TV-Radio

Norman Lear: An iconic mass-media seeker who evolved past secularism

Norman Lear: An iconic mass-media seeker who evolved past secularism

Early in the premier of Norman Lear's sit-com "Sunday Dinner," the beautiful environmentalist T.T. Fagori raised her eyes to heaven and, with a sigh, entered a spiritual minefield.

"Chief?", she asked God. "You got a minute?"

In addition to praying out loud in prime time, this character offered a theological reverie at dinner while meeting the family of her fiancé, a 56-year-old widower nearly three decades her elder. The problem: His granddaughter heard Fagori mention God during a science lecture.

"You see, I talk about extending 'love thy neighbor' to include animals, plants, stuff like that. I say that the natural world is the largest sacred community to which we all belong," Fagori explained. "I talk about cosmic piety because the same atoms that form the galaxies are in all of us and it's the universe that carries the deep mysteries of our existence within itself.

"You see how all that sounds pretty spiritual. … So, when the kids hear me say these things, some of them think they hear the word 'God,' but they don't. I don't actually mention it. Interesting, huh?"

This 1991 comedy flopped, but it was an important statement from Lear, whose December 5 death at 101 years of age closed his career as lightning rod in popular culture and politics.

For decades, Lear described himself as a cultural Jew who didn't practice any traditional form of faith. He also founded People for the American Way, an old-school liberal advocacy group on church-state issues. But this television icon became more and more intrigued with religious faith, both as a force in American life and as a topic ignored by Hollywood.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Norman Lear's America was liberal, but not totally secular (correction)

Podcast: Norman Lear's America was liberal, but not totally secular (correction)

In 2021, the Fellowship For Performing Arts in New York City — which produces “theatre and film from a Christian worldview — released an ambitious movie with a title that made no attempt to hide its religious content.

To no one’s surprise, “The Most Reluctant Convert: The Untold Story of C.S. Lewis” was popular with the vast audience that reads and supports the work of the Oxford don who was one of the 20th Century’s most influential Christian apologists.

However, FTA founder Max McLean — who played the older Lewis in the film — also received support from a source that many would consider surprising. Here’s a key quote:

“God knows we need more intriguing, faith-oriented films like this. Noble is the right word; I would also add courageous and powerful. Thank you for all you do and bravo! You are a true artist.”

The email came from Hollywood legend Norman Lear and his wife, Lyn.

Lear’s death at age 101 has received waves of mainstream news coverage, all of it deserved. The question, explored in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), was whether this coverage explored Lear’s complex relationship with the role that religion plays in American life and culture.

Lear considered himself a cultural Jew with no ties to the practice of a traditional religious faith. In response to the rise of the Religious Right, he also founded People for the American Way — a liberal think tank and advocacy group on church-state issues.

However, in the final decades of his long life and career, Lear wrestled with the powerful role that religion played in mainstream American life and was intrigued with the fact that faith issues and stories seemed to be anathema to the powers that be in mass media.

In other words, Lear was an unbeliever who was both appalled and intrigued with people of faith and he wrestled with why liberal forms of faith seemed to have little appeal with ordinary Americans. These tensions could be seen in one of his final, failed attempt at a new sit-com, the six episodes of “Sunday Dinner.” Hold that thought.

This matters, in large part, because the legend of Norman Lear is based on the valid praise he received for dragging real-life issues into American entertainment, especially with his trailblazing TV comedies.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Can nonprofits or government policies shrink local 'news deserts' across America?

Can nonprofits or government policies shrink local 'news deserts' across America?

This Memo is about the news biz, not our special corner of it — the religion-news biz.

Here’s the theme: America’s alarming decline of journalists and journalistic outlets from coast to coast endangers a functioning democracy at a time of political polarization, and lack of trust in central institutions that includes a low point in public regard for the news media.

One major aspect of this dire situation is dramatized in the November 15 release of the fifth report by the State of Local News Project, commendably operated by Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism with support from key media foundations.

“Many news organizations are hanging on by a thread,” this report says.

Much can be said about the failings of the old mainstream media, or of this or that news organization, or of a particular story — and should be said. Solid criticism is fair game.

But something very fundamental to the republic is occurring in the 21st Century.

Washington politics will always get lots of coverage, and likewise for national-level treatment of other subjects that newspaper executives value, such as business, entertainment and sports. The crisis comes with information at the state and local level. The Medill report, focused on local rather than state-level journalism problems, documents the following geography of “news deserts” where coverage is iffy or even non-existent.

Out of the nation’s 3,144 counties, 1,562 have only one surviving source for local news in any format, whether print, digital or broadcast, usually a weekly newspaper. Of these counties, 228 are on Medill’s Watch List, signifying “high risk” that the one existing outlet will die.

Then there are 204 counties without a single local journalistic shop.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: CNN offers an old opposition-research file on Speaker Mike 'theocrat' Johnson

Podcast: CNN offers an old opposition-research file on Speaker Mike 'theocrat' Johnson

Before we return to the never-ending saga of Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and his efforts to create a totalitarian theocracy that destroys democracy in America, let’s pause for a Journalism 101 case study.

Don’t worry, this is directly related to this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

Now, gentle readers, are any of you old enough to remember Marabel Morgan, the evangelical superstar who wrote “The Total Woman,” which sold something like 10 million copies? Morgan was an anti-feminist crusader clothed in pink (as opposed to something else) who had a knack for infuriating blue-zipcode elites. Here is a quick flashback, via the Faith Profiles website:

An editor at Time magazine once confided in Marabel Morgan that he came away from a cocktail party with high-heel marks all over his chest at the mere mention of her name.

And what heinous crime did Morgan commit that could provoke such a sharp reaction? Morgan wrote a book in the early 1970s that sold more than 5 million copies about how she salvaged her marriage. The widespread belief was that she proposed that women rekindle their marriages by such innovations as greeting their husbands at the door dressed in Saran Wrap or having sex under the dining room table.

Whee!

During my early 1980s religion-beat work at The Charlotte News, I ventured out to a suburban megachurch where Morgan spoke to several thousand fans. I left that meeting absolutely furious, my mind packed with outrageous punchline quotes from her (I had to admit entertaining) speech.

Driving back to the newsroom on deadline, I started figuring out what would be in the crucial first two or three paragraphs of the story. Then I realized that, if I followed my own prejudices, I was going to frontload this story with stuff that would fire up my editors and others who detested Morgan and her tribe.

Thus, I decided to attempt a story that opened with material that included (a) what Morgan said that I knew would appeal to her critics and (b) what she said that drew cheers and applause from her supporters.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Sexy pop star Sabrina Carpenter ruffles feathers, and a badly-covered news story is born

Sexy pop star Sabrina Carpenter ruffles feathers, and a badly-covered news story is born

Religion and pop culture frequently intersect and this can create some rather strange bedfellows.

Can we see this in the news? Well, the mainstream media is largely a secular place, but pop-culture reporting — especially when it comes to celebrities — may be the most-secular niche of them all. 

This brings us to recent headlines. The name Sabrina Carpenter may not mean anything to anyone over 25, but she was at the center of a major religion story just last week. Search the name “Sabrina Carpenter” and the word “church” in News Google and you’ll see what I’m referring to. 

The pop singer made news — and not just for her music — after her latest music video "Feather,” which was filmed at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Church in Brooklyn, New York.

The video shows Carpenter in an outfit not suitable for church as several men fight over her. It also shows her attending their funerals at the church with candy-colored coffins. One off those coffins includes the inscription "RIP B - - - -.”

There was fallout. This is what Fox News reported on its website once church officials in Brooklyn caught wind of what had happened:

"The parish did not follow diocesan policy regarding the filming on Church property, which includes a review of the scenes and script," the statement read.

While the parish initially claimed that the video’s production company "failed to accurately represent the video content," an investigation into the matter concluded that documents given to the parish "while failing to depict the entirety of the scenes, clearly portray inappropriate behavior unsuitable for a church sanctuary."

As a result, Brennan announced that the parish’s vicar, Monsignor Jamie Gigantiello, was relieved of his position and temporarily replaced with Auxiliary Bishop Witold Mroziewski, who took over all administrative responsibilities. 

John Notaro, executive director of the Catholic Foundation of Brooklyn and Queens and Futures in Education, has also taken over Gigantiello’s administrative responsibilities for those respective organizations. Gigantiello, however, will still remain in the church as a pastor.

Prepare for a very important detail of a liturgical nature.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: How the tragic fall and suicide of a pastor-politico became national clickbait

Podcast: How the tragic fall and suicide of a pastor-politico became national clickbait

I get waves of emails and in that flood I always look forward to hearing from former Getreligionistas.

Obviously, no one knows more about news stories that I need to see than journalists who have spent time writing for this weblog. Since we’re nearing our 20th birthday, that’s an interesting, deep list of former contributors who get what we do and why we do it.

A few days ago, Mark Kellner — currently covering religion news for The Washington Times — sent a note asking my reactions to the tragic suicide of the Rev. F.L. “Bubba” Copeland in Alabama. Kellner was reacting to one of those long tabloid headlines that are common in the online edition of The Daily Mail:

Inside the secret life of Bubba Copeland: How Alabama mayor and pastor adopted a second persona online — becoming a transitioning curvy girl called Brittini — before killing himself

There’s a lot of news happening right now and, to be honest, I had not clicked into the stream of stories about Copeland’s life and death. However, when I did I immediately saw an issue that I thought would interest listeners for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

Kellner said I could share his concerns here, focusing on the first report from a conservative Alabama news and commentary website:

Given that Mr. Copeland had not been charged with any crime, should "1819news.com" have "outed" him? Yes, his behavior was odd, to say the least, for a pastor and a local politician. But having strange fantasies and even posting them online isn't necessarily criminal. It might merit his removal from the pulpit and perhaps his defeat at the next mayoral election, but apparently, this online report — and the subsequent media storm — pushed a rather fragile soul over the edge. 

In short: Does the media exist to crucify people without real cause? If someone is a child molester or otherwise acts inappropriately or illegally, that's one thing. But there should be a line somewhere, right?

Here is the key, for me. This started out as a rather sensationalistic (to say the least) story about a man who was clearly a public figure in Alabama (yes, a photo of Copeland with President Donald Trump pushed buttons). At the same time, Copeland was also the pastor of a Southern Baptist congregation, a flock of believers that has been quite outspoken on matters of sexual morality.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

This is not a new question for religious leaders: Does secrecy ever help? Does it work?

This is not a new question for religious leaders: Does secrecy ever help? Does it work?

QUESTION:

Does secrecy help the church? Does it work?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

This issue erupted in the news with the surprise decision by Pope Francis to clamp unusual strict secrecy upon the Synod of Bishops he has summoned to the Vatican this month. (The synod’s second and concluding session will occur a year from now). This indicates to church leaders the extent to which bishops are facing internal difficulties.

The media typically portray Francis as a relatively liberal pontiff. But it may not be coincidental that the pope’s native Argentina has a dicey record on journalistic and political freedoms. And Father Thomas Reese, who has observed Vatican Synods for decades, says “Pope Francis does not like the press, especially the western media, which, he believes, only writes about issues of concern to the Global North.”

True, western media — and their audiences — are especially interested in the ongoing sexual molesting scandals, women’s role in the church, LGBTQ+ concerns, Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics or shared with Protestants and proposals to end the celibacy mandate for   priests.

All those controversies, and more, were part of the discussions leading up to this synod. That’s news.

Regular meetings of Synods are a new idea authorized in 1965 by the Second Vatican Council because the world’s bishops “share in the responsibility for the universal Church” along with the pope. For decades, these meetings have occurred behind closed doors but with informative press briefings and helpful explanations on the ongoing discussions from participants. Francis himself preserved this tradition at his four prior Synods.

Not now. On the eve of the meeting, Vatican regulations, reinforced in the pope’s opening address, directed delegates to say nothing about the discussions, including even what they themselves said. Moreover, the ban is in force perpetually after the Synod concludes (though a spokesman for the Holy See said violators are not under a formal threat of excommunication).

One result of closed doors is that outside interest groups affect news coverage of an event when the actual participants cannot.


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

Podcast: Any religion ghosts in Writers Guild silence on bloody Hamas attack on Israel?

Podcast: Any religion ghosts in Writers Guild silence on bloody Hamas attack on Israel?

If you look up a standard definition of “antisemitism,” and commentaries that apply the term to public life, you will probably find references to mass media.

Consider, for example, this language from the “Working Definition of Antisemitism” commentary from the American Jewish committee. The definition itself: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The case-study material begins with these explanatory notes, the first two in a list of 10:

* Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

* Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

The phrase “controlling the media” loomed over this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which focused on a Los Angeles Times story with this double-decker headline:

How the Israel-Hamas war is dividing Hollywood

Nerves are fraying. Relationships are being strained to the breaking point. Words are being wielded like weapons.

For decades, claims that Jews “control” the media have included chatter about Jews “controlling” Hollywood.

The key word is “control,” as opposed to decades of writing — often by Jewish scholars — about the strong and unique role Jews have played in Hollywood life, in terms of creative skills and business clout. Consider this classic book by Neal Gabler, “An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy