The National Press Club, like others, is well aware that reporting staffs are shrinking. Thus, full-time religion-beat specialists are considered even more a luxury than usual.

Savvy newspapers will make sure someone cultivates the field at least part-time, as far as feasible. However, managers in too many news shops even neglect that necessity. Magazines are iffy. Radio and TV are even worse off. The Internet is a zoo. 

What should writers do when they’re thrown into coverage about religion, which they may know little about -- and perhaps care little about even though sizable chunks of their audiences do care? Some guidance for such drop-ins and greenhorns might also provide good reminders for religion-beat specialists who will share shop talk September 24-25 at the Religion News Association conference (virtually this year). The RNA also posts a wealth of tips and resources on trending topics here at its ReligionLink website.

Religion can be pitfall hell, so The Guy’s No. 1 point is rather obvious, which is to make absolutely certain everything you write is accurate.

Don’t just assume what we think everybody knows. Articles often say the Catholic Church forbids priests to marry. Truth is, Catholicism forbids “most priests” to marry and in “most situations.” But what about the Eastern Rite clergy? Or men who swim the Tiber from Anglicanism?

Or take the respected columnist who stated confidently that whatever the Bible may teach on male homosexuality it says nothing about lesbianism. With a quick phone call or email check, almost any cleric would have cited Romans 1:26 and avoided an embarrassing correction.  

The press club’s Journalism Institute helps out with advice from an interview with Elizabeth Dias, a full-time religion correspondent with The New York Times. (The video at the top of this post is a speech on related issues, drawn from her days at Time magazine — where The Guy worked for many years.)

Dias stresses the importance of simply “listening and asking open questions” with sources because the topic at hand “may be the most important part of their lives.” She explains that “religion at its heart is about people, not just ideas” so she spends more time talking with folk than “reading social media commentary.” On the latter point, The Guy would underscore the value of meaty books and articles about the issue at hand. Too much reportage is thinly informed.

Second, Dias emphasizes that “specificity matters.” Are you characterizing all evangelicals or only white evangelicals? It’s too easy to mistakenly “assume the narrative you think you know always holds true.” The Guy adds that far too many  articles never identify a person’s exact religious background and current affiliation. If someone says she’s Presbyterian, is that the “mainline” Presbyterian Church (USA) or conservative Presbyterian Church in America? Is your source a “mainline” Evangelical Lutheran Church in America L.C.A. Lutheran or from the conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod? Find out.

A Dias admonition to reporters who usually handle fields other than religion is to always consider whether what’s going on might intersect with religious dynamics. It often does.

A second collection of wisdom comes from Diane Winston, interviewed by the nonpartisan Groundtruth Project for young reporters, sponsored by 23 media companies. Winston (dianewin@usc.edu) is a source of rare value as a Princeton Ph.D. teaching “media and religion” courses at the University of Southern California, plus as a former award-winning religion reporter in Baltimore, Dallas and Raleigh.

With religion so intertwined with politics, she warns, this “reinforces stereotypes.” Stories may indicate “all Christians are conservative,” or “all American Jews support Israel.” Reporters may assume religious believers “are either stupid, benighted or superstitious” or go into an interview thinking “I don’t have much to learn from you.” She urges young reporters to consider “how their quiet, innate little prejudices influence their reporting.”

Also be aware that “religious groups are not monolithic” and resist the temptation to grab “the best sound bites” from extreme spokespeople who may not at all reflect the group you are writing about. Research a religious group in advance to figure where an individual stands in a group’s internal spectrum and who are the best representative sources.

Finally, don’t be “dismissive of a new religion.” Christianity was highly suspect in the early centuries before it became established in the Roman Empire and beyond. Avoid the “cult” label, with its negative connotations. The Guy would add, however, (and is confident Winston agrees) that this doesn’t mean we avoid well-reported facts about questionable practices, authoritarian excesses or outright criminality. Many sources will use “cult” language in specific ways linked to doctrinal standards of sociological patterns — requiring reporters to translate crucial information.

Those new to religion stories will also benefit from  guidance by this site’s own boss man, such as this early tmatt essay: “Four Biases Against Religion News.” It’s from 1995, but does include some tips on religion coverage in smaller newsrooms. And if you end up regularly working this terrain occasionally or part-time, The Guy immodestly suggests daily scans of  www.getreligion.org including several years of these Memo posts.