That didn’t take long.

Just yesterday, I wrote a post — “All megachurches are not alike: NYTimes noted Howard-Browne arrest, but didn't leave it at that” — that opened with a plea for reporters to be more careful when making sweeping, simplistic statements about niche groups in the public square.

I was discussing the wave of news about the small number of megachurch pastors who are rebelling against “shelter in place” orders — by continuing to hold face-to-face gatherings instead of asking their members to stay off and watch digital, streaming versions of the services. This important and valid topic was yet another chance for reporters to be tempted to say that “evangelicals” (or even megachurch evangelicals) were doing this or that horrible thing, instead of attempting to get inside this complex phenomenon and report hard, nuanced facts. Then I added:

You also see this equation play out with “Catholic voters,” “Jews and Israel,” “New Yorkers,” “Democrats” (and “Republicans”) and lots of other niches in public life. … Making blanket statements of that kind — about evangelicals, Jews, journalists or any other group — requires either (a) massive amounts of solid reporting or some combination of (b) ego and/or (c) hatred.
Frequently, journalists need to carefully look at the evidence and add words such as “most,” “some” or even “a few.” They may need to limit their judgmental statements to certain zip codes or subgroups of a larger whole. …

Yes, take New Yorkers, for example.

There are many different kinds of New Yorkers (at least, that has been my experience). New York isn’t Dallas, for sure, but it is a very different place than the simplistic New York City that dwells in the fever dreams of way too many right-wingers.

This brings me to a hot topic on Twitter, as summarized by a new Religion News Service report with this headline: “Franklin Graham on his Central Park field hospital: ‘We don’t discriminate. Period.’ “

It’s a good thing — as you can see in that headline — that the RNS team let Graham speak his peace about the controversy that is swirling about those emergency hospital tents that his Samaritan’s Purse relief agency has brought to one of New York City’s most iconic locations. Nevertheless, read this overture carefully:

I’ve done a fair amount of work abortion and pregnancy issues, including "fetal reduction" and the enormous moral issues it raises. Such “reductions” were first suggested for pregnancies of four, five or more but now people are aborting part of a set of twins. That’s right. And who’s going to explain to the survivor that they were once part of a pair and that they were the lucky one to not get the needle in the heart?

Because there’s been some debate over aborting one of a set of twins, I was interested in this National Post story out of Toronto over a Jewish hospital’s refusal to take part in this procedure. See how the Post handles this matter:

TORONTO -- A Toronto hospital’s refusal to reduce a woman’s twin pregnancy to one fetus — at least partly because of a doctor’s moral objections — has triggered a human-rights fight over the little-known but contentious procedure.

The Ottawa-area patient had been warned that carrying twins at her age could increase the risk of losing the whole pregnancy, and was referred to Mount Sinai Hospital for a “selective reduction.”

That means terminating at least one among multiple fetuses, akin to a partial abortion.

But the institution declined to provide the service, saying its practice was to only reduce triplets or more, unless one of the twins has some kind of anomaly.