Religion & Liberty

, , , , , , , , , ,

Farewell, after 20 years: Why we did what we did

, , , , , , , , , ,
Farewell, after 20 years: Why we did what we did

If you know anything about world religions, then you know that Easter is a big deal in Christianity.

In Eastern Orthodox churches, the Big Idea is stated this way, over and over, in rites for Pascha (Easter): “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life” (see this flash mob celebration in Lebanon).

I don’t bring this up as a matter of evangelism or some other #triggerwarning behavior. I am noting that this is an essential fact about Christianity, the world’s largest religious faith. Easter isn’t a “bunny” thing.

This brings us to one of the more unusual “religion ghosts” we spotted several times during the 20-year history of GetReligion. Here’s a case study at Newsweek and another at Facebook news. However, the classic version of this ghost appeared in the holy (in journalism terms) pages of The New York Times in this 2014 feature: “Hoping War-Weary Tourists Will Return to Israel.” Here is the key passage:

On a recent afternoon in the Old City of Jerusalem, while fighting raged in Gaza, Bilal Abu Khalaf hosted a group of Israeli tourists at his textile store in the Christian Quarter — one of Jerusalem’s tourist gems. …

“That’s the first group I’ve had here in more than a month,” Mr. Abu Khalaf said. “There have been whole weeks when no one has been inside the shop. I’ve sold almost nothing the entire summer. Business hasn’t been this bad since the first intifada in 1989, when the Palestinian groups ordered us to shutter our stores.”

Nearby, the vast Church of the Holy Sepulcher marking the site where many Christians believe that Jesus was buried, usually packed with pilgrims, was echoing and empty.

Now, what’s unusual about that? Well, it helps to know that the printed version said:

Nearby, the vast Church of the Holy Sepulcher marking the site where many Christians believe that Jesus is buried, usually packed with pilgrims, was echoing and empty.

It’s all about the word “is,” isn’t it?

Inquiring minds wanted to know: Was there anyone in the editorial chain at the world’s newspaper of record who knew the essential fact that traditional Christians don’t believe Jesus is buried anywhere? It’s that whole “Easter” thing.


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

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
, , , , , , , , , , ,

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
, , , , , , , , , ,

Thinking, with The Free Press, about what Brooklyn folks don't 'get' about Iowa

, , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking, with The Free Press, about what Brooklyn folks don't 'get' about Iowa

Let’s do something different with a “think piece” this week.

What we’re going to do is watch a short video and then, hopefully, GetReligion readers can leave a few comments about what they saw or, more importantly, what they didn’t see.

The video itself comes from those savvy urbanites at the must-follow website/Substack feed called The Free Press. What’s going on in this light-hearted, chatty, laugh-to-keep-from-crying offering? The goal was summed up in this epic double-decker headline:

Pork Chops! Politics! The Free Press Goes to the Iowa State Fair. …

Brooklynite Ben Kawaller dives headfirst into livestock, fried food, and the great political divide at America’s annual country circus.

Kawaller states, right up front, that he knows a lot more about musical theater than he does agrarian life (and, needless to say, hip eateries in and around Park Slope don’t serve deep-friend Oreos). So why would he want to spend a week hobnobbing with Iowa farmers?

Read the headline again.

We’re talking politics and the Iowa primaries, of course. Thus, Kawaller offered this online confessional:

Along with showcasing some of the state’s most impressive agriculture, the fair has, since the 1970s, become a de rigueur campaign stop for political candidates. Over the course of this year’s fair, which runs until Sunday, August 20, no fewer than sixteen presidential hopefuls have appeared or are expected to. My visit coincided with some big ones: Florida governor Ron DeSantis was there on Saturday, only to be upstaged by Donald Trump, who also may have arranged for the flight of an aerial banner urging “Be likable, Ron!” (You have to hand it to him: the man knows how to taunt.) 


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

Podcast: A growing army of Americans (#surprise) no longer trusts the news media

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: A growing army of Americans (#surprise) no longer trusts the news media

Were there tears in Anderson Cooper’s eyes? Did you hear a tremor in his voice?

A clip featuring the CNN superstar (that’s a relative term, these days) went viral after he wore his elite heart on his finely tailored sleeve when responding to woke social-media meltdowns after The. Most. Trusted. Name. In. News. dared to air a ratings-chasing “town hall” with former President Donald Trump.

By all means, watch the YouTube video featured at the top of this post, because it was featured in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), which focused on another set of bleak, hellish poll numbers about Americans doubting the mainstream-news industrial complex. I argued — no surprise if you read my recent Religion & Liberty essay (“The Evolving Religion of Journalism”) — that niche-press coverage of moral, cultural and religious issues has played a big role in this disaster.

Cooper’s dramatic soliloquy included some strong language aimed directly at CNN’s shrinking choir of loyal viewers on what used to be called the “left.” In a way, it’s a kind of niche-news Rorschach test. What do you see and hear?

Meanwhile, here are some of the key quotes, drawn from a rather snarky piece at The Hollywood Reporter (I have added bold text for emphasis):

Echoing some of the points that network CEO Chris Licht had made to CNN staff … (Cooper) attempted to pivot and spin why CNN felt it was important to cover Trump. “The man you were so disturbed to see and hear from last night, that man … may be president of the United States in less than two years. And that audience that upset you, that’s a sampling of about half the country.”

He added, “If last night showed anything, it showed [Trump winning] can happen again. It is happening again. He hasn’t changed and he is running hard. You have every right to be outraged today and angry, and never watch this network again.”

Cooper then rather bizarrely put the onus back on the audience to not remain ignorant of people on the other side of the political divide and incredibly implied that some people were ignorant of Trump. “Do you think staying in your silo and only listening to people you agree with is going to make that person go away? If we all only listen to those we agree with, it may actually do the opposite.”

Yes, the crucial word “silo” was used, in an emotional dermon aimed directly at CNN viewers. At some point, we can expect someone on Fox News to offer some variation of this litany when talking to its post-Tucker Carlson audience.

This is the media dynamic at the heart of trends in the Divided States of America.


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

Thinking about Bari Weiss, Twitter, evangelicals and New York Times op-ed doctrines

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking about Bari Weiss, Twitter, evangelicals and New York Times op-ed doctrines

Here’s a question for you: When it comes to defining the doctrines of blue-zip-America, which is more important — the news pages of The New York Times or the newspaper of record’s op-ed pages?

In the old days, I would have said the op-ed pages.

But that was back when most of the Times news desks were, to one degree or another, still part of (to one degree or another) the American Model of the Press (background in this .pdf file). That was certainly the case in the era of the late, great A.M. Rosenthal.

At this moment in time, there are signs of actual diversity — even tension — in the op-ed pages and maybe, just maybe, signs of a few glowing embers of editorial independence in the news papers.

But let’s still assume — as I argued in my Religion & Liberty essay, “The Evolving Religion of Journalism” — that the Times news operation is still operating as a niche-news, advocacy journalism publication anxious to please the new liberal, maybe illiberal, readers who pay cash for its content.

Let’s assume that the July, 2020, resignation letter posted by Bari “The Free Press” Weiss remains a must-read “think piece” for all news consumers. For those who need a refresh, as part of this “think piece” doubleheader, here are two key passages from that shot over the bow of the Gray Lady’s principalities and powers:

… [A] new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

Here is another essential passage from this “read it all” classic. This comes after Weiss — a gay, Jewish, old-school First Amendment liberal — describes the in-house digital bullying that made her hit the exit door:


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

Bonus podcast: Thinking (yes, again) about journalism 'religion,' as well as Super Bowl ads

, , , , , , , , , ,
Bonus podcast: Thinking (yes, again) about journalism 'religion,' as well as Super Bowl ads

On the day after the Super Bowl, what was the hot topic in your social-media feeds?

Was it bad lip syncing or a visible pregnant superstar?

Maybe the first-ever showdown between two Black starting quarterbacks? Or was it that each of these quarterbacks paused for rather lengthy moments of private prayer before the game began?

Advertisements? Naked avocados? The usual parade of beers? Deadly-serious triangular snacks? Electric vehicles that are not on sale yet? Or how about that sonogram of an unborn child with a thing for Pringles?

Now, do you think your answers could be connected to the presence of religious topics in your search-engine history files? Which of the angles listed above were most likely to get covered in “mainstream” news sources and which probably showed up in “religious” or “conservative” news?

This is another way to say that, one way or another, the odds are good that Americans are going to end up arguing about hot-button topics linked to religion.

That search-engine question was directly linked to the discussions at the end of a podcast that I did the other day with the Acton Institute social-media team. The main topic (#surprise) was my recent essay for their journal Religion & Liberty: “The Evolving Religion of Journalism.”

To be blunt, I think this is the most important thing I’ve written about the religion beat since my 1983 cover story for The Quill: “The Religion Beat: Out of the ghetto, into the mainsheets.” Thus, GetReligion has already offered quite a bit of digital ink (and a podcast of our own) on this topic. Think “RIP American Model of the Press? It appears that online financial realities killed it ...” And also, “It's just good business? The growing debate about America's news-silo culture.”

Thus, here is the Acton description of the podcast material:


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

Podcast: It's just good business? The growing debate about America's news-silo culture

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: It's just good business? The growing debate about America's news-silo culture

Yes, this is another post about my new essay at the Religion & Liberty journal published by the Acton Institute. The headline: “The Evolving Religion of Journalism.”

Part of me wants to apologize for yet another GetReligion look at this topic. But I’m not going to do that, for at least three reasons.

(1) For me, it’s most important thing I’ve written about journalism since my 1983 essay for The Quill — “The religion beat: Out of the ghetto, into the mainsheets,” which helped spark a national debate about religion-news coverage, including a Los Angeles Times series by the late, great media-beat specialist David Shaw.

(2) It demonstrates (think “technology shapes content”) that Internet culture and commerce have either killed the American Model of the Press or are poised to do so. That’s hard for me to say, since I have spent my career defending old-school American journalism from enemies on the right and, now, the illiberal left.

(3) The Acton piece (there’s no way we could have planned this) came out just as several other important articles raised similar issues about journalism’s future and the role of niche/advocacy journalism in splintering American public discourse.

Such as? Click here for a recent GetReligion podcast-post that includes discussion of “Newsrooms that move beyond ‘objectivity’ can build trust,” by former Washington Post editor Leonard Downie, Jr. Also, see this new Bret Stephens op-ed in the New York Times: “How to Destroy (What’s Left of) the Mainstream Media’s Credibility.”

As a result, GetReligion readers will not be surprised that this week’s “Crossroads” podcast focused on these themes (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

The key: My essay is not another hot-take on media bias and religion-news coverage.


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

Death of old-school journalism may be why Catholic church vandalism isn't a big story

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Death of old-school journalism may be why Catholic church vandalism isn't a big story

The start of 2023 has brought with it renewed discussion about the role of journalism in society and, more importantly, how it should be practiced and for whom.

At the same time, more Catholic churches and crisis-pregnancy centers have been the target of vandalism.

You may not have noticed this trend — because it is receiving little elite-news coverage.

I can’t help but think these two things are linked. Here’s how.  

Journalists and news organizations are increasingly abandoning old-school objectivity — think basic standards of accuracy, balance, fairness, etc. — in favor of an ever-changing worldview linked to whatever is fashionable politically or culturally, especially stances that are popular with paying customers. These news organizations are increasingly focused on how to influence the now and future rather than report on basic facts surrounding events.

Journalism, however, is not solely about predicting the future — see, for example, the heavy coverage towards polls trying to predict the outcome of elections — but observing the present and the on-the-record facts that surround us at the moment on a particular topic or issue.  

This growing activism among journalists has led reporters to lose most of their curiosity, a crucial element in news coverage.

Instead of asking questions, many already think they have the answers on an array of issues. In the process, this sense of activism among this new journalist class (and their Gen X editors who suddenly think that journalists have been doing things all wrong for decades) has led it to loss its curiosity. Debates? Who needs debates? Tropes based in secular society’s current values, for example, automatically trump thousands of years worth of Judeo-Christian tradition.

This brings us to the continuing trend that has seen many churches vandalized over the past few years. It’s a story that has received very little news coverage in the national press. Why?


Please respect our Commenting Policy