And now the kiss-in at Chick-fil-A

August 3, 2012 By

Let’s do another quick recap on media coverage of the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. Yesterday we discussed the decision of Mark Krzos, a Fort Myers News-Press reporter, to publicly disparage the people he was covering for his local paper. We already updated the post to show that his editor responded to the controversy but you can also see his public statement denouncing the reporter’s comments at Romenesko.

I asked readers for examples of good and bad coverage and I think it’s worth looking at the links to good coverage. Some were great. But one of the things I find interesting is that many small and mid-size papers seemed to do better than the big hitters.

Over at The Weekly Standard, Michael Warren wrote an interesting post about the long lines and traffic jams that Chick-fil-A outlets across the country experienced. The rumors that Chick-fil-A set a sales record yesterday were confirmed by the Associated Press. The links below might not take you to the August 2 papers anymore, but I clicked on them yesterday and Warren accurately characterized the papers:

But you wouldn’t know anything about the national phenomenon by reading the front pages of most of the country’s leading newspapers. There’s no mention of Chick-fil-A on the front pages of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, and the Boston Globe. The front pages of USA Today, the Dallas Morning News, and the Houston Chronicle have small headlines about the restaurant, while Chick-fil-A’s hometown paper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, fits in a story below the fold under the heading, “Chick-fil-A Controversy.” And the front pages of major news websites are quiet in their coverage as well.

He goes on to look at the scant coverage inside the papers, too. I still am surprised that the Washington Post only ran a photograph, sans story, of the event. It’s just weird news sense. Warren also pointed out that “the Newseum’s collection of the top ten newspaper covers from around the country seems to recognize the biggest national news story of the day. The papers covering the story aren’t just located in the South, Chick-fil-A’s regional base; smaller papers from Colorado, Ohio, New York, and California were all over the story.” And they really were some good covers. And some bad covers, but they got that the issue was of interest to readers. Again, this is not rocket science. At the very least, a photo of the lines snaking out Chick-fil-A doors or filling up parking lots and drive-thrus is a good idea for a front pager.

Whether a story gets prominent coverage, snuck-in-the-back-section coverage or no coverage helps readers identify its importance or significance. That so many prominent papers left the story uncovered or meekly covered tells us that they didn’t view it as important.

Part of that could be related to confusion about what the “appreciation day” meant. I can think of no better example of that than the video embedded above. It’s shaky but it’s some dude walking around and then trying to help the CBS affiliate in Atlanta find parking. But, they explain, they don’t need help because they’re leaving. They thought it was going to be a protest but it’s only “appreciation day” so they’re leaving. You have to defecate on some cop cars to get good coverage, I guess. Just kidding.

Reader Martha writes:

If I understand correctly, there is going to be a same-sex kiss-in protest at Chick-fil-A restaurants – I don’t know if this is national or at selected ones.

What will be instructive is to compare the coverage of this and the ‘day of eating chicken sandwiches’ yesterday. Will the national media decide this is newsworthy? What will the relative numbers look like? If twenty people show up for tomorrow, will that garner as much or more, or more prominent/more detailed, coverage than Chick-fil-A restaurant running out of chicken due to the increased demand?

Yes. I’m unsure if the lead-up to this event has been covered well. I did see notice about it in many stories I read about the “appreciation day” but I haven’t had time to dig through the coverage. Let us know if there are good or bad stories on this protest. I did see this Los Angeles Times story that is, of course, currently on the front-page of its web site. It tells us that “GLAAD” (it doesn’t spell out the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, for some reason) is backing a variety of protests against the company, including a same-sex kiss-in at Chick-fil-A outlets. The reporter uses the  Southern Poverty Law Center as its basis for calling various conservative groups “anti-gay.” Reporters should not use that outlet as an arbiter of such things.

The SPLC likes to go after groups with political views it opposes by designating them as “hate groups.” You might be more familiar with the term “hate group” when it’s used to refer to groups that incite violence. The group’s most recent hate group report was met with guffaws for the overwrought categorization of some “Patriot” groups and including pick-up artists on its list. A friend on Twitter said that the working definition of an SPLC hate group is nothing more than a group that SPLC hates. In coverage on hot button issues such as this, the media are pretty good at not uncritically repeating claims from sources on one end of the culture battles but not as good when the target of criticism is different.

Anyway, the story tries to include some different perspectives, such as gay and lesbian supporters who question the planned protest. Except that should have been done better, I think. If you thought buying a chicken sandwich was a weird way to protest, this one might also arch some eyebrows:

“We are encouraging those of us who support LGBT rights and LGBT equality to show up at their local Chick-fil-A tomorrow and kiss someone of the same sex,” said Carly McGehee, a New York-based political activist who started the idea for the kiss-in.

The campaigns follow Wednesday’s stunning turnout for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, a day on which Americans were urged to support the company. The company did not release sales figures but said it was a “record-setting day.”

Nationwide, at least 15,000 people have agreed to participate in the kiss-in, McGehee said. But even among LGBT supporters, some wonder whether such an in-your-face act might be too provocative, or amount to taunting.

Unfortunately, the only comments from people questioning the protest come from anonymous people on the Causes.com web site page urging participation. It would be nice to have some names attached to the people characterizing the protest as “hate-filled,” “aggressive,” “provocative” and “inciting anger.” Anonymous critiques aren’t fair to proponents of such activity.

The piece ends with a statement from the company:

“We understand from news reports that Friday may present yet another opportunity for us to serve with genuine hospitality, superior service and great food.”

Not bad. It might be nice to have a few other perspectives, too. I’m sure we’ll those included in subsequent coverage. Let us know if you see anything particularly good or bad.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Journalism, Politics, Same-sex marriage

Democrats back gay marriage: Who you gonna call?

August 1, 2012 By

At the moment, I am up in the mountains of North Carolina, which is one of those places where the occasional Democrat running for higher office will go out of his or her way to put the word “conservative” on the campaign yard signs so that they can try to hang on to the remnant of the good old days down here in the Bible Belt.

“Conservative” can mean lots of things these days, from standing up for the religious freedom of religious schools to, well, eating a chicken sandwich YOU KNOW WHERE. But mainly it means that this Democrat is not all that happy about trends in the national party.

I thought about this political fact of life when I was reading the celebratory report in The New York Times about the work being done to add a pro-gay marriage plank to the platform of said Democratic Party. Here’s a sample:

Gay rights supporters praised the Democratic Party’s vote. “Like Americans from all walks of life, the Democratic Party has recognized that committed and loving gay and lesbian couples deserve the right to have their relationships respected as equal under the law,” said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “I believe that one day very soon the platforms of both major parties will include similar language on this issue.”

The Democratic Party platform that was drafted four years ago, when Mr. Obama was first running for president, called for “full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation,” and for “equal responsibility, benefits and protections.”

But the platform stopped short of endorsing same-sex marriages, in part because Mr. Obama had said he remained opposed.

Despite the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage, the issue remains a difficult one for some Democrats, particularly those in the midst of hard-fought re-election campaigns in conservative-leaning states. Those include Tim Kaine, the former Democratic National Committee chairman who is running for Senate in Virginia, and Senators Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jon Tester of Montana.

Now this got me to thinking about the journalistic footwork that reporters and editors might do to get some intellectual balance into stories about this subject.

So stop and think about this for a moment. Let’s turn this coin over.

What if the Republic Party somehow managed to do something totally predictable on gay-rights issues, like take a stand in defense of religious freedom or freedom of association or what not. Journalists covering this story would need — thinking logically — to get responses from two different groups.

First of all, they would need to reach liberals and gay-rights groups, those who would oppose this action. Then the reporters would need to contact people INSIDE the GOP who were opposed to the action. Can anyone imagine this story running without on-the-record reactions coming from Log Cabin Republicans, moral libertarians, etc., etc.? There are groups inside the GOP that speak up for the gay-rights cause. They should be quoted.

Now, let’s transfer this over to the Democrats, to the story that is currently unfolding. Obviously, we need to hear the views of outsiders who oppose this move — a quote from someone on the Religious Right, perhaps. Then we need a quote from a morally conservative, traditional-religion-friendly group inside the Democratic Party. You know, blue-collar, traditional Catholics in labor families, African-American churchgoers, Latino Catholics and others of that ilk.

So, truth be told, the Times team does come through on half of this journalistic task. Want to guess which half?

Peter S. Sprigg, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, predicted that Democrats will regret their decision to include the marriage plank in their platform.

“There are many places in the country where Democratic candidates will not want to be identified with the gay-marriage party,” Mr. Sprigg said. “I think this is more politically correct than it is politically smart.”

So, that’s a very predictable voice on the moral and cultural right. Now, where is that crucial vote from the right side of the Democratic Party, the voice that would be the counterpart of a pro-gay-rights GOP voice in a story about the Republicans?

Sorry about that. Maybe the folks at The Washington Post found a morally and culturally conservative voice in the diverse reality that is the modern Democratic Party? Maybe? Just maybe?

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Baptists, Catholicism, Evangelicals, Marriage & family, Orthodoxy, Pentecostalism, Politics, Same-sex marriage, Sex, Social Issues

Catholic marriage chief Cordileone sent to San Francisco

July 30, 2012 By

On Friday, the Vatican announced that Oakland Bishop Salvatore Cordileone would become the archbishop of San Francisco, succeeding Archbishop George Niederauer who hit retirement age last year.

Cordileone is notable for his work with immigrants, his canon law expertise, his work on the traditional Latin Mass and his leadership in the bishops’ national effort to defend the traditional definition of marriage. So in an era where roughly 65% of all news must be pegged to something dealing with homosexuality, you will not be surprised by the headlines:

Gay marriage ban supporter named SF archbishop

New SF Archbishop is Staunch Same-Sex Marriage Opponent

Oakland bishop, noted Prop. 8 supporter, named archbishop of San Francisco

Vatican’s controversial choice for new SF Archbishiop introduced

Same-sex marriage opponent named SF archbishop

The reader who sent in these headlines wrote, “You get the point.” And yes, we get the point. (Have you ever noticed that people on one side of an issue get called staunch but if they take a mirror opposite position, they’re not called staunch?) It’s really all that matters these days, right? Of course, Cordileone’s support of traditional marriage laws is exactly what you’d focus on in a headline, too, right? What I hoped for, however, was a bit more information in the body of the stories on Cordileone and his work. Whispers in Loggia, for instance, emphasized the same-sex marriage issues while also giving tons of other information about Cordileone and the San Francisco archdiocese.

The Associated Press story tells us nothing about Cordileone other than his views on same-sex marriage. And the tone of the piece is what I’d call “seething.” We’re told he “was instrumental in devising an initiative to strip same-sex couples of the right to wed in California and then raising Catholic dollars to qualify it for the ballot.” The only outsider quoted in the piece is the president of the Human Rights Campaign.

Or how about this odd lede from the Mercury News:

SAN FRANCISCO — Oakland Bishop Rev. Salvatore Cordileone — an active opponent of gay marriage — will become the archbishop of San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin Counties, it was announced Friday, prompting disappointment by same-sex marriage activists and delight from their opponents.

Isn’t polarization fun? At least the News expands beyond same-sex marriage. Can someone explain to me why the word “but” is here in the middle of this paragraph?:

Cordileone is known as a theologically conservative bishop faithful to the Catholic orthodoxy. He supports abolishing the death penalty but called on Catholics to vote for an initiative on the November ballot that requires parental consent for minors seeking an abortion.

That makes no sense to me. It reads like “He supports a Catholic position on one issue but then he supported Catholic teaching on another issue.” We also get a wider range of critics weighing in on this story. It’s not just people who support redefining marriage but also Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

Readers noted that the San Francisco Chronicle‘s initial story (at the same url) was barebones, to understate wildly. But it got fleshed out late that night.

And I think this lede says it all:

The Vatican on Friday named a prominent religious official who has been a leader in the fight against same-sex marriage as San Francisco’s new archbishop, the latest in a string of conservatives to lead Catholics in one of the country’s most liberal areas.

Salvatore Cordileone, 56, organized religious leaders and helped raise significant sums of money to get Proposition 8, the 2008 initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California, on the ballot and spoke forcefully in support of it. He is also chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage.

In his first statements after the Vatican’s announcement, Cordileone, the current bishop of Oakland, touched on a range of topics, from cultural diversity to immigration reform. But reporters barraged him with questions about same-sex marriage. His response was resolute.

“Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, because children can only come about with the embrace of a man and a woman together,” he said. “I don’t see how that’s discriminatory against anyone.”

It might still focus on same-sex marriage but it’s less angry than the other reports. And it fully admits straight up at the top that the single-minded obsession on same-sex marriage comes from reporters, not Cordileone. (And it’s so much better than this sister story in the Chronicle, which I believe is supposed to be straight news and not opinion.)

I mean, it’s still the Chronicle, which means you get a really weak quote from a supporter of traditional marriage laws followed by a thoughtful quote from an opponent of same. But then this:

Cordileone said he wouldn’t shy away from the struggle of being a conservative voice in a liberal area, but it left him perturbed that marriage would be so much of a focus of his appointment.

“To be honest, I’m kind of frustrated,” he said. “I wish I didn’t have to expend so much time and energy on something that should be self-evident.

“But this is the high-profile issue,” he said. “It’s a foundational issue. For whatever God’s reason, it’s the issue he’s given us at this point in history, so I’m not going to run from it.”

Then we learn a lot about how Cordileone’s predecessor was also pivotal in California’s support for retaining the definition of marriage as a heterosexual institution. We get the obligatory quote from the Rev. Thomas Reese talking about marriage laws. That makes sense since the Georgetown University prof was probably the closest priest available for comment. Ha.

But the story includes other tidbits, such as that Cordileone delivered a speech in both English and Spanish just hours after he was named as well as why that’s important given the demographics of the area. He’ll be the first fluent Spanish-speaking archbishop there since Joseph Sadoc Alemany was named archbishop in 1853. We learn about which dioceses he will oversee. And we get some nice background about his extensive ties to San Francisco. Also, I was glad that the story picked up on the significance of his installation date, which is how the story ends:

Cordileone will be installed Oct. 4, the feast day for St. Francis of Assisi, for whom San Francisco is named.

If you’re going to focus extensively on same-sex marriage, it’s nice to be somewhat transparent about who is driving the focus. But it’s also true that while journalists seem to believe that support for same-sex marriage is the most important doctrinal test any citizen must pass, there is actually much more to a person than his or her belief in retaining a definition of marriage as a conjugal union of husband and wife or opposition to same definition. And for Catholics in California, even if that is an important issue, there are many other issues of importance. Let’s hope that the media calm down a bit in their drive to politicize everything or make everything about same-sex marriage and open up their range of interest just a tad.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Catholicism, Journalism, Same-sex marriage

Shocking! AP quotes Chick-fil-A leader accurately!

July 27, 2012 By

OK, I know that this will be hard. But, take a deep cleansing breath and try, try, try to think back to the journalism issues that were at the heart of my first GetReligion post on this whole Chick-fil-A media hurricane.

Lot’s of people, of course, ignored my central point. That’s par for the course.

Yes, I was well aware of the longstanding tensions between Chick-fil-A and gay-rights activists and, yes, I was aware that there is a history there that must be reported.

Yes, I was aware that Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy has made many comments, in defense of his traditional Christian beliefs, that have implications for debates about same-sex marriage. His stance is very old news.

Also, I was aware that consumers can get a bit upset when corporations and/or their leaders make statements linked to hot-button public issues. This kind of flair up has happened before and it will happen again. My diet may require me to avoid Oreo cookies right now, but I will certainly continue to use Apple computers, read The New York Times, etc., etc. I’m a big First Amendment guy, so I would never deny activists — left or right — the freedom to speak their minds and, yes, that includes symbolic actions such as boycotts.

The point of that first post — click here for a refresher — was to say that a host of news organizations were out of line when they took Cathy’s Baptist Press quotes on “traditional marriage” and, in their paraphrases, turned them into direct comments on homosexuality, even though he was never asked about gay issues in this interview and, thus, never addressed gay issues at that time. His focus appeared to be on divorce.

Should these news organizations have produced stories that covered the tensions of the past? Of course.

Should their coverage have included other Cathy quotes — comments made before and after The Biblical Recorder interview that was circulated by Baptist Press — that were more relevant to gay-rights debates? Of course.

So what would accurate coverage have looked like in this case? What, in effect, was I asking journalists to do? That’s simple: I was asking journalists to be precise and accurate in their quotes. Period. It’s a journalism thing.

What does that look like?

Well, consider the following material in an Associated Press story (“Chick-fil-A Sandwiches Become a Political Symbol“) about this whole absurd media storm about this very old, old story:

Gay rights groups have called for a boycott, the Jim Henson Co. pulled its Muppet toys from kids’ meals, and politicians in Boston and Chicago told the chain it is not welcome there.

Across the Bible Belt, where most of the 1,600 restaurants are situated, Christian conservatives have thrown their support behind the Atlanta-based company, promising to buy chicken sandwiches and waffle fries next week on “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.”

The latest skirmish in the nation’s culture wars began when Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press that the company was “guilty as charged” for backing “the biblical definition of a family.” In a later radio interview, he ratcheted up the rhetoric: “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’”

That fired up gay rights advocates, including a group that waged a campaign against the company in recent years by publicizing $3 million in contributions that the Cathy family foundation has made to conservative organizations such as the Family Research Council.

Yes, AP missed that the actual interview was not with Baptist Press, but with a state Southern Baptist newspaper. That’s not a major mistake. Yes, the reference to Cathy’s “guilty as charged” statement lacks context, but it is not inaccurate. Then AP crisply and accurately quoted the stronger statement from the radio interview.

There, was that so hard?

Later in the story, readers also were reminded of these very old facts:

The Cathy family has never hid its Southern Baptist faith. Since Dan Cathy’s father, Truett, opened the first Chick-fil-A in 1967, the restaurants have been closed on Sundays, and the company refused to reconsider during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, sacrificing profits. It also boasts that the Chick-fil-A Bowl is the only college football bowl game with an invocation.

Chick-fil-A posted more than $4.1 billion in sales last year, most of it below the Mason-Dixon Line. Just 14 of its restaurants are in the six states and the District of Columbia where gay marriage is legal. Massachusetts has just two locations, both more than 10 miles from Boston. Illinois, which does not have same-sex marriage, has around a dozen, though only one in Chicago.

The company is well-positioned to come through the criticism relatively unscathed, even if it loses new markets in the North and elsewhere, University of Georgia marketing professor Sundar Bharadwaj said. He said that is because Chick-fil-A basically reflects the politics of its customers.

Then there is the whole First Amendment thing, but you get the point. It is not all that hard to quote controversial people accurately. Just do it.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Business & Economy, Evangelicals, People, Same-sex marriage

The media’s irrational fear of Chick-fil-A

July 26, 2012 By

I was reading this Bloomberg analysis by Josh Barro of the most recent movement against Chick-fil-A, which I’ll share before I get to what I really want to talk about:

In Chicago, each local alderman has de facto control over neighborhood zoning. And Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno has announced that Chick-fil-A is not welcome to build a planned restaurant in his Logan Square ward because of Chief Executive Officer Dan Cathy’s comments in opposition to gay marriage.

The Chicago Tribune reports:

“If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward,” Moreno told the Tribune on Tuesday.

Moreno stated his position in strong terms, referring to Cathy’s “bigoted, homophobic comments” in a proposed opinion page piece that an aide also sent to Tribune reporters. “Because of this man’s ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward.”

This isn’t just bad policy; it’s unconstitutional. Local governments generally have broad discretion over zoning, but they cannot use it to violate the constitutional rights of landowners. You can block a project because you think it’s too big but not because the developer is black, wants to build a Mosque or opposes gay marriage.

This issue last popped up in the debate over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, whose opponents floated various wrongheaded, and unconstitutional, strategies to block its developers from building.

Ah yes. The so-called Ground Zero Mosque. The media obsession of August 2010. You might remember how the mainstream media covered that debate. Anyone who expressed even the slightest discomfort about a mosque being built near Ground Zero (much less raising funds because of this fact) was branded Islamophobic. That was the term used whether or not those citizens expressing discomfort wanted to do what Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago Alderman Proco Moreno have said they’ll do: use the power of the government to block the group they oppose. In fact, most of them didn’t. They just said they didn’t like it. Now my own view is that in a free country people should have the right to build whatever they want on their own property, but I wrote several posts (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) about the shoddy media coverage of people who did not agree with my views.

Time, for instance, wrote a cover story headlined “Is America Islamophobic?” The actual text of the story acknowledged no evidence to substantiate the charge, but had paragraphs like this:

Although the American strain of Islamophobia lacks some of the traditional elements of religious persecution — there’s no sign that violence against Muslims is on the rise, for instance — there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence that hate speech against Muslims and Islam is growing both more widespread and more heated.

So of course I was curious how Time would cover actual government crackdowns on Christians for their speech. Boston and Chicago are big cities. The mayor of Chicago, one Rahm Emmanuel, actually backed his alderman up after he said he’d use the power of the state to block a private company for the religious views of its CEO. By contrast, you might recall Mayor Bloomberg actually moved to ease the mosque’s bureaucratic burdens back in 2010. And you have celebrities saying stuff like:

anyone who eats [expletive] Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating tortured chickens 4Christ

Her follow-up tweet is even better. You know, just “anecdotal evidence of hate speech” against Christians. So is Time‘s approach going to blare the headline “Is America Christianophobic? What the anti-chicken sandwich uproar tells us about how the U.S. regards Christians”? Is it? I just know that they are going to refer to phobias, right?

We all know that phobias are irrational fears. And if feeling uncomfortable about the construction of a large mosque near the site of a massive terrorist attack committed in the name of Islam is an irrational fear, surely using the power of the government to keep perfectly-fried chicken sandwiches away from the good people of Chicago and Boston is an irrational fear, right? So let’s check out the -phobia headline used by Time magazine in its story about this recent manufactured media outrage. Christianophobia is clunky but it’s the best parallel. Is that the phobia that will be invoked in the headline? Let’s check it out:

Boston Mayor Blocks Chick-fil-A Franchise from City over Homophobic Attitude

Wait, what?

The attitude that Time wants to call out is not the mayor’s but the one that’s on the receiving end of government’s big stick here? And we’re going to call the belief that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman … “homophobic”? Really? Or as one political reporter I follow on Twitter put it:

Did Time magazine ever call Clinton or Obama “homophobic” when they were against gay marriage?

I don’t think we need to do a Nexis search to answer that one. These same views are called “anti-gay,” a phrase I also don’t remember being used against President Obama to describe his support of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The article is just embarrassing in its obvious support for Menino.

It includes some more basic information about how Chick-fil-A has more than 1600 restaurants in 29 states and brings in $4.1 billion a year. And we learn that while Menino blatantly discriminates against people who hold views that differ from his, Chick-fil-A doesn’t. I suppose that’s helpful information.

But nowhere do we learn anything about people having any fear of homosexuals, much less an irrational fear of them. If you are a reporter, I think that you should learn what phobia means. And then when you learn what it means, you should use it only when referring to, well, phobias. Phobia is not a civil way to discuss views you disagree with. Leave the childish taunts to the children. And when you become a big boy or girl with a real job, start writing and speaking like an adult.

And when government officials in positions of authority are talking about infringing upon another group’s freedom because of someone’s religious views, go ahead and call up a First Amendment expert. This Time piece, you won’t be surprised, didn’t even mention First Amendment concerns. The Chicago Tribune barely mentioned them before scooting right on to something else. This New York Times piece was fine, but it didn’t mention the issue either.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Baptists, Journalism, Same-sex marriage

Where’s the beef? What the Chick-fil-A boss really said

July 20, 2012 By

So, did you hear about that wild quote that the president of Chick-fil-A didn’t say the other day?

Here’s a piece of a CNN report that is typical of the mainstream press coverage of this latest cyber-skirmish in America’s battles over homosexuality, commerce and free speech (sort of).

(CNN) – The fact that Chick-fil-A is a company that espouses Christian values is no secret. The fact that its 1,600 fast-food chicken restaurants across the country are closed on Sundays has long been testament to that. But the comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage to Baptist Press on Monday have ignited a social media wildfire.

“Guilty as charged,”, Cathy said when asked about his company’s support of the traditional family unit as opposed to gay marriage.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that,” Cathy is quoted as saying.

Now, one would assume — after reading a reference to the “comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage” — that this interview from the Biblical Recorder in North Carolina (which was circulated by Baptist Press) actually included direct quotes from Cathy in which he talks about, well, gay marriage.

In this case, one cannot assume that.

While the story contains tons of material defending traditional Christian teachings on sexuality, the controversial entrepreneur never talks about gay rights or gay marriage. Why? Because he wasn’t asked about those issues in the interview.

This raises an interesting journalistic question: Is a defense of one doctrine automatically the same thing as an on-the-record attack on the opposite doctrine? In this case, is it accurate for CNN (and others) to say that Cathy made comments about gay marriage when, in fact, he did not speak words addressing that issue?

But wait, readers might say, everyone KNOWS what he was talking about! And, once his actual comments were quoted, kind of, in the mainstream press, it was then possible to quote many people who offered their angry reactions to his actual words because of their interpretation of them.

This is certainly true. It would have been easy to have quoted several of the tsunami of tweets, blog comments and other commentaries blasting Cathy for his defense of basic Christian doctrines. You know, those quotes that sound like this, drawing from the actual interview:

“We don’t claim to be a Christian business,” Cathy told the Biblical Recorder in a recent visit to North Carolina. He attended a business leadership conference many years ago where he heard Christian businessman Fred Roach say, “There is no such thing as a Christian business.”

“That got my attention,” Cathy said. Roach went on to say, “Christ never died for a corporation. He died for you and me.”

“In that spirit … [Christianity] is about a personal relationship. Companies are not lost or saved, but certainly individuals are,” Cathy added. “But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles. So that is what we claim to be. [We are] based on biblical principles, asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have. And He has blessed us.”

And the marriage thing?

The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners. It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.

“That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries,” Cathy added.

Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. …

“We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

So there is the context. It certainly would be easy for journalists to talk to the company’s critics and, thus, to establish a gay-rights context for this discussion, if that is the goal. But that isn’t my point, of course. That isn’t what CNN, and others, did in their reports. They reported that Cathy made comments, that he spoke words directly addressing gay-rights issues, that he delivered a series of negative, anti-gay remarks. In effect, Cathy is being quoted saying words that he said, as well as words that he did not say.

Thus, the author of the original Biblical Recorder story, K. Allan Blume, has since noted:

During a call-in radio interview Thursday (July 19) with WORD-FM in Pittsburgh, K. Allan Blume described his conversation with Chick-fil-A’s Dan Cathy as “very positive,” unlike how it is being portrayed in a variety of news reports. …

Many of those reports “turned [the original story] into a negative,” said Blume, adding the term “anti-gay” never came up in the June interview while Cathy was speaking in the Raleigh, N.C., area.

“He was not saying ‘guilty as charged anti-gay,’” Blume added. “[Cathy] never even brought up that subject. Everything he stated was on the positive side … He never stated anything negative.”

Picky, picky? Well, yes. It would have been so easy for the mainstream press to have reported Cathy’s remarks accurately and, then, to have accurately reported the comments of those who were more than happy to criticize the Chick-fil-A leader’s conservative views on marriage.

That equation is par for the journalistic course. But is it fair game to actually state, as fact, that the man said things that he didn’t say?

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Baptists, Business & Economy, Journalism, People, Same-sex marriage, Sex, Social Issues

Rum, sodomy and the cash: The Episcopal Church 2012

July 13, 2012 By

The Wall Street Journal’s “Houses of Worship” column has printed a spirited review of the recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church held 5-12 July 2012 in Indianapolis. The reporter’s style in “What Ails the Episcopalians” is engaging as is the ebullient energy found in his report on the church’s follies.

Yet, there is a problem — the author’s insights are largely superficial and the reader cannot rely on him as a guide to the deeper meaning of the things he describes. Silly things take place at Episcopal Church General Conventions — I have covered the last six — yet, the Episcopal Church and its presiding bishop are not guilty of the crimes leveled against them in this article.

Let me concede up front that this article is written as a commentary or news analysis piece, and as such, normally not subject to critique by your GetReligionistas. However, the narrative offered to substantiate the opinions presented here “ain’t necessarily so.” This is an egregiously bad article, and that is unfortunate as the leaders of the Episcopal Church, along with those of many other mainline denominations, need to be shaken out of their complacency.

Follow me through this article and I will show you were the problems lie.

The author begins his report stating the church had just concluded the triennial meeting of its General Convention, notes the large number of participants in the gathering and then states:

General Convention is also notable for its sheer ostentation and carnival atmosphere. For seven straight nights, lavish cocktail parties spilled into pricey steakhouses, where bishops could use their diocesan funds to order bottles of the finest wines.

Alas if this were only true — I was present at the General Convention from start to finish and somehow missed the bacchanalia he describes. Among the nearly 5000 deputies, bishops, guests, exhibitors and members of the press corps some may have had the wherewithal to host “lavish” cocktail parties that moved on to “pricey steakhouses” – but they were not bishops. The era of privately monied bishops ended some time ago.

It continues:

During the day, legislators in the lower chamber, the House of Deputies, and the upper chamber, the House of Bishops, discussed such weighty topics as whether to develop funeral rites for dogs and cats, and whether to ratify resolutions condemning genetically modified foods. Both were approved by a vote, along with a resolution to “dismantle the effects of the doctrine of discovery,” in effect an apology to Native Americans for exposing them to Christianity.

Yes, among the 600 resolutions brought to the convention there were some odd items that were fatuous politically correct drivel — no question about that. However, the church did decline to endorse requiem masses for pets. But his next argument about the polity of the church — the way it orders its life — is false.

But the party may be over for the Episcopal Church, and so, probably, its experiment with democratic governance. Among the pieces of legislation that came before their convention was a resolution calling for a task force to study transforming the event into a unicameral—that is, a one-house—body. On Wednesday, a resolution to “re-imagine” the church’s governing body passed unanimously.

Formally changing the structure of General Convention will most likely formalize the reality that many Episcopalians already know: a church in the grip of executive committees under the direct supervision of the church’s secretive and authoritarian presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. They now set the agenda and decide well in advance what kind of legislation comes before the two houses.

The first assertion, that the church’s tradition of democratic governance is in jeopardy, and the second, that a cabal controlled by the “secretive and authoritarian presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori” controls the convention are incorrect. While she has enormous influence, the presiding bishop and her staff at the national church offices in New York City have no control over “what kind of legislation” comes before the two houses (as an aside it is the House of Deputies, what the WSJ calls the “lower house” that is the senior of the two, not the House of Bishops.)

Legislation in the form of resolutions can be proposed by the church’s national committees, bishops, any one of its 111 dioceses grouped in nine geographic provinces or by deputies to the convention. To say the presiding bishop controls “what kind of legislation comes before the two houses” speaks to a lack of knowledge about the church’s legislative process.

There is also a “dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t” tone in this article — the church is ridiculed for some of the silly things that are brought to the convention and  Bishop Jefferts Schori is accused of controlling the legislative process which brings forth these silly things. Which is it? Is she responsible for packing the legislative calendar to achieve her nefarious ends, or is she responsible for the froth and frippery that takes up so much of the convention’s time?

The article takes a turn away from the convention to pursue Bishop Jefferts Schori.

Bishop Schori is known for brazenly carrying a metropolitan cross during church processions. With its double horizontal bars, the metropolitan cross is a liturgical accouterment that’s typically reserved for Old World bishops. And her reign as presiding bishop has been characterized by actions more akin to a potentate than a clergywoman watching over a flock.

I’ve witnessed two of her predecessors as presiding bishop carry a metropolitan cross, and the one she is carrying in the photo appended to the article was given to her by former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold at her installation — bit of an unfair dig. The article also takes up the church’s property battles and money woes — pressing the conservative line with some vigor, and then takes a bizarre turn — one that is a dead giveaway that this author does not know what he is talking about.

And yet there are important issues at stake if laymen are further squeezed out of what was once a transparent legislative process. A long-standing quest by laymen to celebrate the Eucharist—even taking on functions of ordained ministers to consecrate bread and wine for Holy Communion, which is a favorite cause of the church’s left wing—would likely be snuffed out in a unicameral convention in which senior clergy held sway.

The assertion that lay celebration of the Eucharist is a “favorite cause of the church’s left wing” is preposterous. It is not the left but the low-church, evangelical right that has pushed for lay presidency. The chief proponents of this change to the church’s teachings are found in the Diocese of Sydney, Australia and among low churchmen — the most vocal opponents of Bishop Jefferts Schori  within the wider Anglican world.

The article moves from mistake to misstatement to mistake.  The “entire delegation” from the Diocese of South Carolina did not “storm out” — six of the eight members quietly withdrew. South Carolina Bishop Mark Lawrence explained to his colleagues why he felt called to leave early — his sadness at the adoption of rites for the blessing of same-sex couples — but made it clear that he, and the diocese, had not left the Episcopal Church.

And it is here that I have my greatest difficulty with this article. There were a number of highly contentious issues before the General Convention — the authorization of local rites for the blessing of same-sex unions, changing the requirement that a person be baptised before they receive Holy Communion, opening the ordination process to trans-gendered persons. Yet the controversy over gay blessings and the compromise reached within the church — a local option whereby it is lawful in those parts of the church that support the idea and unlawful in those areas that do not, and no priest may be compelled to perform such a ceremony — is not mentioned at all.

The first mistake the author makes in this story is in not defining his terms. What is a General Convention? What are its powers? This question currently is the subject of litigation before the Texas Supreme Court and lower courts in California and Illinois. Grounding the article by stating the powers exercised by this gathering are in dispute amongst Episcopalians would have been a better start.

However, the problem with the Episcopal Church is not cocktail swilling bishops or a power-mad gargoyles peering down at the church from a penthouse in Manhattan. Problems with alcohol and homosexuality, money and power are derivative issues that arise from the divide over the interpretation of Scripture and an understanding of the person of Jesus Christ. The fight may take the form over secondary issues such as morality of homosexual behavior or the role of women in the leadership of the church, but it is based upon a division over who Jesus Christ is and how Christians read, interpret and live out the teachings of the Bible.

While I am sympathetic to much that has been said, the article was a wasted opportunity to explain what really is going on. Reading “What Ails the Episcopalians” will not leave you any the wiser — and that is a shame. Just think what could have been done with this story, and was not.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Anglicanism, First Person, Journalism, Same-sex marriage, Worship

Modern loyalty oaths vs. all those ancient doctrines?

July 12, 2012 By

I have reached three basic conclusions after reading the same front-page Washington Post story that Mollie responded to earlier today.

You see, without knowing it we both started pounding out our own separate reactions. As you would expect, there’s quite a bit of overlap. Nevertheless, I have some reactions that add to her take on this.

Let’s start with three basic observations, after mulling over the contents of this story:

(1) It appears that liberal Catholics listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit. Conservative Catholics prefer, for some reason, to listen to fallible men called “bishops.”

(2) The Post seems to love, love, love believers whose approach to doctrine and church history mirrors that of the modernized Episcopal Church, especially when those people are billed as reformers in the Roman Catholic Church.

(3) Based on years of reading Post coverage of the many doctrinal battles between liberal and conservative Episcopalians, it appears that it absolutely crucial for conservative Episcopalians to obey their liberal bishops (and everyone heads to secular courts if they cannot work things out), but it isn’t terribly important for liberal Catholics to obey their conservative bishops, even when those bishops are acting in obedience to that Bishop of Rome guy.

MZ’s post contains the story’s crucial quotes, but I believe that it is truly crucial for GetReligion readers to read the whole Post report — just to be fair. Pay special attention to the references to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

For me, the key to the whole Post story is that the bishops, and their acolytes, appear to be charged with defending the opinions — political in nature, of course — of elite church officials who exist in the here and now. For example, centuries of church teachings on abortion represent a political statement in this day and age, not an affirmation of, let’s say, the doctrines stated in the First Century document called the Didache. What we have here is the current pope ordering the current bishops to enforce orthodoxy on modern opinions about modern political controversies. Ancient doctrines? Creeds? What?

As it should, the Post story includes lots of quotes from Catholics who are critical of the pope and the bishops. However, these quotes clearly establish their anger with the church hierarchy, but never offer firm details on the unorthodox beliefs of these liberal Catholics.

Let me underline, once again, one of the story’s crucial quotes, from protestor Kathleen Riley:

“I’m just shocked, I can’t believe they’re asking me to sign this,” said Riley, who said she may keep her own children out of the parish education program in the fall. “The bishops are human, and sometimes their judgment is not God’s judgment. We always have to be vigilant about that. The Holy Spirit gives us the responsibility to look into our own consciences.”

So Riley disagrees with the bishops. We got that. But, just as a statement of essential facts, did she say which church teachings she has chosen to reject? That would have been good to know. I mean, what is at stake here? The implication is that these disputes are about abortion, contraception and gay marriage — but readers never find out the specifics, in terms of the beliefs of the Catholics who are refusing to sign on the bottom line.

One final point: The Post story contains one or two snippets of these doctrinal statements, but never an actual body of quoted material from an oath being used in an Diocese of Arlington parish. That’s a major hole, for me.

Thus, with a few clicks of a mouse, I found the following (.pdf document), posted on the website of St. John the Evangelist Parish in Warrenton, Va. This text would shock Episcopalians, I am sure, but not many pro-Vatican Catholics. This oath for teachers begins like this:

Being a practicing Catholic means that one follows the precepts of the Church and is loyal to the teachings of the pope (Vicar of Christ), in regards to issues of faith and morals (i.e. abortion, contraception, etc.). I realize that the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit until the end of time and is therefore infallible in regards to issues of faith and morals. I obey the Magisterium (bishops and the pope) of the Catholic Church realizing that it was Christ Himself who gave our first bishops authority when He said:

“As the Father has sent me, I also send you.” John 20:21

“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven.” Matthew 18:18

“All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore, and teach all nations ….. teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world.” Matthew 28:20

“He, who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me.” Luke 10:16

And all the people said, “Amen.” Or not. That’s kind of the point.

IMAGE: A bunch of those bishop-type guys, gathered in Nicea.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Catholicism, Same-sex marriage, Sex, Social Issues, World Religions, Worship