Seeking the perfect religion writer

April 9, 2007 By

labyrinth2As a rule, I rather like articles that end with statements such as this: “Maybe Sally Quinn has gotten religion.”

But not this time. In fact, the recent Washingtonian article about the origins of the On Faith weblog run by The Washington Post and Newsweek has been stewing in my mind ever since I read it.

Here’s why. Back in the late 1990s, Quinn produced an excellent news feature focusing on the fact (sorry, but I can’t find a copy in a place I can link to for free) that religion is one of the few topics that people inside the Beltway are terrified to discuss. It was a solid, insightful news article, in part because it came from a woman who is known as the ultimate insider’s insider in this insider-driven town. Clearly, she was curious about the role of faith in public life, even though traditional, conservative forms of faith produce a kind of leper’s status in elite circles here.

Now, Quinn (also known as Ben Bradlee‘s wife) is the co-moderator of this official interfaith blog in the American public square, sharing that role with the Episcopal theologian and essay writer Jon Meacham of Newsweek.

Let me be clear. I do not doubt that Quinn’s interest in religion is sincere. I also do not doubt her qualifications to run the On Faith blog, since it seems to have almost nothing to do with religion news, per se. That blog makes Beliefnet (which I read and enjoy) seem like an Associated Press site.

But here is the section of the piece on Quinn — headline: “Why Ben Bradlee Has Sally Quinn in a Labyrinth” — that miffed me, which begins with the obvious statement that she “never found religion”:

“I’ve been an atheist all my life,” she says. “Jon convinced me not to use that word. He said I was defining myself negatively.

“So I don’t call myself anything,” she says. “A seeker, perhaps.”

Quinn was casting about for her next move when she sought guidance from a higher authority.

“I had been interested for a couple of years in religion and how it affects policy,” she says. “I was thinking of writing a book about religion in Washington.”

Why not religion online? “I described my idea to Don Graham,” Quinn says. “He thought it was a great idea.”

She then told Graham: “I don’t know anything about religion.”

He said: “I want you to do it.”

Donald E. Graham is, of course, the chairman of the board of The Washington Post Company and heir to one of the most powerful news roles in this city and, thus, America.

BlueLabyrinthThe reason this passage gets to me so much is that it calls back memories of one of the most famous little notes ever written about religion news, if you are a person like me who keeps files on this topic. Here is a little clip from a previous GetReligion post on the topic:

Long, long ago, back in 1994, The Washington Post raised many eyebrows by posting a newsroom notice for a religion reporter. The “ideal candidate,” it said, is “not necessarily religious nor an expert in religion.” Well, I still think this is bizarre. Try to imagine a notice in an elite newsroom seeking an opera critic that says the “ideal candidate does not necessarily like opera or know much about opera.” How about notices for reporters who cover professional sports, science, film and politics?

Now let’s make sure we focus on the key fact here (before you all start mouse-clicking that Comment link).

I have known great religion writers who were not believers of any kind. I’ve known great religion writers who were active in the faith of their choice. That’s not my point. That’s not what gets me steamed.

What gets my dander up is the belief — yes, belief — held by many major journalists that training, experience and knowledge of religion are liabilities when it comes to hiring professionals to write about religion. Yes, we have been over this ground several times in the past. I know that and, sorry, but I am sure we’ll have to revisit this topic again in the future.

And that’s what really gets under my skin.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Anglicanism, Godbeat, Journalism, People
About tmatt

Terry Mattingly directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. He writes a weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

  • http://ochobl.blogspot.com BL

    My other question when reading this post is who supervises the religion reporter? How much of an interest in religion should that person have?
    Should the religion reporter be on a team with education reporters? Should the religion reporter be on a team with police reporters? Medical reporters and growth and development reporters?
    I suppose some of the answers to that question depend on the size of the newsroom. It’s always strikes me as a bit odd when there’s only one religion reporter.
    Or less than one religion reporter as in when the religion reporter also covers cops on the weekend. Or non-profits.
    And then there’s the situation when the religion reporter’s editors have trouble deciding what they want the reporter to do.
    But without a focus and appreciation for the role of religion news coverage at a paper, poorly trained editors and editor turnover can be just as detrimental to the beat as poorly prepared reporters.

  • James Davis

    It gets under my skin too, Terry, and for the reasons you stated. I remember and agree fully with your previous column on the topic.

    I believe it was Jimmy Allen who put the media paradox best. He said newspapers shy away from religion because it’s so big and complex, who can cover it well? Yet when they assign religion stories, they often pick nonspecialists on the assumption that a good reporter can cover anything. And as you pointed out, they don’t follow that reasoning when planning, say, concert or political or Super Bowl coverage.

    I think the problem is even worse than editors and reporters being ignorant of religion. Many seem so biased, they’re actually immune to facts and logic in favor of better religion coverage. They are both the product of a generation of religion bashing, and a source for more of it. They can sometimes be nudged into approving this or that story; but afterward, they return to their cherished prejudices.

    I seriously wonder if the overall situation can be fixed with the current news power structure. It may be as rigid as the way Max Planck described science: “A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

    Unfortunately, the next generation of newspeople will likely be much smaller. As the Wall Street Journal reported recently, readership of American newspapers has fallen steadily since 1980. And when newspapers cut back, you know what often suffers. Witness what happened at the Dallas Morning News.

    Yeah, I’m being a real sunbeam this fine Monday.

  • Jerry

    I suspect you’re mostly, um, preaching to the choir here. But I’ll add one caveat. I’ve been hired for jobs not because I’m an expert in the subject matter (being an expert administrator of specific software packages), but because I demonstrated an ability to learn quickly in prior jobs and told those hiring me how I’d go about learning the particular software packages I needed to know.

    But I suspect the real motivation here is the assumption that to know something about religion is to be hopelessly biased.

  • Larry Rasczak

    “How about notices for reporters who cover professional sports, science, film and politics?”

    How many of the people covering the military are veterans?

    I know some are, and I can think of at least one Pentagon Coorespondent (Jim of the unspellable last name at NBC) who I really respect because he seems to be very commited to self-education in the matter.

    That being said, how many times during Gulf War 1, Gulf War 2, and Afghanistan did you see war coverage that consisted entirely of a 1978 Model Blonde Info Babe talking with a retired Lieutenat Colonel they had quickly hired as a “Consultant” and an Embed via satilite link?

    On big celebrity trials they are more and more using J.D.’s as their lead reporters, but on more than a few occasions I’ve seen non-lawyers trying to explain a 175 page Supreme Court decision in 30 seconds or less. This happens with buisness news as well sometimes.

    So while I agree with you, (you would never see a non-expert on the sports page) I don’t know if this is a religion specific problem.

    Also, I can see why the legal department would scream bloody murder at an ad that said “the ideal candidate must be an active practitioner of a widely respected religious belief. Preferably they will regularly attend either a mainline Protestant or Roman Catholic Church, or a Conservative/Reformed Synogoge; please submit a letter from your priest, minister, or rabbi detailing your attendance at worship services over the past 36 months.”

    Can you imagine the lawsuit they would get if they even hinted that they had turned down a person for a job because of that persons religion, or lack thereof? Even if the job WAS religion reporter, the EEOC would be on that like fraternity boys on free beer.

  • http://ochobl.blogspot.com BL

    The issue isn’t whether a reporter should be “an active practitioner of a widely respected religious belief.”
    It’s whether or not the reporter has any knowledge of theology, the history of religion and trends in the area of religion and culture. Or is the reporter just someone who learns fast.

    Take a recent publishing phenomenomm, for example. I’ve seen several stories lately on the book The Secret. However, none have compared The Secret to The Prayer of Jabez which was was relatively similar, with distinct differences, a few years back.

  • Tom Schaefer

    I recall the day I was hired to be the religion reporter for The Wichita Eagle. I had been a Lutheran clergyman but also had been a freelancer for years and had taken journalism courses at Wichita State University to acquire some of the basic tools of the trade. When I had my final meeting with the executive editor and managing editor of the paper, both asked one final question: “Do you think you’d have any problem writing anything critical of a religious group or person?” I could have interpreted that to mean: “We’re not sure whether your bias toward religion will adversely affect your journalistic duty. What do you think?” Or they could have been asking: “Is the break between being a minister and a journalist clear in your head?” I chose the latter and did my job. And I think my religious/theological training paid off.

  • Chris Bolinger

    Terry, there seems to be a belief by some in the press that a good reporter can report on anything, which is a corollary to the old adage that a good writer can write on anything. I disagree with the premise. Everyone has limitations. I’m a former stringer and have written and edited many types of marketing literature for 16 years, but that doesn’t mean that I can write well on every subject. I know what I can do well and what I can’t.

    It seems quite arrogant for Quinn, who professes to know nothing about religion, to suggest that she will write a book on how religion affects policy just because she is interested in the topic. It also seems quite arrogant for the Washington Post chairman to tell Quinn to moderate a blog on religious faith after she professes to know nothing on the topic.

    Yes, we want good writers to write on religion. We want good writers to write on every subject. But a good writer or a good reporter is not automatically a good religion writer or a good religion reporter. This seems so blatantly obvious that I can’t believe I just typed it.

  • Joseph Fox

    It seems to me a good atheist is more likely to have studied a number of religions than a good Catholic, Baptist etc.

  • http://insidesocal.com/godblog Brad A. Greenberg

    When I became a religion reporter two years ago, I worried that I would find it challenging to cover my religion critically and to write positively about those I don’t believe in. Fortunately, this was not the case.

    In fact, I believe reporters with strong religious beliefs are all the more sensitive and fair when covering other faiths because of what I can only label a religious-reporting riff on the Golden Rule.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    JOSEPH:

    It goes each way. The good Baptist, Catholic, etc., may have had more exposure to religious history classes, etc.

    BRAD:

    You mean, something like “Report unto others as you would want them to report unto you?”

  • sharon

    Just a little question– when I was at seminary, I had a few classmates who were in a joint JD/Masters in Religion program. Are there any similar programs between J-schools and seminaries (or grad. religion departments)? Should there be? What do y’all think?

  • http://ochobl.blogspot.com BL

    Sharon – there’s at least one such program at Northwestern – http://www.medill.northwestern.edu/medill/grad/special_programs/reporting_religion_spirituality_and_ethics.html

    There should definitely be more.

    Also, I wonder if Jospeh Fox has any proof aside from a hunch that an atheist would be more schooled in various religions than a person of faith would. But again, that question is beside the point of Terry’s original point. He was raising the question of whether editors think such schooling and background in religion is even appropriate.

    Most religion reporters hate being asked, “So where do you go to church?” For a religion reporter, that’s irrelevant. It’s not important whether or not I’m religious but whether I can convey well what religious people believe and whether I understand the reasons why that’s so.

  • Marilyn

    The perfect religion is the one that supports and believes the following;

    “The Lords Prayer!”
    Within its contents lies the Solution to the entire Worlds’ Problems. It is such “Good News” and it is soooo seldom that we hear “Good News.”

    In all its simplicity “The Lord’s Prayer” answers “three” of the most catastrophic problems facing humans today. Jesus provided the Solution to all the World’s problems (in just three sentences.) Problems such as; Will there ever be “World Peace?” Will the earth be destroyed by “Weapons of Mass Destruction” or possibly an “Asteroid from Outer Space?” Or will there ever be a time when “Sickness, Sorrow and Death” is done away with?

    We pray in modern English, “Let your Kingdom come.” God’s Kingdom is a Spiritual Government, I am sure that you are familiar with the terms “Prince of Peace and King of kings,” referring to Jesus Christ It is Jesus’ Spiritual Government that is going to bring permanent Peace to the Earth.

    Then we continue; “Let your Kingdom come and let your will be done on earth.” In order for God’s will to be done on earth the earth has to remain and there will have to be people on earth to do God’s will. So we don’t have to worry about the earth being destroyed! But you may be wondering now will we always have to live with the tragedy of “Sickness, Sorrow and Death?” Jesus said NO!

    “God’s will will be done on earth as it is in heaven” heaven is perfect! So in essence we are asking God to please rule this earth in Perfection as He once did in the Garden of Eden.

    Wouldn’t you agree that this is “Good News?” That is why Jesus stated at Matthew 24:14, “And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.”

    Thank you so much for your time and attention. I do hope that this is “Good News” for you also.

    Sincerely,

  • Jeff Sharlet

    I’m solidly with you one half of the way, Terry — religion reporters need to know as much as they can about religion — but flummoxed by your implicit equation of religion reporter who’s religious and an opera critic who likes opera. Is being religious a form of fandom? Why should a religion reporter have to be religious? Does that mean journalists who report on non-religious subjects should not be religious?

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    JEFF:

    Hey, you know me better than that. Where have I ever advocated the stance that religion-beat reporters need to be religious? I have always said the opposite.

    I have never known a good religion writer — atheist, agnostic, liberal or conservative — who was not intellectually fascinated with religion and wanted to know more about the subject, the history, the beliefs, etc.

    Read what I wrote again, in this post and in many others.

  • PR

    As one of the powers at The Dallas Morning News once said to me: It’s really not about knowledge but about being a good journalist.

    Eh?

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    Ah come on PR. Name another major, highly involved beat where they would say that?

    It’s not about knowledge (of the Dallas Cowboys), it’s about being a good journalist.

    Right. Being a good journalist has NOTHING to do with experience, training and knowing what in the heck you’re talking about. Errors are a GOOOOOD thing.

  • Calvin

    So Quinn is an athiest, I KNEW there had to be a good explanation for why OnFaith questions have been so .. simple-minded and vapid. I only read it because of the quality of the contributing writers, not the questions.