churches

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

FBI war on 'rad trad' Catholics: Where's the outrage (or even fairness) in press coverage?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
FBI war on 'rad trad' Catholics: Where's the outrage (or even fairness) in press coverage?

There are several factors that, when put together, make an event or trend a news story. 

The first is that it is new. It’s not a coincidence that the first three letters of the word news helps to form the word “new.”

Then there’s timing. Not just “what,” but also “when” something happens makes it newsworthy. “What” and “when” are essential to the five W’s (which also includes “where,” “who” and “why”) that reporters and editors worry most when determining news coverage.

The inability for certain types of stories to register with the secular press, especially legacy media, is yet another sign of the political, cultural and moral divisions in our society and the dying American model of the press. 

While this space is very much dedicated to critiquing news coverage of Catholic issues and those involving Catholics, it is very difficult to do so when there is little to no coverage of important Catholic stories by a very sizable chunk of the American media ecosystem. 

This takes us to a trio of stories involving the federal government and the Catholic church that took place during the first half of this month. At a time of year where the mainstream media is seeking Christian storylines to coincide with Lent, Holy Week and Easter Sunday (beyond photos of elaborate hats), the three stories I am about to dissect here drew very little mainstream media attention.

Instead, it was the Catholic press (once again!) and “conservative” secular media that did the bulk of the reporting on, for my first example, the issue regarding the decision by Walter Reed Hospital to drop a contract for Franciscan priests to provide pastoral care of patients and, instead, hiring a secular firm to oversee those same services going forward. Try to imagine “secular” Last Rites for Catholics?

The second was the decision by the Department of Justice to recommend zero jail time in a plea deal involving a suspect charged with destruction of property at a Catholic church in Washington last year.

Finally, there were, according to documents, traditional Catholics who were targeted by the FBI because they could be considered domestic terrorists.


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

Fallout from Supreme Court abortion decision: When reporters parrot partisan talking points

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Fallout from Supreme Court abortion decision: When reporters parrot partisan talking points

With emotions running high, the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade marked a cataclysmic shift in the ongoing culture wars. What it means for the upcoming midterm elections and beyond has been the topic of much speculation since the ruling was handed down.

The decision was marked by joy on one side and anger on the other, with may reporters wearing their emotions on their faces and under their bylines. However, many people I know reacted with mixed emotions. Even conservatives were uneasy about the decision, mostly because they feared the violence that could be a part of the fallout. Indeed, the National Catholic Reporter’s news account put it best in its headline: “As Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Catholics react with joy, anger, trepidation.”

We do live in a time when political decisions often inspire violence.

Lose an election? Storm the Capitol Building.

Unhappy with police misconduct? Burn down stores.

Both sides are guilty of this, although the mainstream press — which has grown ever-partisan in the Internet age — hasn’t always been good about calling out both sides for such intimidation.

The fallout from the Dobbs decision? It’s only been a few days, but there was violence in some parts of the country from Rhode Island to Iowa to Arizona. The rhetoric was vile on Twitter, quickly aimed at Christians, and that was soon on display in the streets in a variety of forms.

Again, national legacy media have not always been good about giving proper background and context to the events of the recent past, especially in terms of coverage of violence against churches and crisis-pregnancy centers.

The fissures in American public life are real. So are the distorted realities partisan news organizations like to perpetuate these days.

Just two weeks ago, Gannett, the nation’s largest newspaper chain, argued that opinion pages are alienating readers and becoming obsolete. They doubled down by warning their reporters to refrain from using social media platforms to comment on the decision. However, take a look at this morning’s news summary from USA Today. Spot any patterns?


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

Catholic news outlets reporting on church vandalism when mainstream media won't

, , , , , , , , , ,

This endless summer ravaged by political divisions, civil unrest and statue-toppling (did we mention there’s also a deadly virus out there!) has made for a very busy time in journalism. For news sites, this deluge of events to report on has meant long hours for remote-working staffs who have also had to endure furloughs and layoffs in a worsening economy.

We live in a culture hijacked by politics.

It has become exhausting to follow the news (especially via social media) because of this political prism through which everything is now viewed. It has become our country’s new religion for millions.

As mainstream news outlets increasingly abandon objectivity and transition into advocacy, some very important stories and trends never get to readers. The internet has fueled “filter bubbles” and newspapers transitioning to digital rely increasingly on subscribers (as a business model) and less on general readers. It also helps spread misinformation. For example, a new Pew study revealed that people who get their news through social media actually knew less.

That means editors now give readers want they want to read (often reporting on the unchecked assertions of lawmakers within their bubble), rather than presenting an unbiased view of what happened. At the same time, the tech companies got an earful from Republicans who argued that giants like Facebook and Amazon for “empowering” people who “traffic in hate” against religion.

While the mainstream press failed to focus on this angle of the hearing (see tmatt’s post from and podcast), Timothy Nerozzi, writing at Religion Unplugged (where I also regularly contribute news articles, commentary and reviews), didn’t. This is how he started his news story:

During an hours-long antitrust hearing in Congress July 29 with CEOs of Amazon, Facebook, Google and other tech companies, Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) accused Amazon and Facebook of “empowering” people who “traffic in hate” against mainstream American religions.

Gaetz called out Jeff Bezos specifically during the hearing, accusing him of unknowingly partnering with institutions that hold intolerance towards religious charities and foundations.

“I am not accusing you as someone who would ever traffic in hate,” Gaetz said. “But, it seems that you have empowered people who do. And I’m particularly talking about the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a legal non-profit founded in 1971 that describes itself as “dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society.” The SPLC has faced backlash in recent years for perceived overeagerness in designating individuals and organizations as “extremist.”

Gaetz continued, “The Southern Poverty Law Center, who you allow to dictate who can receive donations on your Amazon Smile platform, has said the Catholic Family News, Catholic Family Ministries, Federation for American Immigration Reform, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, the Jewish Defense League, and even Dr. Ben Carson are extremists, and should be treated differently.”

Why go into all this?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

If churches keep getting vandalized in France, should American news outlets cover the story?

, , , , ,

Is it a news story if a church is set on fire or vandalized in some other way? What about if it’s part of a string of incidents? What if it happens five times? How about 10 times?

What if there are flames pouring out of one of the world’s most iconic cathedrals and it’s Monday of Holy Week?

We will come back to the flames over Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris in a moment.

The answers to the earlier questions are yes, yes, yes, yes and, of course, yes! As someone who worked as a news reporter (and later a editor) at two major metropolitan dailies (at the New York Post and New York Daily News) and a major news network website (ABC News), I can tell you that any suspicion of arson at a house of worship, for example, is a major story.

It must somehow no longer be the case in the new and frenetic world of the internet-driven, 24-hour news cycle. That’s because a major international story — one involving at least 10 acts of vandalism at Catholic churches in France — went largely unreported (underreported, really) for weeks. The vandalism included everything from Satanic symbols scrawled on walls to shattered statues.

That’s right, a rash of fires and other acts of desecration inside Catholic churches — during Lent, even — in a country with a recent history of terrorism somehow didn’t warrant any kind of attention from American news organizations. Even major news organizations, such as The Washington Post, were late to covering it and only did after running a Religion News Service story.

This brings us to Monday’s fire at Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris, where a massive blaze engulfed the 12th century gothic house of worship. It’s too early to tell if this incident is part of the earlier wave of vandalism, but it certainly comes at a strange time. For now, officials say the blaze remains under investigation. The cathedral has been undergoing some renovation work and the fire may — repeat MAY — have started in one of those areas.

It would be crazy to assume there is a connection between all of these fires and acts of vandalism. It would be just as crazy for journalists not to investigate the possibility that there are connections.

There will be more to come on the Notre Dame story in the hours and days that follow and comes at the start of Holy Week, the most solemn time on the Christian calendar.

But back to my questions about the earlier string of fires and the lack of coverage.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Bring in the Millennials, Kansas City Star says of churches (But what about old timers?)

, , , , ,

Props are due to the Kansas City Star for noticing that some churches in its area are attracting, and not, apparently, repelling, the young cohort of worshipers that could be grouped under the banner of "millennial."

Indeed, the message is up front in the story's headline: "Bucking a trend, these churches figured out how to bring millennials back to worship."

Once a reader gets past a nice setup anecdote about one of the newly booming congregations, we get these salient points:

In 2015, a wide-ranging Pew Research Center study concluded that America was becoming less religious due in part to millennials distancing themselves from organized religion. Only 27 percent of Americans born between 1981 and 1996, the study found, regularly attend weekly services.
As a result, some area churches and synagogues have created special programs that cater to younger members.
But a handful, most notably, perhaps, City of Truth on the East Side and The Cause on the West Plaza, now cater almost exclusively to millennials.

This is a solid, well-reported story in which I can find few flaws to note. The Star is to be congratulated for this kind of coverage. Hence, you won't find any "big" journalism problems highlighted in this blog post.

So why write this post? As tmatt would say, "Hold that thought."

As readers find out from the story, City of Truth serves a largely African-American congregation, while The Cause's members are mostly white. The services times on Sundays may differ, but they apparently remain one of the most segregated hours in America, as the late Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., once observed.

Such changes did not come without a price for City of Truth, as the story explains:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Does deductibility really influence church giving? Salt Lake Tribune skirts the question, sort of

, , , ,

The fact that Americans who itemize their income tax deductions can also deduct their donations to the church, mosque, synagogue or (recognized) religious outpost of their choice is a cherished part of American taxation, something that's not true in all nations of the world.

Now, the latest tax reform proposal knocking around Congress may -- or may not -- put a dent in such deducting. If the "standard deduction" of $5,500 for individuals and $11,000 for married couples is doubled, as proponents want, the thinking goes, more folks will skip itemizing and just go with the higher number. No itemizing means less in the collection plate, they theorize.

But here's the journalistic question: Does a mere assertion mean something's a fact? Logic would say no, but sometimes a media outlet will seem to glide around logic for a compelling story. At the least, that's how it could look to a reader.

The Salt Lake Tribune, serving a state where returning tithe is mandatory for Mormons, dives right in to the charitable deduction issue, leading with a dramatic point:

A Republican tax plan being debated on Capitol Hill maintains the deduction for charitable giving but still may have an unintended consequence that could hurt donations to churches and nonprofit groups.
The impact of the tax bill — if passed and signed into law — could mean less revenue for the LDS Church and other denominations and faith-based organizations as well as groups like the Salvation Army, Goodwill and humanitarian operations.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Faith in what, exactly? Courier-Journal series on Indiana town battling AIDS pulls up short

, , , , , ,

One of the most challenging assignments in the world is stuffing 10 pounds of sugar into a five-pound sack.

Reporters face this all the time: A carload of details that must be crammed into a small shopping bag.

Such may well have been the lot of investigative reporter Laura Ungar of the Louisville Courier-Journal, a daily now noted as "part of the USA Today network." After six months of reporting, she delivered a devastating three-part series on the HIV epidemic that still plagues Austin, Indiana, a town less than 40 miles north of the paper's offices, in a region known as "Kentuckiana."

Let me be clear: This is important work touching on a vital topic of national interest, and it deserves a wide readership, I believe. How HIV gripped this town, how addictions to opioids opened the floodgates, how transmission the virus is being fought and what the human and policy consequences are should concern every American. After all, as noted in the two-year-old PBS NewsHour video above, one trucker hiring a prostitute in Austin could subsequently carry the infection hundreds of miles away.

The articles focus on the health care and policy issues, subjects well within the reporter's wheelhouse. But we also get glimpses of faith elements at both ends of the series.

The glimpses left me wanting more.

The first piece begins with a discussion of the Christian physician laboring to help save the town, and the final installment boldly proclaims Austin as "having faith" in the midst of the crisis, Ungar -- or her editors -- seem to hold back when discussing the exact nature of faith that's involved.

The final installment's headline, "Healing Austin: Faith lifts small town from depths of HIV plague," could lead a reader to expect a more detailed discussion of just what that faith is, how it is practiced, what it entails. The subhead is equally promising: "As the outside world moves on, [a] small city draws on faith to save itself from drugs and disease."

Everyone who imagines we're going to get a few tales of tent revivals and the old "sawdust trail," please raise your hand.


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

Red and Blue America: Does the New York Times give facts on ground or views from top?

, , , , , , , , ,

In yet another election postmortem, the New York Times team tried a novel idea -- a street-level view of the thoughts and fears that drove Red and Blue America. The simple goal was to report what ordinary people said.

Or at least readers got to hear what the Times people heard. Some of the 2,600-word piece reveals a viewpoint as skewed as some of those it reports.

The article is broken into segments, each by a different writer, and they vary widely in tone and balance. Some are genuinely sensitive.

There's an almost palpable anguish in Julie Turkewitz' section, on how many people isolate themselves from those who differ with their worldviews:

In some ways, the echo chamber was the winner of this election. Here we are, deeply connected. And yet red America is typing away to red America, and blue America is typing away to blue America. The day after the election, some people said the echo chamber had begun to feel like a prison.

Turkewitz notes that one of her two main sources truly wants to escape her bubble. The woman, who voted for Hillary Clinton for president, has only two or three friends -- both on Facebook -- who supported Trump. The other woman, a fellow Clinton supporter, seems happy to stay in her echo chamber.

Religion is seeded throughout the article, but only one section deals directly with it. Times veteran Laurie Goodstein draws from interviews on the Godbeat this year.

She sounds sympathetic to people on the Right, at first:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Oooo, an atheist pastor: Washington Post offers wide-eyed yet manipulative look at Canadian conflict

, , , , , ,

When I last looked at the Rev. Gretta Vosper, the famously atheistic pastor in Toronto, I praised Canadian media for their measured coverage. "In the United States," I wrote, "we'd be reading and hearing ferocious barrages of rhetoric."

Well, I take it back. Now that a national committee of the United Church of Canada has recommended Vosper's ouster, the report from at least one American publication -- the Washington Post -- isn’t quite that fierce. Just cartoonish. And inferior to the writeup in a Canadian newspaper.

Let's start with the good first. The National Post, that Canadian paper, starts with a straight account of the facts:

A United Church of Canada minister who is a self-professed atheist and has been the subject of an unprecedented probe into her theological beliefs is one step closer to being removed from the pulpit.
Sub-executive members of the church’s Toronto Conference announced Thursday they have asked the church’s general council, the most senior governance body, to hold a formal hearing to decide whether Rev. Gretta Vosper, who does not believe in God or the Bible, should be placed on the disciplinary "Discontinued Service List."
"Some will be disappointed and angry that this action has been taken, believing that the United Church may be turning its back on a history of openness and inclusivity," it said in a statement.
"Others have been frustrated that the United Church has allowed someone to be a minister in a Christian church while disavowing the major aspects of the Christian faith. There is no unanimity in the church about what to do."

This is what Terry Mattingly likes to call the "American model" -- fair, straight, honest. Sad that we had to look outside America to find it.

The National Post continues to say that the conference committee found Vosper "not suitable" as a UCC minister for deserting her beliefs. The 700-word article also allows space for some back-and-forth:


Please respect our Commenting Policy