Why was The New York Times so interested in Marvin Olasky and his views on journalism and Christian faith?
That’s a question that I heard several times this week from readers and others.
Actually, the Times published a previous article on Olasky, which I mentioned in a post here earlier this week (“Wut happened? Tensions behind World's move to push Olasky out of his editor's chair”). So let’s tweak that question a bit, to get to the point that host Todd Wilken and I discussed in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to listen to it).
Why was the Times team so interested — it’s a long, complex feature — in Olasky right now?
Actually, the answer to that question is pretty clear. Read the headline: “His Reasons for Opposing Trump Were Biblical. Now a Top Christian Editor Is Out.” Now,. read the thesis statement:
At one level, Mr. Olasky’s departure is just another example of the American news media sinking deeper into polarization, as one more conservative news outlet, which had almost miraculously retained its independence, is conquered by Mr. Trump.
It also marks the end of a remarkable era at a publication that has shaken evangelical churches and related institutions with its deeply reported articles. … At a time when hot takes get the clicks, these articles offered something old-fashioned and hard for any community to take: accountability reporting.
That’s actually two answers, isn’t it.
Answer No. 1: Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. Answer No. 2: Olasky has built a magazine known for producing hard-news articles. That’s rare, in today’s digital world dominated by a quick-click business model that loves opinions and commentary work. The editorial approach at World was shaped by cultural, religious conservatism, more than partisan politics.
Think of this magazine as an evangelical version of the late, great New Republic. It featured commentary work, but it was known for hard, fact-driven news reporting in an analysis style. Under Olasky, World published many major stories that scooped the mainstream press, as well as the “Christian media.”
The big question remains: Was the Times accurate when it said the newsroom at World has been “conquered by Trump”? Earlier this week, I wrote (echoing statements by Olasky, himself):
I would say that we do not know that, yet. It’s clear that the World board signed off on the creation of an ambitious World-branded commentary website — without Olasky’s approval as editor. But do we know that the news team will not bravely carry on with its work?
We do not know that, do we? We will see if promises are kept.
But that Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump thesis is popular among journalists of a certain mindset. Check out this headline at the Daily Kos (a publication that may be further to the left than the Times): “After Dropping Editor Marvin Olasky, Will Evangelical World Magazine Be Conquered By Trump?”
Check out this “any enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine” take:
In this day and age when fealty to Donald Trump is the only measure of culture war-ready conservatism, it comes as no surprise when evangelicals start eating their own. If you’ve followed America’s religious right over the years, you don’t need to go too deep to find Marvin Olasky. He was the evangelicals’ evangelical, a potent political force. He also professed to be a truth-teller, a characteristic that rankles most conservative evangelicals these days. …
“I never thought I'd find myself in the position of defending Marvin Olasky, but these are strange times,” Rob Boston, Editor, Americans United for Separation of Church’s Church & State magazine, [said] via email.
Readers interested in some additional news reporting on this situation can check out a new feature by veteran scribe Bob Smietana, which just came out from Religion News Service (I was interviewed for this piece).
The headline has a nice twist: “Marvin Olasky survived Trump as World magazine editor. But not the hot takes.” And here is a crucial chunk of that reporting:
For his part, Olasky, who also taught journalism at the University of Texas and runs the World Journalism Institute, described the end of his tenure as editor-in-chief in bittersweet terms, saying he’d heard from many former students in recent days, with fond memories and kind words. One former student who clashed with Olasky referred to him on Twitter with an expletive, but then added that he made her a better journalist. The exchange made him smile.
He also praised the magazine staff who remain at World, as well as all the other people who make the journalism at the magazine possible. While he believes strongly in separation between the business side of journalism and the editorial side, he is thankful for those on the business side, calling their work essential. And he plans to continue as dean of the World Journalism Institute, where he has long trained young journalists.
Until recently, he thought any internal conflicts at World could be overcome. He knew, for example, that some board members were not fans of Olasky’s criticism of Trump, whom the magazine labeled as “unfit for power” in October 2016. Still, he remained as editor-in-chief for five more years. And a review of World’s financial reports to the IRS showed no change in revenue that correlates with the criticism of Trump.
The bottom line? Stay tuned.
Enjoy the podcast and, please, share it with others.
FIRST IMAGE: From the Twitter feed of Marvin Olasky.