociologist James Davison Hunter (“Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America”) that has greatly influenced my work as a journalist and as a professor. The column opened by describing an interesting trend at political and religious rallies at that time:


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

Whether art or mere craft, old-school interviewing is a reporter's perennial linchpin

, , , , , , ,
Whether art or mere craft, old-school interviewing is a reporter's perennial linchpin

The New York Times offers daily doses of clever self-promotion (and often self-congratulation) in a feature called "Inside The Times: The Story Behind The Story." One of these carefully curated items last week, "How Reporters Interview Celebrities," merits contemplation from other journalists.

Interviews are forever the linchpin of all original reporting. This opus tapped three specialists about dealing with show business personalities, a different challenge from typical interviewing. But some points have broad application.

Prepare thoroughly, which assures interview subjects of your professionalism and intent to conduct a knowledgeable discussion . Know what they have said in previous articles, which they may be anxious to explain or rebut. Inevitably you'll have some prickly questions, and a savvy subject will expect this and be prepared, but don't ask them early on.

The best strategy is often "simply to listen."

Those observations, of course, pertain to feature-writing with advance notice and a reasonable amount of time for the conversation itself — as opposed to breaking news stories where the reporter is scrambling and the interview must quickly get to the point.

How does this apply to the religion beat?

For one thing, the field has few celebrities. Over the decades The Guy has met with some, such as the Dalai Lama, Billy Graham, Mother Teresa or Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (soon to become Pope Benedict XVI). In those situations, never ever give way to awe, whatever your private reactions. (The Guy has observed this is a more likely temptation among people who do not work the religion beat.)

Even religious leaders who are highly influential within their own spheres typically do not have to deal with inquisitive journalists. They may feel (often for good reason) that representatives of the Mainstream Media will bring little understanding of faith or harbor slight scorn toward this aspect of human experience.


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

Are we finally witnessing the long-anticipated (by journalists) evangelical crack-up? 

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Are we finally witnessing the long-anticipated (by journalists) evangelical crack-up? 

Those impossible-to-ignore and hard-to-define white " evangelicals" have, for decades, been the largest and most dynamic sector in U.S. religion. Are we finally witnessing an evangelical crack-up as so long anticipated -- and desired -- by liberal critics?

That's a big theme for the media to affirm or deny.

To begin, The Religion Guy is well aware that millions of these conservative Protestants quietly attend weekly worship, join Bible and prayer groups, try to help those in need, fund national and foreign missions and are oblivious to discussions of this sort on the national level.

For years we've seen a telltale slide of membership and baptisms in the Southern Baptist Convention, that massive and stereotypical evangelical denomination. At the same time, it’s clear (follow the work of Ryan Burge for background) that many of those Southern Baptists have simply moved to independent, nondenominational evangelical megachurches of various kinds.

But more than numbers, analysts are pondering insults to cultural stature, which greatly affect any movement's legitimacy, respect, impact and appeal to potential converts, especially with younger adults.

The Scopes Trial to forbid teaching of Darwinian evolution nearly a century ago continues to shape perceptions of evangelicalism and its fundamentalist wing, especially due to the fictionalized 1955 play and 1960 movie "Inherit the Wind." No doubt ongoing evangelical enthusiasm for Donald Trump has a similar negative impact among his critics, but this is not merely a political story but involves evangelicalism's internal dynamics. The Trump era exacerbates divisions that already existed despite unity in belief.

Turn to former GetReligion writer Mark Kellner, who is already making his mark (pun intended) as the new "faith and family" reporter for the Washington Times. Here is an essential recent read: “After scandals, is evangelical Christianity's image damaged?"

The immediate cause behind the question was an odd little incident that spoke volumes, the sacking of Daniel Darling as spokesman for National Religious Broadcasters (NRB).


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

Thinking about the practical impact of shaming messages aimed at vaccine-resistant believers

, , , , , , , ,
Thinking about the practical impact of shaming messages aimed at vaccine-resistant believers

During my decades in religion-beat work, I have heard many an evangelical leader make the following sardonic observation.

Wait, I’ve also heard traditional Catholics offer variations on this theme. And there may be partisan political versions of this, as well. But that’s not my turf.

OK, here is the message: The quickest way for an evangelical to receive glowing elite press coverage and commentary (add social-media praise, after about 2000+) is to attack other evangelicals.

Now, that is not what this think piece is about. I say that, even though some vaccine-resistant religious leaders may have thought that’s what Daniel Darling, senior vice president for Communications at the NRB (think National Religious Broadcasters) was doing in his recent USA Today op-ed entitled, “Why, as a Christian and an American, I got the COVID vaccine.”

But careful readers could see that his message was way more complicated than that. If you weren’t sure about his intent, check out the lengthy interview with Darling that followed on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program (click here or see the YouTube at the top of the full copy of this post). The veteran evangelical leader — former head of communications for the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission — was clearly sending two messages.

Yes, one was to religious leaders who have doubts about the COVID-19 vaccines. But he also had sobering words for their critics, whose attacks have caused anger and conflict, instead of changing minds.

Thus, what we have here is a piece of op-ed work, and the MSNBC appearance that followed, that people on both sides of this warfare need to parse carefully. This includes journalists who are covering this story — which is so not over yet.


Please respect our Commenting Policy