Curing dandruff with decapitation

December 15, 2008 By

dandruff1I find it absolutely amazing that the Washington Post would react to the cover story published by its sister magazine Newsweek by running the story in its Saturday editions.

I have not seen the paper on dead tree, but more than a few folks at church said it ran there. As did reader C. Wingate, who wrote:

Those gluttons for punishment at Post-Newsweek decided they hadn’t gotten enough abuse over this, and put Miller’s essay in the Wash. Post Saturday religion pages, along with the four bits from the theologians.

I wonder who the four theologians are. Unfortunately my Google-fu and Washington Post site search are leaving me empty-handed.

And why isn’t the story and theologian response on the Web site? Did they just think the On Faith site should handle it? Shouldn’t readers be directed there somehow?

Meanwhile, the chorus of criticism about Newsweek is growing. MarketWatch’s Jon Friedman published a commentary today with the headline “Newsweek looks like a magazine in decline“:

Remember Newsweek, once widely recognized as one of the great brand names in the media world?

Yes, you read that correctly — I wrote “once.” I don’t think it’s true any longer, sorry to say.

This looks like a magazine in decline, both financially and journalistically.

He goes on to write that the magazines non-newsy covers don’t resonate and that he misses the news. He goes on:

Conversely, when I see a provocative Newsweek cover like last week’s “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage” — the latest example of the magazine’s infatuation with spiritual subjects under Editor Jon Meacham’s watch — I have to conclude that Newsweek is determined to be known as America’s non-news weekly. I wonder if its editors’ top priority is merely to jolt readers by offering a controversial treatment of a controversial subject.

What’s odd about this criticism is that religious — and secular — debates about same-sex marriage are completely newsy. I mean, we just had the two most expensive campaigns in American history. One was for President of the United States, which makes sense. The other was a state ballot initiative over same-sex marriage. If that’s not an indication that this is a hot button issue, your journalism sense isn’t too hot.

Is the problem with Newsweek that they’re covering spiritual subjects? Hardly. People love reading about spiritual subjects. I write about everything from economics to sex and religion is far and away the topic that gets readers most excited. The problem isn’t covering religion — it’s covering religion poorly. And Newsweek didn’t cover a spiritual subject. Its editors and reporters opined about a topic that they seemed to know little about — religious arguments relating to marriage.

Anyway, Friedman looks at the issue of how well Newsweek is emulating the Economist:

It’s no secret in publishing circles that Newsweek has been trying to mimic the success that the Economist is having in the U.S., by stressing news analysis in its cover stories. But the critical difference between the two magazines is that the Economist takes a wittier, whimsical, more sure-handed approach — and has proven to be much better at this sort of thing than Newsweek.

He says that the magazine shouldn’t have let some of its better reporters slip away. He also grants that the magazine industry is woefully challenged by advertising problems. He says the magazine’s salvation might lie in joining forces with Slate:

Slate is everything Newsweek is at its best: clever, pointed, topical. On Friday, readers could click on that site and enjoy such thought-provoking headlines as Ron Rosenbaum’s “Why Obama Should Keep Smoking“, Christopher Beam’s “The Obama School of Crisis Management“, and Jack Shafer’s “Blago: Sleazy, Yes, but Criminal?“

It sounds dreadful to me (other than my favorite Slate guy Jack Shafer) but beyond that, I fail to see how combining with one of the most partisan publications out there will help save the brand name of Newsweek.

And back to the beginning of this post, while Newsweek editor Jon Meacham may have published this cover story to force his dream that Newsweek become nothing more than a liberal opinion magazine (see TMatt’s post about what Steve Waldman had to say about that), what is the Washington Post‘s excuse?

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Godbeat, Journalism, Politics, Social Issues
  • danr

    I wonder who the four theologians are.

    For what it’s worth, on the Post’s On Faith site is a reasonably effective rebuttal to Newsweek titled “No Case for Homosexuality in Bible” – I think it’s one of the four.

    This one entry was cowritten by an interesting group of three:
    “Joseph Bottum is editor of First Things: A Journal of Religion, Culture and Public Life. John Mark Reynolds, an evangelical, is associate professor of philosophy at Biola University. Bruce D. Porter is a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Here’s the link to that essay. Thanks, danr.

  • Brian

    “It’s no secret in publishing circles that Newsweek has been trying to mimic the success that the Economist is having in the U.S., by stressing news analysis in its cover stories.”

    A couple of years ago I took one of the Economist’s month-long free trials, and ended up deciding not to get a subscription because while much of their global and financial coverage was interesting, when it came to their US political coverage the most screamingly obvious cause of their analytical shortcomings was that they just Didn’t Get Religion. Which of course calls into question all of their global coverage as well, and for the price they ask it didn’t make sense to get material with such an obvious blindspot.

    Considering that Newsweek has absolutely none of the “snob” appeal that the Economist does, their decision to chase a similar demographic is insane and is clearly doomed to failure.

  • Stephen A.

    I fail to see how combining with one of the most partisan publications out there will help save the brand name of Newsweek.

    I say “go for it.” Jump right in to those SNARK-infested leftist waters and go fully digital while your at it, unNewsweek! Stop gracing our supermarket shelves with the “Outrageous Liberal Assertion of the Week.”

    Unlike unNewsweek, I see that slate.com’s staffers came right out and said they were all (save one) Obama-lovers. I found this interesting, unique and refreshing, actually. That poor person (singular) who went for McCain, though. Ouch. There had to be a token McCainiac there, I guess. Of course she took great pains to say that she wasn’t even a Republican Party member!
    ————–
    On another matter: Palin’s church burning down. One-day story? That’s it? If this was Obama’s church, or any Democrat’s… well, I’ll let you finish that sentence, because it will be instantly disputed.

  • Martha

    “what is the Washington Post’s excuse?”

    Simple. Controversy! Sexy! Sells papers!

    And with a sure-fire hit (or so I imagine they think) like this one already having been publicised by “Newsweek”, then seeing as how the Christian Right got all organised to deluge the poor little sister magazine with their lockstep tactics of fear, intimidation, and badly-written letters, then by jiminy! there would be hordes of them buying multiple copies of the “Washington Post” in order to burn them publicly – you know, like they did the “Harry Potter” books?

    Hey, money is money, even if it comes from the greasy fists of homophobic knucle-dragging Christianists, you know!

  • Martha

    In the midst of all this kerfuffle, did anyone happen to mention that the reason us shocktroopers of the Religious Right polished up our jackboots about this story was that it was *not* “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”?

    Lisa contented herself with a plaint about “Why oh why must those fundamentalists be so mean to people who are IN LOVE and who only want to express their LOVE? Don’t we all just want to be LOVED? I’m so glad my religious friends tell me it’s all about LOVE! Unlike those nasty fundamentalists – not one of whom I can be bothered to name, much less quote – they are proper modern religious people with a proper modern religion that understands the proper modern place of religion in a proper modern society and don’t need that silly old Bible to make a case for gay marriage!”

  • FW Ken

    There is no such thing as bad publicity and Newsweek has gotten plenty this past week without shelling out an advertising penny.

    Now the Post gets it’s share of the action.

  • Joe

    what is the Washington Post’s excuse?

    Because they could cross-promote their website, they highlighted a newsworthy article, and they gave voice to those who disagrees with the article. Why would you trash a piece you haven’t even seen? That seems bizarre to me.

    And Newsweek didn’t cover a spiritual subject. Its editors and reporters opined about a topic that they seemed to know little about — religious arguments relating to marriage.

    Actually, they seemed to know quite a bit about the subject. They didn’t agree with you, but they reflected a theological viewpoint that is not exactly on the fringes. They acknowledged at the beginning that the article was built on the assumption that everyone knew the much-trod theological arguments in opposition to same-sex marriage. They were just giving voice to a different perspective through thorough research and analysis of that perspective.

  • http://www.colombianito2.blogspot.com Sergio Méndez

    Excuse me, what is the problem that Newsweek takes a partisan liberal line? When was the last time “getreligion” criticizes conservative magazines like The Weekly Standard or The National Review for taking a partisan conservative line? Or when was the last time getreligion pointed the many flaws in a partisan conservative journal like first things in their coverage of religion, that is insanely driven for right wing causes? This website shouldn´t be called “getreligion” but “getreligon in the way the conservatives think religion works”.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Sergio,

    How little do you know about GetReligion?

    Gah!

    We never criticize The Nation or Mother Jones or The Weekly Standard or Salon or National Review.

    We don’t concern ourselves at all with opinion publications.

    We don’t even care about the opinion pages of mainstream publications.

    We only care about mainstream news coverage of religion.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    Actually, we would criticize those magazines for inaccuracies or wild statements of bias.

    But you don’t criticize opinion magazines for publishing this kind of one-sided, even unfair, opinion essay.

    But, until recently, nonNewsweek claimed to be a news magazine, an American model of the press news source. Now, it is a religious publication, with its own defining doctrines.

  • Joe

    Now, it is a religious publication, with its own defining doctrines.

    That’s just silly, and beneath you. It was a provocative piece–and from a pov that counters the blog’s bias–but let’s not go overboard and hysterical in making a point. It sort of supports the author’s argument that the criticism is a bit unhinged.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Joe,

    That’s what the editor in chief said himself, no? I mean, I thought it was silly and beneath him, too. But that’s what his editor’s note said.

  • http://kingslynn.blogspot.com C. Wingate

    The four excerpted panelists were:

    R. Albert Mohler Jr.
    president, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

    John Dominic Crossan
    professor emeritus at DePaul University

    R. Gustav Niebuhr
    director of the Religion & Society Program at Syracuse University

    C. Welton Gaddy
    president, Interfaith Alliance

    (These are the attributions given in the paper– don’t ask me to give one from Crossan!) Mohler, of course, is the only one quoted as opposing same sex marriage, though Niebuhr’s response is phrased as a personal opinion.

  • Joe K

    The political winds have changed. The electorate has voted and results show that +50% are left-leaning (well, at least they voted “D”). Perhaps Newsweek is placing it’s bet that the legislative and executive branches will advocate their similar left-leaning causes. My take is that this religion piece was less about religion and more about politics; or rather, religion viewed though political lenses.

    Newsweek had better do something bold if they want to remain in business. I give them credit for trying.

  • Joe

    That’s what the editor in chief said himself, no?

    No. He didn’t say it was going to be a religious magazine. He merely said that the religious discussion on SSM has been one-sided and intellectually dishonest. He predicted perfectly the reaction of his critics.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Joe,

    It seems you are not terribly familiar with Meacham’s ouvre, his editorial direction or his stated position on these matters.

    Judging from your previous comments, you’re not terribly familiar with the extended timeline of this blog’s coverage of the matter either.

    That’s fine, but you may want to bring yourself up to speed before commenting.

  • FW Ken

    He merely said that the religious discussion on SSM has been one-sided and intellectually dishonest.

    Which raises a related journalistic question: do you respond to a one-sided discussion with another one-sided discussion? Is bias in one direction balanced with bias in the opposite direction, or with a discussion internally balanced?

    I’ll skip the issue of intellectual dishonesty. That appears, judging from some comments, to be an entirely subjective matter.

    My take is that this religion piece was less about religion and more about politics; or rather, religion viewed though political lenses.

    If I’m not mistaken, that is, more or less, the working definition of not getting religion, at least on this blog.

  • FW Ken

    Should be formatted:

    My take is that this religion piece was less about religion and more about politics; or rather, religion viewed though political lenses.

    If I’m not mistaken, that is, more or less, the working definition of not getting religion, at least on this blog.

  • Chris Bolinger

    Mollie, living in the D.C. area, you surely are familiar with the prevailing attitude of many so-called journalists and editors there, including Meacham and crew. In a nutshell, they believe that they are smarter and better informed than the great unwashed in the rest of America. Those “in the know” at WaPost publications look at what happened in CA and believe — or, rather, know — that people who used religious grounds to vote for Prop 8 really don’t understand their religion because, if they did, they would have voted differently.

    The arrogance of Meacham and crew reminds me of a series of Peanuts comic strips from about 30 years ago. After mixing it up with an unseen adult, Linus finally asks, “Has it ever occurred to you that you may be wrong?” If that thought does occur to Miller, Meacham, and others at the WaPost publications, I’m sure that it will pass quickly.

  • Martha

    Joe, Mr. Meacham said he was presenting the religious argument for gay marriage, and the best thing he could come up with was “it’s down to genetics since gay people are just made that way”. No theologians, no arguments from Scripture, the Fathers, or Tradition, no presentation of an argument based on religious principles – just ‘get with the science, fundies!’

    Imagine if he was presenting the case against/for global warming (I have no dog in that fight, so pick your own side) and he only instanced “When I was a kid going to the beach, summers were hotter/colder.”

    What – no named scientists quoted, no extracts from peer-reviewed articles submitted to reputable journals, no studies, nothing but personal anecdote and calling the oppostion big ol’ meanies?

    Would that strike *anyone* as (1) reporting or (2) his own personal opinion as a non-expert in the matter?

  • Joe

    That’s fine, but you may want to bring yourself up to speed before commenting.

    Thanks for that helpful hint. I’ve read the blog long enough to undestand the bloggers’ attitude towards Meacham and the attitude that elicited your rather condescending and snippy response.

    I mean, you’ve blogged about nothing else for over a week offering at least one–if not two–posts per day on the “conflict.” I think I’m pretty much all caught up.

  • http://onlinefaith.blogspot.com C. Wingate

    Well, Joe, here I am looking at the stuff in the back of the Wash. Post. And what’s striking is how little religion there is in the thing that sprawls over much of the page. Niebuhr did little more than express a personal opinion, almost as a footnote; Crossan’s piece was a mess that, as far as it had a point, was mostly an expression of liberal triumphalism. Gaddy talked almost entirely about attitudes in the mainlines. Only Mohler really said anything that had to do with religion; and of course, there weren’t any other, non-Christian religious voices.

    I think the Post’s excuse, frankly, was laziness. It was easier just to reprint the Newsweek stuff than to come up with fresh material.

  • Dave

    I have to dispute Mollie’s statement in #10. This blog criticizes journalistic “cheerleading” for gay marriage — and Mollie is a big anti-cheerleader in that endeavour — and simply fabricates a religion angle. The fact that the Los Angeles Times is biased on this topic, a liberal bias, is turned into a religious “ghost” because, well, marriage is religious.

    I am not talking here about the present Newsweek example. I’m talking about day-to-day coverage in places like the Style section of the LAT.

    Mollie accurately states the intended direction of GetReligion but, on this topic, the performance is something else.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    DAVE:

    The Newsweek cover is all about religion.

    What is the fabricated religion angle in questioning how they handled this issue, in terms of accurate journalism dealing with both sides of the dispute?

    You’re going to tell me there isn’t a dispute here and that religious doctrine is not involved in this journalism case study?

  • Nicholas

    I am not talking here about the present Newsweek example.

    tmatt, I think you need to read his last post more carefully.

  • http://www.colombianito2.blogspot.com Sergio Méndez

    “We don’t even care about the opinion pages of mainstream publications.

    We only care about mainstream news coverage of religion.”

    Well, the problem is that the article in question seems to be more a an opinion column and not a “coverage of religious news”. Your beef with the article is that it makes a case for gay marriage and that it criticizes conservative arguments for it. The arguments may be wrong or right (and certainly I find them to be right, since the main argument is not that there is a religious case for marriage, but that conservatives have double standards regarding marriage and biblical tradition), but that is open to discusion. You are just jumping over Menham cause he dares to criticize conservatives….pffff

  • http://kingslynn.blogspot.com C. Wingate

    Dave, nobody had to “fabricate a religion angle”. The fact that Post-Newsweek put this stuff on the Post‘s religion page is evidence enough that they intended it as a religion article.

  • Dave

    Terry and C Wingate, I repeat that I was not talking about the instant imbroglio with Newsweek. I was talking about earlier skewering, under cover of a fraudulent religious “ghost,” of the Los Angeles Times for “cheerleading” gay marriage.

    To any who wonder why Newsweek/WaPo has been “digging itself deeper” — the overall reaction to the Miller story has been pretty much the same as it would have been if it had been based on careful scriptural analysis and had cited opponents as well as boosters of marriage equity. I assume they expected this, and that in this business there is almost no such thing as bad publicity.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Dave,

    I understand that you see a narrower scope for this blog’s interest in same-sex marriage and abortion stories than I do. I tend to see a very broad scope for this blog and occasionally sneak in posts about the religion ghosts in various morality and environmentalism stories.

    But it’s illogical and grossly unfair to say that orthodox religious folks would have responded to the Newsweek story the same way if their views had been properly included.

    It may be what Newsweek editors prefer to think, but it’s not backed up by any evidence and denigrates the views of millions of people of faith — and good faith.

  • Stephen A.

    This blog criticizes journalistic “cheerleading” for gay marriage — and Mollie is a big anti-cheerleader in that endeavour — and simply fabricates a religion angle. The fact that the Los Angeles Times is biased on this topic, a liberal bias, is turned into a religious “ghost” because, well, marriage is religious.

    You’re right. She is an “anti-cheerleader.” How dare she suggest that the media NOT be cheerleaders for one side over another. I mean, what does she expect from them? BALANCE?
    /sarcasm.

    Whether the bias is liberal or not is not relevant. But since the MSM is overwhelmingly slanted in that direction, it’s like taking someone to task for talking about water when you’re both standing under Niagara Falls.

    And a “ghost” implies something of a religious nature is missing in a news report. By that definition alone, posts on various papers’ failure to include a religious angle is surely “on topic” for this blog.

  • Dave

    But it’s illogical and grossly unfair to say that orthodox religious folks would have responded to the Newsweek story the same way if their views had been properly included.

    It would not have been identical, which is why I said “pretty much” the same.

    I’ve seen, on the UU email list for BGLTs and straight allies, a rabbinical outline of how God’s expectations of us has changed throughout history, and how scripture must be read in a different light than when it was first reduced to writing. The author was a bit peeved that Miller had not referred to any of that interview but quoted a snippet of a phone call in the article. But if he had been quoted more fully, there would still have been screams of disagreement from people who read the bible in a different way. The general volume of comments, the sources of same, and the balance between support and denunciation if that had been more typical of the article, would have been, I repeat, pretty much the same.

    As to whether conservative views should have been included, to be fair to Newsweek I must point out that that’s not what the article was about. The conservative adrenaline level in response might have been lower if conservative readings of scripture had been more accurately presented, but that wasn’t the subject. And, as I pointed out in a comment to an earlier article on this subject, the views that Miller attributed to conservatives is what you might call the street-level conservative argument. It was incomplete; it was not out of place.

    Putting it in a more subjective frame, the response has been pretty much — not in detail — what Newsweek likely expected. There’s no call to be shocked at WaPo/Newsweek not learning anything from the response; it was, in all likelihood, anticipated.

    I have no point of disagreement on how flawed the Miller article was. I’m simply saying that the response to the actual article is not that different from what Newsweek could have reasonably expected from a much better article.

  • Jonathan

    Dave,
    I don’t think that’s entirely true that the response would not have been different if the article would have been journalistically better. As evidence, I present Kenneth Woodward, former religion writer for Newsweek. When Woodward would write (in the 90s) on the then-hip Jesus Seminar, he would let them have their say and the article would be focused mostly on their way of doing biblical analysis. BUT, he would also present at least a couple of biblical scholars on the other side of the fence who would offer critique to their position. It was not necessarily balanced in the absolute number of experts for/against the Jesus Seminar approach but he allowed for the alternative voice to be heard.

    In contrast to Woodward’s journalistic approach to controversial religious topics, we get the inferior non-journalistic approach of Miller and Meacham. After Woodward left, I would cringe when I’d see any article about a controversial religious topic because I knew that the journalistic balance that Woodward brought to the arena would not be there.

    If Newsweek brought back a real journalist like Woodward, most of these problems would go away. But it seems clear that Meacham has no interest in good, old-fashioned American journalism anymore. Which is why I’m not renewing my Newsweek subscription after 16 years of being a regular reader.

  • Stephen A.

    As to whether conservative views should have been included, to be fair to Newsweek I must point out that that’s not what the article was about. The conservative adrenaline level in response might have been lower if conservative readings of scripture had been more accurately presented, but that wasn’t the subject

    The parts in bold, above, I do not understand.

    News articles, if they are balanced, include both sides.

    As noted before, if this had been properly labeled “opinion” or “commentary” then I would have seen no problem with it, since it would only have been the obvious revelation of bias on the part of that writer.

    I don’t know why this is complicated: When you report ONE side of an issue, report the OTHER side too. Geez. Reporting 101.

  • Dave

    Jonathan and Stephen, I’ve already acknowledged that the Newsweek article was flawed. That dead horse’s morale isn’t improving any from being beaten. I stand by my point: The actual response is close enough to what a well-written article to the same point would likely have evoked, to make it no mystery why WaPo/Newsweek hasn’t “learned better.”

  • Jonathan

    Dave,
    My point in bringing in former writer Kenneth Woodward was to refute your point that the response would be the same. I agree that certain responses like the AFA were inevitable (those groups came out all the time when Woodward would write about the Jesus Seminar or the other “gotcha” Christmas or Easter stories), BUT I contend that the response would have been different and less heated if Woodward had written a cover story with the SAME TITLE. (Of course, Meacham would probably not have stood for what Woodward would write because it would have differed greatly with Meachams’s editorial philosophy and choices.)

    So, my point was not to beat this dead horse (which you have aptly pointed out has been done) but to specifically suggest that the response could have been different and perhaps more muted with different journalistic choices. (You may still disagree with this assessment, and at this point it’s really a theoretical exercise anyway, but I wanted to clarify what I was responding to.)

  • Dave

    Jonathan, I never said the response would be identical, only proximate.

    I’m sometimes amazed at how many times I have to repeat the same point here. We are smarter people than that.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Dave,

    I don’t know if people are asking you to repeat the point so much as provide any evidence that supports your allegation.

  • Kenneth L. Woodward

    If I may say, I never gave much space at all to members of The Jesus Seminar because I never thought they knew that much, other than Crossan in his early work on the parables of Jesus. I found the Miller piece quite crude in its argument, incredibly selective in its choice of “experts” and proof again that you have to do more than consult a roledex if you are going to write about the Bible on anything–you have to know something about it in the first place.