Fluke’s ‘conservative Christian family,’ ‘interfaith egalitarian’ wedding

June 25, 2012 By

I didn’t realize we were still talking about Sandra Fluke, but if she’s still in cultural conversation, okay, I want to know more. Remember the whole contraception, Georgetown, Rush Limbaugh slut thing? Yeah, I remember it too, I guess.

Without getting into the nitty grittiness of the contraception debate, it’s worth just looking at the jaw-dropping interview with Fluke from the New York Times magazine. I want to focus on the reporter’s questions and the piece’s framing, not on the content of or arguments behind Fluke’s answers.

First, there’s the headline: “Our Lady of Contraception: Sandra Fluke’s Rocky Path to Feminist Superstardom”

Hey, could you be more in-your-face about it? Let’s pretend in a headline to get all religion angle about the interview as a trick for the reader but not explain her faith at all.

In the actual interview, there’s the first hard-hitting question from the reporter:

After testifying before House Democrats in February about the limited contraceptive coverage in Georgetown University’s insurance plan, Rush Limbaugh referred to you as a “slut” on his radio show. He said you were “having so much sex” that you couldn’t afford all the birth-control pills you needed. Do you suppose he doesn’t understand how the pill works?

Keep in mind, this piece has been edited, so the launching question is pretty purposeful even in the resulting piece (it’s not just to cozy up to her). Fluke says, “There is real hate and sexism within our society that we have to do something about.” The important follow-up question?

But what exactly can you do? Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda wanted the F.C.C. to revoke the licenses of stations that carry Limbaugh’s show, but doesn’t that go against basic First Amendment rights?

Because Sandra Fluke is an expert on First Amendment rights?

Rick Santorum said during his campaign that pornography “contributes to misogyny and violence against women.” Do you agree?
Fluke: Congratulations on finding a position that Rick Santorum and I agree upon.

Congratulations on bringing up something everyone no one is talking about.

Fluke: As a friend put it, she would be just fine with feminist porn.

What does feminist porn look like?
Fluke: I’ll let you know when I find any.

How funny, cute Wait, what? Anyone else confused?

When did you first start to advocate for women’s issues?
Fluke: In college, actually. I grew up in a rural farming community in central Pennsylvania. My father is a pastor now, and we have always been a very observant, conservative Christian family. My first semester, I signed up for a women’s studies course because I wanted to see what all this ruckus was about. I was going to show them that I didn’t really believe in these things, but I was just completely blown over.

I can’t say that I’ve read all the Fluke stories (from what I remember, they were a little more about women’s bodies, Rush Limbaugh’s business model, the state of whatever we expect out of civility than about the actual people involved), but I don’t understand how the reporter can let this slide: “observant, conservative Christian family.” What does that mean? Where is her father a pastor at what church? Why can’t we get more specifics, the who, what, where, when, why, how basics from this in-depth interview?

When it was reported in April that you got engaged, Monica Crowley, a conservative commentator, tweeted, “To a man?” After you called it homophobic hate speech, she said you confirmed her suspicions that liberals are humorless.

Reporters still seem a little fascinated with Twitter, like there’s this thing on the internet where people can write what they think and people will read it and retweet it. Ridiculous things are said on the Twittersphere every. single. day. Why is this one any different than the next?

What do you envision for your nuptials?
Fluke: There will be nuptials. That’s as far as I’ve gotten on the planning. I imagine my wedding will be a joyous interfaith egalitarian festival.

Why no follow-up question here? What are the faiths that are going to make it interfaith? Apparently it’s more important to find out if she’s going to wear a wedding dress. (No really, that’s the follow-up question.)

The problems with this piece really have nothing to do with Sandra Fluke, the contraception debate or even religious liberty (scare quotes or not). It has to do with journalism 101, something that didn’t exist in this Q & A.

Image of journalist via Shutterstock.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Godbeat, Interviews, Journalism, Religion, Social Issues
  • Martha

    To be fair to the reporter, there was one actual substantive question:

    “If issues like abortion access and reproductive health are so important to you, why did you choose to go to law school at Georgetown, a Jesuit university?”

    And then we went on to the wedding question. Given that it says “This interview has been condensed and edited”, perhaps the fault lies with the editor; there might have been more questions exploring the ‘why go to Georgetown?’ angle, but the editor decided “No! Readers want to know what kind of dress she’ll wear!”

    The depressing thing would be that readers probably do want to know what kind of dress she’ll wear, and never mind questions about feminism, religion, free speech, higher education and the like. We don’t even get her fiancé’s name or, as you say, what will make her wedding “interfaith”. I suppose that’s what Google is for!

  • Joe

    Our friend Google answers the question about Fluke’s pastor father:

    “The Rev. Richard Fluke, Sandra’s father, is a part-time licensed local pastor who shares the pulpit at Tatesville United Methodist Church in Everett, Pa., with two other pastors. Both he and his wife, Betty Kay, are proud of their daughter.”

    (source: http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=5259669&ct=11663121)

    I wouldn’t have thought to describe a mainline church like the UMC as a “conservative Christian” body, but maybe they are in rural Pennsylvania. As for the “interfaith egalitarian” wedding, apparently Fluke’s fiance is Jewish:

    http://blogs.forward.com/sisterhood-blog/153134/sandra-fluke-and-the-big-jewish-conspiracy/

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/04/25/sandra-fluke-announces-engagement.html

  • sari

    The NYT Interview, a weekly one pager, is nearly always snarky and rarely addresses substantive issues. One sometimes has the impression that the reporter is baiting the subject, but, otherwise, its purpose seems to be to shock the reader with short, barbed blurbs.

  • James

    I think Sara needs to do some work to understand the NYTimes features. Her snarkiness is not very attractive, especially when it seems to arise out of ignorance.

  • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    Martha, I think you’re probably right that readers might want that. But the NYT isn’t really in a position to have to stoop to a mass audience. It already has one.

    Joe, I knew I could google, and I know readers can google, but the point still stands (as does your point about the “conservative Christian” being applied to a Methodist pastor).

    sari, maybe you’re right. Sigh. On the internet, it doesn’t translate very well, especially under the NYT name.

    James, that’s cool. Once you spell my name right, maybe we can talk about ignorance together?

  • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    Martha, forgot to address your point on the good question. One little nugget doesn’t fix an entire botched interview for me, but yes, I’m grateful that was asked. The edited part is, yes, somewhat understandable, but the questions themselves are a bit strange, don’t you think?

  • sari

    Sarah,
    Who knows, James might’ve meant me. My name is often misspelled :>) That little i is so hard.

    We’re longtime subscribers to the NYT and often wonder about the Interview. It’s not quite as crass as its predecessor, Questions For, but both share a kind of disjointedness. Perhaps it’s the editing, but it may be that the Times seeks to maintain some of the previous column’s weirdness. Personally, I find it to be a waste of space.

  • MJBubba

    Regarding the United Methodist Church, they practice “pluralism.” Pluralism originally meant that Christians were free to disagree on minor points of doctrine. They inherited this concept from their origin in the Church of England. Over the past 150 years they have followed down the path of the Episcopalians. The left/progressive/syncretist wing of the UMC has pushed the envelope of pluralism until it now seems to include lots of universalists and other non-Christians.
    There are still many orthodox Christians in small UMC parishes in small towns all over the eastern U.S. They go on about their Christian practice of trying to live according to Biblical principals, and they gnash their teeth at what their national leaders do and say.
    So, when you find out that someone is a member of a UMC parish, you still need to ask the TMatt Trio to find out what sort of Christian they really are.

  • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    sari, we’ll see if James weighs in again. :) I always kind of forget that print publications have these standing features where they try to force something into a certain space and it just does not translate well at all out of that space. Sigh.

  • Bill

    Sarah, I could be wrong – it happens all the time, but Interview is indicative of the underlying worldview of the NYT. Every paper has such features, be they on the left or right.

    The Times does not think much of the Catholic Church and takes every opportunity to skewer it. But as you point out, they often don’t seem to know very much about other denominations. “Conservative Christian” is used simply to give Ms. Fluke bona fides.

    Martha’s point is well taken. Many a decent story has been edited into incoherence.

  • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    Bill, I feel like we should be careful not to say across the board every reporter takes every opportunity to skewer the Catholic church. I know some reporters there are legitimately trying to do good journalism, no matter who they are covering. Do questionable stories about the Catholic church get through? Yes. But just as we want journalists to be fair, we should return the favor.

    Perhaps this particular interview section just will never do religion justice because of the way it’s set up to fail.

  • Bill

    Sarah, I’d say many reporters try to be fair. But the culture of a paper or media outlet has an effect on what is seen to be fair. In the culture of the Times, this piece is fair. In the culture of the Times, Sandra Fluke holds the high ground, and her wedding dress is a more important question than why she went to Georgetown.

  • sari

    Bill,
    I think it’s important to research the point of this particular feature. We’ve seen a lot of changes at the NYT Magazine over the past year. In particular, the demise of On Language, the replacement of longtime Ethicist writer Randy Cohen with a succession of stand-ins (big sigh), and the substitution of The Interview for Deborah Solomon’s Questions For.

    I think a look at Solomon’s column and it’s raison d’etre (sorry, no circonflexe) will give you and others some insight into its successor column.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Solomon