Twitter

, , , , , , , ,

GetReligion will close on February 2, the 20th anniversary of this blog's birth

, , , , , , , ,
GetReligion will close on February 2, the 20th anniversary of this blog's birth

Doug LeBlanc clicked “publish” on the original GetReligion website on February 2, 2004, and the GetReligion team has published at least one piece of new content every day ever since.

That streak will end in just over a month, on our 20th anniversary. The website will close, although some of our features will live on — to one degree or another — on other websites. We will share more details before we close, so hold that thought.

The plan is to keep GetReligion.org online as a massive archive of Godbeat life over a stunningly complex 20 years in the news business, as the realities of the digital age have rocked the landscape of hard-news journalism. The goal is to find a reference-materials home with an academic institution that values the study of religion, mass culture and the First Amendment.

We want to keep this archive online as a way of stressing the three goals that led to the creation of GetReligion.org in the first place. We have tried to:

(1) Promote religion-news reporting in the mainstream press, arguing that journalists on this beat deserve the respect given to those covering other complex topics in the public square. If newsroom managers want to improve religion-beat coverage, they can use ordinary journalism logic — hiring experienced (maybe even award-winning) religion-beat reporters and then letting them do their work.

(2) Note that far too many journalists (especially those at political desks) tend to miss obvious religion angles in important stories, often mangling basic facts and history in the process. The result is news coverage “haunted” by what we call “religion ghosts.” Why does this happen? As the liberal journalism icon Bill Moyers once told me, many journalists are "tone deaf" to the music of faith in public life.

(3) Defend the traditional “American Model of the Press,” with its emphasis on professional standards that stress accuracy, fairness and even balance. Many journalists seem to believe that these old-school standards do not apply to coverage of hot-button subjects linked to religion, morality and culture. After all, politics is real. Religion? Not so much.

Why close GetReligion now? I will admit that I have, in recent years, struggling to accept the many ways in which the digital age has changed the business model for the mainstream press. What we have here is a classic example of the mass-media doctrine that “technology shapes content.”


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

Thinking about a 'slow-motion' Catholic schism, with Ross Douthat and the X choirs

, , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking about a 'slow-motion' Catholic schism, with Ross Douthat and the X choirs

My history with computers and journalism is long and complex.

Back in 1978, soon after the cooling of the Earth’s crust, I held a newsroom copy-desk job that required me to memorize (OK, I had a filing-card cheat sheet) the manual codes to control all of the fonts and text sizes for news stories, headlines, photo credits, cutlines, etc. I used to have nightmares in which I would mess one up.

A few years later, everyone had work stations tied to a newsroom mainframe. Then there were giant portable computers for the sports reporters and political-desk pros (the people who wrote copy that really mattered). Then there were tiny Radio Shack laptops.

I know, I know. Jurassic journalism territory.

But this brings me to what I think is a must-read online commentary about the Pope Francis decision to allow — some would now say require — priests to bless same-sex couples and/or their relationships. There have been many worth noting (see this essential Clemente Lisi post), but I think a tweetstorm from Ross Douthat looms over the debate, because he writes for The New York Times.

But how to embed all those tweets without making readers jump over hurdles of repeated material? I confess that I do not have the technical skill to do that. Thus, I did a cut-and-paste “think piece” — with Douthat’s leaping off post embedded at the very top.

It’s a quick read, but offers much to think about.


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

Attention U.S. Catholic bishops: You are not allowed to say that this pope isn't Catholic

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Attention U.S. Catholic bishops: You are not allowed to say that this pope isn't Catholic

If you look up the cliche “Is the Pope Catholic?” online, you will find several ways of stating the obvious.

As for me, I like this offering from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus: This is a response “used to say that the answer to a question you have just been asked is obviously ’yes’.”

At this point, it is safe to say that Pope Francis wants the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (these men in particular) to know that the answer is “yes.” He also wants them to know that — when it comes to worship and doctrine — he believes that he, and he alone, gets to decide the meaning of the word “Catholic.”

Oh, and Pope Francis gets to decide the “Catholic” status of German bishops who are marching forward on blessing same-sex relationships. Ditto for progressive Bishop Robert W. McElroy of (tiny) San Diego, who is now a cardinal, and conservative Archbishop Jose Gomez of (massive) Los Angeles, who is not. Pope Francis gets to judge the “Catholic” status of President Joe Biden and Jesuit social-media maven Father James Martin (watch for new photo opportunities).

In other words, the Donald Trumpian “You’re fired!” message that Pope Francis sent to Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler isn’t about one loud Texan. What matters in Catholic life, right now, is who gets promoted (in various ways) and who gets punished. Actions matter more than mere words.

If religion-news consumers want to know what happened in the Strickland case, they can turn to the Vatican to know what progressive Catholics are saying and to the Catholic press to learn what conservative Catholics are saying (and what candid progressives are saying in response).

That’s true, but it appears seems a few reporters are learning how to handle both halves of that equation. I say that in praise of the solid Associated Press story — “Pope Francis removes a leading US conservative critic as bishop of Tyler, Texas“ — that is running in newspapers far and wide. Let’s walk through a some key passages:

ROME (AP) — Pope Francis on Saturday ordered the removal of the bishop of Tyler, Texas, a conservative prelate active on social media who has been a fierce critic of the pontiff and has come to symbolize the polarization within the U.S. Catholic hierarchy.

Bingo. The U.S. Catholic bishops — who gather today in Baltimore — go in the lede.


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

Podcast: Seeking some Gaza facts, maybe even truth, in today's niche-media matrix

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Seeking some Gaza facts, maybe even truth, in today's niche-media matrix

When journalism historians write about the Hamas terror raid on Israel, and the Gaza war that followed, they will need to parse the early headlines about the explosion in the parking lot next to the Ahli Arab Hospital.

I am assuming that something called “journalism” will survive the rise of AI and the fall of an advertising-based, broad audience model of the press. I am an old guy with old dreams. Thus, we dug into this subject during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

What did the mainstream press report? Click here for a “conservative” collection of tweets, headlines and URLs to basic reports from the likes of BBC, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, etc. At this point in time, it’s “conservative” to care about old-liberal standards of journalism ethics.

What matters the most, of course is the New York Times headline that guided the digital rockets, so to speak, fired by elite journalists around the world.

Let’s work through that headline: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say.”

My first question, of many (and I tweeted this one out): “In this tech age, could some satellite imagery tell us the origin of the rocket?”

Whoever wrote that Times headline, or the editor supervising that process, had to know that someone — Elon Musk even — was going to share images and data from space or nearby radar, drones, smartphones, etc., that showed where the rocket was launched and in which direction it was headed.

That information would, of course, come from the United States (one way or the other) or Israel. Thus, the basic question an editor had to ask: Do we produce a banner headline based on information from Hamas, alone? The editor or editors answered, “YES.” The rest is history.

Next question: What part of that headline is accurate, in terms of the evidence now? Israeli attack? No. Was the hospital hit? No. It was a parking lot full of refugees. Did “hundreds” — 500 in one reference — die? It appears the number was much lower than that. Did anyone “strike” or target the hospital? No. It appears that an Islamist rocket malfunctioned, on its way to Israel, and fell in Gaza.

We are left with, “Palestinians say.” Sorry about that.


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

Clouds of images, blood and chaos, as old-school news chases the digital Hamas blitz

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Clouds of images, blood and chaos, as old-school news chases the digital Hamas blitz

The following is not a normal GetReligion post.

It is not a critique of the powerful religion ghost that is haunting the coverage of the crisis in Israel and Gaza in the wake of the Hamas terrorist attacks. Julia Duin has already written that post: “Important religion-news angles are everywhere, as Hamas triggers war with Israel.”

No, this post is about the lens through which people in Israel were forced to view the hellish opening hours of that crisis, a digital lens so clouded by blood and the fog of war that the people caught in the middle of the chaos could SEE pieces of what was going on, but had no NEWS they could trust.

In other words, this post is about what happens when a major event in the real world is seen through social-media ALONE. Also, a hat tip to former GetReligion colleague Ira Rifkin for sending me this stunning Haaretz essay — it’s more like a scream of pain — by Yonatan Englender. Let’s start with the long, angry double-decker headline:

How Telegram and Twitter beat TV to cover the Hamas-Israel war as it happened

An hour after Israelis understood they were under attack, it was clear the news knew nothing. On TV, they reported sirens in central Israel and reports of Hamas militants crossing from Gaza. Reports? On social media I already saw them riding around in Jeeps

In a way, this Haartz essay is a depressing update on my recent piece for Religion & Liberty: “The Evolving Religion of Journalism,” which focused on how digital technology is changing both the content of our news, the business model that produces it and, of course, the audience for all of that.

But I was writing about “normal” life, as in ordinary chatter about politics, politics, politics and the other related subjects that matter to most journalists. Early in the piece, I wrote:

Politicians, parents, pastors, and plenty of other people are struggling to understand what is happening in their lives while turning to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Parler, BitChute, Gab, Gettr, Rumble, Telegram, and Truth Social. And there are darker corners of this world, such as 4chan and the “Dark Web.” And never forget this crucial journalism reality: Opinion writing is cheap, while hard-news content is expensive.

Oh, and in a war zone, hard-news content is dangerous.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Memory eternal for Marius Aurelius Spartanicus, the priest's dog

, , , , , ,
Memory eternal for Marius Aurelius Spartanicus, the priest's dog

Catholic priests are not used to hearing penitents laughing while lined up for confession.

When Father Joseph Krupp peered out of the booth one day, he saw that his broad-chested, 72-pound Boxer was in a chair and, when the line moved, the dog took the next chair.

Everyone knew this hound had sins to confess, after raiding wedding receptions, opening church fridges and, on one occasion, scarfing down a three-pound roast. Krupp laughs when describing how the latest of his rescue dogs "absolutely murdered" a rabbit -- next to a statue of St. Francis of Assisi, patron saint of all creatures great and small.

The priest said he has intentionally adopted old dogs, hoping to "give them a few happy years. … I always thought that I was trying to heal the dogs. This time, God sent the dog to heal me."

This canine parable began during a tough stretch of the priest's work in a number of Michigan parishes. Krupp has served as chaplain for the Michigan State University football team, led the university Catholic campus ministry and now supervises the state's Northeastern deanery, with 12 parishes and four schools.

The priest went to the Hillsdale Humane Society eight years ago to donate a bed, toys and food after his latest dog died. Then he saw a battered, "broken-hearted" Boxer no one wanted.

"He was found tied to a tree, along with another dog. The other dog had died of starvation, and he was close to it. He had been shot with numerous pellets, his tail was broken, and a lot of his teeth were missing," wrote Krupp, to his many @JoeInBlack readers on X (formerly Twitter).

The dog was hours from death, but shelter workers saved him.

As Krupp arrived, a former student "sent me a message. She told me she was praying for me, and God told her that He was going to give me a remarkable gift that day. I walked in just as they were walking a dog out," he wrote. "He lifted his head, saw me and ran at me so hard and fast that the leash came out of the volunteer's hand. I sat on the floor, and he jumped on me, licking me and pushing me to the ground. I just couldn't quit laughing."


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

Thinking about faith and family in the first debate between some 2024 GOP hopefuls

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking about faith and family in the first debate between some 2024 GOP hopefuls

President Joe Biden has talked about the battle for the soul of the nation. In fact, he gave a speech about just that in September 2022, two months before the midterm elections, at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, in order to rebuke Donald Trump and his divisive politics.

“Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic,” Biden, a practicing Catholic, said at the time.

Nearly a year later, the leading Republican presidential candidates came together in Milwaukee for the chance to take on Biden in the November 2024 election. The headline-grabbing elephant in the living room: Former President Donald Trump did not take part.

What emerged from these eight candidates at the Fiserv Forum was an often-heated two-hour debate in which they weren’t afraid to bring up faith and family as a reason why Biden’s America has been a failure. The Fox News debate was the first of the GOP primary season. Trump, meanwhile, staged an interview with the exiled Fox News superstar Tucker Carlson, which was streamed live on the X platform (formerly known as Twitter).

While the candidates vying for the White House agreed America is undergoing a crisis, they differed on exactly why. It set the stage for what will be a very interesting primary and one where issues surrounding faith and family won’t be ignored by millions of Americans, even if they are downplayed in mainstream media coverage.

Faith and family are not new talking points for GOP candidates. It’s a trend that dates back to the 1980s during the Ronald Reagan era and has continued with the rise of the Christian Coalition and, in recent years, the large support of white evangelicals for Trump, especially in two-party national showdowns. The U.S. Catholic bishops have also become more outspoken on many moral and social issues.


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

Thinking about religion in Russia: Orthodox Christianity has declined, but also grown?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking about religion in Russia: Orthodox Christianity has declined, but also grown?

“Religion” is a complicated word, as I have noted many times at GetReligion.

Put the word “Byzantine” in front of “religion” or “Christianity” and things get really complicated, as in this secondary definition of that adjective: “ … excessively complicated, and typically involving a great deal of administrative detail.”

Frame Byzantine Christianity with the history of Russian culture and the complications are compounded. Toss in centuries of history — complex, bloody, mysterious and sacred — shared by the Slavic giants Russia and Ukraine and, well, you get the picture.

This weekend “think piece” comes from the Orthodox Christianity news website. This is an information source that, from the American point of view, is extremely conservative. This doesn’t mean that mainstream journalists should ignore it.

Why is that? Because it consistently offers direct links to online sources — documents, speeches, quotable analysis — that the vast majority of reporters and editors would not know about otherwise. This includes, for example, lots of material representing the leadership of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. That’s the historic church of Ukraine that is current caught up — along with millions of its Ukrainian members — in a violent collision between the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s current government, which is backed by the United States, the European Union and the tiny, but symbolic, Orthodox church in Istanbul led by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I.

It’s easy, these days, for journalists to get government approved material from Moscow and Kyiv. The ancient Orthodox church being crushed by the two armies? Not so much. Thus, it helps to follow the Orthodox Christianity feed on X (the digital platform previously known as Twitter).

Consider the complex realities represented in this recent post: “Percentage of Orthodox is Down in Russia, but Percentage of Practicing Orthodox is up — Survey.” Read this carefully:

According to a new survey from the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center, the overall percentage of Orthodox Christians has decreased in Russia in recent years, while the percentage of those who actively practice the faith is up.


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

After 303 Creative: Can readers find Twitter voices (hello David French) that help us think?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
After 303 Creative: Can readers find Twitter voices (hello David French) that help us think?

It’s been a scary couple of days for post-liberals in America, with two major Supreme Court decisions (one of them unanimous) defending old-liberal concepts of religious liberty and free speech.

When the 303 Creative LLC decision hit the headlines (click here to read the majority opinion), I did something that’s quite rare in my household — I turned on the television and tried to watch mainstream cable-TV news.

Let’s face it: I struggle to understand why we have journalists who want the state to have the power to compel speech (intellectual content in general) in the work of writers, artists, video professionals, etc. But this post isn’t about the content of the news coverage of these decisions.

No, this is a post that I was requested to write after a recent luncheon with clergy, students, faculty and others at the Overby Center at Ole Miss. We kept coming back to a crucial question for news consumers: How do we find a compelling mix of news and commentary — representing different points of view — in an age in which most newsrooms embrace business models in which they tell paying customers exactly what they want to hear?

Here is another way of stating that: How do we find news and commentary that helps us understand the views of people what we need to respect (or at the very least truly tolerate), even when we disagree with them?

This led me to Twitter. I told folks that, when the 303 Creative decision was released, they needed to read whatever First Amendment specialist David French wrote about it. Why? Because I was convinced that he would find a way to parse the opinions and offer insights that made people on both sides of the decision very uncomfortable.

This is, frankly, why I have followed his work for several decades. This is why he is on a short list of people that I follow on Twitter when digging into major news trends and events. Hold that thought, because I will share my current version of that list at the end of this post.

But back to French and the headline on his New York Times column about this SCOTUS decision: “How Christians and Drag Queens Are Defending the First Amendment.”

Told ya.


Please respect our Commenting Policy