Poynter Institute

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

Podcast: Can journalists and religious leaders learn how to talk about what 'news' is?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Can journalists and religious leaders learn how to talk about what 'news' is?

Day after day, year after year (this week opened year 35 for my national “On Religion” column) I receive all kinds of “press releases” from people who want me to write columns about this, that or the other.

Some folks still send these printed on dead-tree pulp, if you can imagine that. The vast majority arrive via email or in press kits (mainly for books) via UPS, Fedex or the U.S. Postal Service.

I am happy to check out most of this material. However, about 90% or more of these offerings are sent by PR professionals who appear to have zero idea what I write about or the audience for my columns. They are simply throwing cheerful digital spaghetti at the wall and hoping something sticks.

In short, they do not understand “news” — what it is and what it is not.

What can religious leaders and/or organizations do to improve their success rates with reporters like me? That was half the equation that we discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here for temporary link to tune that in).

The other half? Just flip that reporter’s notebook around. How can reporters do a better job finding the right voices to include in their coverage of events and trends linked to religion? How can journalists convince clergy and other religious folks to cooperate with press coverage — especially when dealing with controversial topics and scandals?

The podcast was recorded while I was in Los Angeles for two forums hosted by the Poynter Institute under this title: “Telling the Stories of Faith and the Faithful.” The first forum was for reporters and editors, including quite a few who are not religion-beat specialists. The second day, yes, focused on talks with a small circle of religious leaders about understanding how journalists think and work.

We were talking about many of the same questions and issues on both days — only viewed from different sides of a reporter’s notebook (or smartphone, in this age). Here is a bite of the Poynter summary of the session with reporters:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Year in review: Ten religion stories that stuck with me in 2019, including one of my own

, , , , , ,

Did Santa bring everything you wanted for Christmas?

I hope so.

As we head toward a new year, I wanted to pull a few items out of my gift bag.

Here, in no particular order, are 10 of the most memorable religion stories that I read (and one I even wrote) in 2019:

1. As his daughter lay in a pool of blood in an El Paso Walmart, a pastor held fast to his faith, Los Angeles Times

In an Aug. 8 post, I praised Times national correspondent David Montero’s front-page feature on the parents of an El Paso, Texas, shooting victim. I described it as “emotional, heart-wrenching and maybe the best religion story you'll read all year.” I stand by that statement.

Here (in no particular order) are 10 of the most memorable religion stories that I read (and one I even wrote) in 2019:

2. “Slavery and Religion: 400 years,” Religion News Service.
RNS national correspondent Adelle M. Banks’ compelling series focused on slavery and religion as Americans commemorated the 400th anniversary of the forced arrival of enslaved Africans in Virginia. Datelines included New York City, Montgomery, Ala., and Jamestown, Va.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Friday Five: El Paso and Dayton, RNS on scene, Liberty's J-school, whopper correction

, , , , , ,

Do we really need to know what makes a mass murderer tick?

It’s a question we’ve contemplated previously here at GetReligion. I’ve noted that I personally tire of reading about crazed killers who go on shooting rampages.

After Saturday’s massacre at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, the Dallas Morning News provided extensive coverage.

However, here’s what the Dallas newspaper didn’t do: mention the gunman’s name on the front page.

“Though the shooter’s name would be online and inside the paper, we would not identify him or show his photo on the front page,” Editor Mike Wilson said of the purposeful decision. “Even in the digital age, what we run on 1A is an important expression of our values.”

It’s a small, mainly symbolic gesture, but I like it. Kudos to Wilson and his team.

Meanwhile, let’s dive into the Friday Five:

1. Religion story of the week: The mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, dominated headlines this week, and rightly so.

In a post Thursday, I praised an emotional, heart-wrenching story on one victim’s family published by the Los Angeles Times. I declared that the front-page news-feature just might be “the best religion story you’ll read all year.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Poynter takes on Fox News' 'repurposing' of other publications' religion stories without proper credit

, , , ,

The reporter has become the reported-on.

I complained on social media recently after Fox News’ Caleb Parke rewrote one of my Christian Chronicle stories without doing any of his own reporting. I never could get a response from Parke, whose verified Twitter profile says he covers “faith & values but my favorite stories are #GoodNews.”

After my first complaint, Fox attributed a second quote to my Chronicle story but didn’t deal with the bigger issue of passing off our original piece as its own. And Parke and Fox felt no need to reply to me directly.

That might have been the end of it, except that Kelly McBride, a leading media ethics expert who serves as senior vice president of the Poynter Institute, took an interest in my case.

Today, Poynter published McBride’s lengthy piece calling out Fox News’ “repurposing” of other publications’ religion stories without proper credit.

Spoiler alert: She says a lot of really cool things about me that my mom will really enjoy, such as calling me a “nice-guy church newspaper editor based in Oklahoma City.” My boss particularly relished that line, given the grumpiness that I occasionally display on deadline.

But for those interested in religion reporting in the news media (that would be you, dear GetReligion reader), McBride’s comments on Fox’s practice of relying on other publications’ hard work will be particularly relevant.

Such as this:

It’s clear that this is about return on investment. Fox could easily have religion reporters out there turning up original stories the way Ross and his team do. But that would mean they would only get one story a day or even a week out of a reporter, not three or four. But fewer stories means a smaller audience.

Alternatively, Fox could subscribe to the Religion News Service, a wire service devoted to creating original stories about religion, as well as sharing content generated by other publications, including The Christian Chronicle. “We do not subscribe to this service,” a Fox spokesperson said by email. “We monitor them like we would any reliable news outlet and aggregate content when we find it compelling and worthy of our standards.”

When you look closely at what news organizations invest resources  in — original reporting vs. simply repeating the work of others — you can get a window into what the company values. 


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Relentless 'hollowing out' of newsrooms shapes all beats, and our democracy

, , , , ,
Relentless 'hollowing out' of newsrooms shapes all beats, and our democracy

In a break from usual practice, this Religion Guy Memo examines the over-all situation of the American news media.

When times are tough, specialty beats — like religion — become especially vulnerable.

The news biz is transfixed by the mutual rancor between the incumbent American president and the political press corps, which reached another nadir last week. The performance -- on both sides -- hasn’t been this nasty since 1800, when hyper-partisan newspapers manhandled the feuding Adams, Burr, Hamilton and Jefferson. Here’s hoping for a letup 221 or 225 years later when the Donald Trump administration ends.

Meanwhile, media toilers and consumers should be alert to the ongoing broad, bad context within which journalism functions, summarized in this headline: “The Hollowing Out of Newsrooms.” That’s how “Trust,” the Pew Charitable Trusts magazine, upsums data compiled by the Pew Research Center for its latest “State of the News Media” report as of 2017.

One major caveat: As Pew acknowledges, 2017 is a somewhat misleading year for assessing audiences because we’d expect a decline from 2016 with its intense interest in the election. However, Trumpish fascination continued through 2017 and Pew says post-election falloffs usually hit cable news but have little impact on newspapers, network TV or radio. The next report, for 2018, will be significant given fascination with the campaign just past. (Note: These surveys exclude magazine journalism. Non-fiction books are a whole other story.)

Pew’s first such report back in 2004 warned that “most sectors of the news media are losing audience,” therefore “putting pressures on revenues and profits.” According to the latest report, total newsroom employees, whether reporters, editors, copyreaders, photographers or videographers, declined by nearly a fourth between 2008 and 2017, from 114,000 to 88,000


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

Monday Mix: Pittsburgh shooting, hate that kills, Sutherland Springs, white nationalism, 'double lives'

, , , , , , ,

Surprised? No.

Numb? Yes.

After a weekend marred by yet another mass shooting in America, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s front page pays tribute to the victims in a special way today.

Welcome to another edition of the Monday Mix, where we focus on headlines and insights you might have missed from the weekend and late in the week.

The fine print: Just because we include a headline here doesn't mean we won't offer additional analysis in a different post, particularly if it's a major story. In fact, if you read a piece linked here and have questions or concerns that we might address, please don't hesitate to comment below or tweet us at @GetReligion. The goal here is to point at important news and say, "Hey, look at this."

Three weekend reads

1. "The day closed with 3,000 people attending a vigil for the dead and wounded at the intersection of Murray and Forbes avenues.” GetReligion’s Julia Duin, who used to live in Pittsburgh, has a helpful overview of news coverage of the synagogue shooting.


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

Friday Five: Capital Gazette journalists, SCOTUS news, an unsung hero's passing and more

, , , , , , ,

"I’m just undone by what happened at the Capital Gazette," said my friend Carla Hinton, religion editor at The Oklahoman. "These are strange and heartbreaking times we are living in. Praying for my fellow journalists and their families."

"It's especially traumatic because so many of us started our careers at newspapers like the Capital Gazette," responded my friend Steve Lackmeyer, a longtime business reporter at The Oklahoman. "We know these people, we know these newsrooms..."

Amen and amen.

No, the senseless slaying of journalists isn't any more tragic than the mass shootings — at schools, churches and other businesses — that keep making headlines in America.

But for those of us in this profession, the Capital Gazette tragedy hits especially close to home.

Want to understand the heart and passion that make many journalists tick? Read this Twitter thread by Nyssa Kruse, an intern at the Hartford Courant.

Now, let's dive into the Friday Five:


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

Poynter think piece proclaims: No need for 'balance' in abortion news reporting

, , , , , , , , , ,

I've been thinking about this weekend think piece for quite some time.

The key to this post, according to journalists with whom I have discussed the topic, is that the think piece in question -- "New study shows why it's so hard to get abortion coverage right" -- was:

(a) Published on the Poynter.org website (a crucial brand name in mainstream journalism).

(b) However, it was written by a professional from an advocacy think tank on the issue being discussed, a fact clearly noted in the author bio at the end of the essay.

Thus, readers face a crucial question: To what degree do the contents of the essay speak for Poynter.org and its team? Perhaps this is the first half of a debate, with another piece -- representing the other side -- coming in the future? Then again, perhaps this piece is an endorsed statement (thinking of the newsroom policy ethics and style guide at BuzzFeed) that abortion is now a public debate that, for journalists, has only one side that needs to be covered?

I do not know. Because of my respect for the Poynter Institute and its work, I have been rather puzzled. And cautious.

I will point readers to the new Poynter piece -- in a moment.

First, I want to mention a symbolic statement on this topic from an earlier era. I am referring to the much discussed 2003 memo to Los Angeles Times section editors by John Carroll, the newspaper's executive editor at that time. The memo's subject line was: "Subject: Credibility/abortion." Readers really need to click and see the whole memo (it isn't long) for context. However, here is how it ends.

Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don't need to waste our readers' time with it. 

The reason I'm sending this note to all section editors is that I want everyone to understand how serious I am about purging all political bias from our coverage. We may happen to live in a political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times. 

I'm no expert on abortion, but I know enough to believe that it presents a profound philosophical, religious and scientific question, and I respect people on both sides of the debate. A newspaper that is intelligent and fair-minded will do the same. 

So what does the article published by Poynter say?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Sometimes chasing 'Why?' questions pushes scribes past motives, into evil and tragedy

, , , , , ,

When it comes to the big question in Las Vegas, news consumers around the world are still waiting. And waiting. And waiting some more.

Journalists want to know what kind of label to pin on the motives of Stephen Paddock, so we can go back to wrestling with theodicy questions like, oh, why so many Democrats voted for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton. Where was God on election day?

Alas, new details in Vegas (Paddock shot a security man before the massacre began?) have only complicated the timeline of this tragedy.

What are journalists supposed to do? Well, this is the rare case when I want to point readers to a think piece during the middle of the week (as opposed to our weekend slots), in part because I get to plug a Poynter.org essay while sitting in the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla. I've been here for several days speaking to a circle of international journalists.

The Poynter.org essay is called "The Journalism of Why: How we struggle to answer the hardest question," and it was written by veteran journalist and educator Roy Peter Clark.

Clark starts where I started here at GetReligion, hours after the massacre: With that familiar journalism mantra Who, What, When, Where, Why and How.

Who? We got that information pretty quick (unless you're talking about Paddock having help).

What? We got that. When? The massacre timeline is evolving, but we know (or think we know) some of the basics. Where? You get the point. Then Clark notes, quoting one of the journalism scholars who most influenced my academic career:


Please respect our Commenting Policy