All the news that’s fit to blog

When newspapers began adding blogs to the traditional media mix, it opened up a whole new world for religion reporters who had all this content but only so much that could fit in print.

Now we’re seeing religion blogs withering away here and there while others pop up to fill the void. People have had this idea that blogs were the “leftover” content, the stuff you write in your mother’s basement. But time and time again, niche blogs that actually do some reporting carry the potential to do quite well.

An example of where you see religion reporters using the blog space well comes from Ann Rodgers, the religion reporter at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Rodgers has years of institutional knowledge that helps her distinguish when something is really new and interesting in the religion world. But, as is the challenge at many general interest publications, only so much of it fits in print and would be relevant to a Pittsburgh readership.

Summer meetings of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops tend to be rather slow and newsless — so much so that I rarely cover them. But this year’s June meeting in Atlanta was so packed with news on Wednesday that reporters couldn’t even get summaries of it all into their stories.

The Post-Gazette, therefore, opted to cover their plan to write a letter about jobs and the economy, and their 10-year review of their child protection charter for Thursday’s paper, and make the religious freedom story wait a day so we could give it decent space in Friday’s paper.

But there are always interesting moments at the bishop’s conference that don’t get into my stories, either because they’re more inside baseball than news or because they require so much explanation that I can’t justify the space. So while I’m waiting in the Atlanta airport I’m going to go through my notes and put down as many of those odds-and-ends as I can before my flight for Pittsburgh boards.

A nitpick might suggest Rodgers could give a quick summary and links to the stories that did go in print, but the post itself stands on its own. When I mentioned my love for this sort of idea, Bobby gave some healthy pushback:

In general, I’m not a big fan of dumping notes because (1) There’s a reason you hire reporters to focus on what really interests and matters to readers, and (2) It’s time-consuming and can become a burden to the writer. Ann Rodgers, most of the time, is not going to be sitting in an airport with nothing better to do.

That said, I agree that she nailed it with these notes. So maybe there’s a way to avoid the concerns above.

Meanwhile, the Courier-Journal‘s Peter Smith has a nice column today related to “Veggie Tales” and “The Blind Side.” Appears to be “notes” for print from the best of his blog. Not sure if a potential post could weave in that as well, but it seems to be another example of readers benefiting from a Godbeat writer’s expertise behind the scenes/beyond the headlines, although Smith gives his opinions as well:

Here’s how I responded to Bobby:

With shrinking newspaper space, this is a really great way to offer more for the readers. It should be optional, not mandatory, I hope. Of course, more and more reporters have to meet some sort of quotas, whether it’s traffic, number of stories, number of followers/fans, etc. Ann’s probably been to tons of conferences like this where she has all this institutional knowledge and fun little tidbits and until her blog, she had no outlet to share them. I don’t like dumping all notes, but boy, it’s fun for the insiders and shows just how much she knows. Michael Paulson did this really well for the Boston Globe‘s Articles of Faith for a little bit. Peter Smith, as you said, does this, too. I’m wondering if someone like the Washington Post‘s Michelle Boorstein could write a blog post, show how well the traffic is and make a better case for a more thought-out piece for print. The thing is, it’s so hard to know what exactly all of Pittsburgh’s readers want, but it’s a fun service for the rest of us. I think we’ll see more and more articles starting on the web that turn into more fleshed out, thought out, edited pieces for print. Yes, we’ve seen the concept work for breaking news, but we’ll probably see it even more in the days to come, similar to how book publishers are looking to blogs and Twitter for ideas.

Okay I’ve got enough written that I can do a post. Keep egging me on, Bobby. :)

To be clear, I’m not in favor of a “notes dump” for the sake of dumping notes. But I do like that Rodgers isn’t afraid to go too inside baseball, giving little snippets of things she found interesting. Thankfully for those of us who might not live in the Pittsburgh area to subscribe to print, she used her airport time to benefit those of us on the Internet.

Image of old computer monitor and paper notes via Shutterstock.

Print Friendly

That Gray Lady Catholic same-sex unions scoop 2.0

It’s time for a Catholic culture wars flashback.

Let’s set the way-back machine for last summer, when the Womenpriests movement held one of its ordination rites in Baltimore. As one would expect, this event was glowingly covered — sort of — by The Baltimore Sun. I focused, in posts at the time, on this particular passage:

Andrea Johnson, presiding as bishop, ordained two women from Maryland, Ann Penick and Marellen Mayers, one from Pennsylvania and one from New York in the sanctuary of St. John’s United Church of Christ. The church was filled with family members — including husbands of three of the ordinands — and friends, including some who are employed by the Archdiocese of Baltimore but who support the ordination of women. Photography was limited to protect the privacy of those attending the ceremony.

I noted, with two clicks in Google, that one of the ordinands was a former faculty member/campus minister at one of most powerful Catholic schools in our region — Archbishop Spalding High School. This fact was not included in the news story. And what about the fact that the Sun agreed to abide by the instructions not to photograph the audience. In mean, who would be present who needed the safety of anonymity? I wrote at that time:

… (I)t sounds like the Sun agreed not to photograph the congregation in order to protect the privacy of Catholics — Catholic educational leaders or diocesan staff, perhaps — who could not afford to make public their support of the Womenpriests movement. I don’t know about you, but that seems strange — unless editors had decided to protect those individuals as sources for the story. If that’s the case, perhaps that should be stated?

I bring this up because of some of the reactions I have heard — in or comments pages and through private emails — to my post that ran with the headline, “New York Times scoop! Catholic same-sex unions!” The post focused on a story that included lots of clearly attributed quotes and information from religious leaders in quite a few churches that are being rocked or even divided by conflicts over homosexuality and the definition of marriage.

That’s good. Journalists like clearly attributed information.

But then there was this passage in the Times report:

The dividing lines are often unpredictable. There are black churches that welcome openly gay couples, and white churches that do not. Some Presbyterian churches hire openly gay clergy members, while others will not. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin, but there are Catholic priests who secretly bless gay unions.

The story offers no attribution for the final claim, which is an A1 story in the making if I have ever seen one. The story also, and this is the key, does not offer any context for this claim or information about its source, including why the source of needs to remain anonymous — or in this case, not even mentioned. The information simply shows up.

Does this matter? Well, I noted that this would appear to violate a New York Times editorial policy document that states, in part:

Readers of The New York Times demand to know as much as possible about where we obtain our information and why it merits their trust. For that reason, we have long observed the principle of identifying our sources by name and title or, when that is not possible, explaining why we consider them authoritative, why they are speaking to us and why they have demanded confidentiality. Guidance on limiting the use of unidentified sources, and on informative description of those we do use, has appeared in several editions of our stylebook, including the current one, and in our Integrity Statement, dating from 1999.

As you would imagine, conservative Catholics were not amused by this episode.

Over at the CatholicCulture.org website, Phil Lawler made the following observations:

It is, regrettably, easy to believe that some Catholic priests are giving their blessing to homosexual unions. But if that is the case, these priests are clearly acting in defiance of the Church: the institution they claim to serve. That defiance would constitute a major news story, not merely an observation to be made in passing. … The Times appears to be protecting dissenting priests from ecclesiastical discipline.

Any Times reporter who actually witnessed a Catholic priest blessing a homosexual union, or heard a credible first-hand report of such an event, should have written a news story about it, and that story should have appeared on the front page. That didn’t happen. Why not? I can think of only three possible explanations:

The Times reported something as fact when it had no solid evidence. Terry Mattingly and I agree that’s unlikely.

The Times had solid evidence of priests blessing gay unions, but withheld that evidence because the priests demanded anonymity. That’s possible. But as Mattingly points out, the Times ordinarily informs readers when a report is based on information from someone who requests anonymity.

The Times knows of priests who have blessed same-sex unions, and those priests have not requested anonymity, but the Times has decided not to identify them anyway. This seems to me the most likely explanation.

My assumption is that the second option is closest to the mark, in a scenario that resembles the Sun Womenpriests story mentioned earlier. In other words, the newspaper is actively participating in the story and shaping information in a way that protects one side of the debate from retaliation by the other.

Yes, I know that this happens in political stories all the time. My office is on Capitol Hill. However, this is precisely the scenario that the Times ethics policy addresses — which is why, in order to build and retain trust — the policy requires reporters and editors to give readers as much information about confidential sources as possible (short of a clear, named attribution). Yet that did not happen in this case.

GetReligion readers have, in comments or privately, offered another interesting explanation.

The Times report clearly implies that the Catholic priests performing these same-sex union blessings are, in fact, Catholic priests in good standing. However, perhaps this is not accurate, and the priests in question are either ex-Catholic priests or members of movements (think Womenpriests) that claim to be Catholic, yet the final doctrinal authorities on this issue (as in Catholic bishops) disagree. Yet, why wouldn’t the newspaper simply state that this is the case. Why not give credit to, so to speak, this Rebel Alliance?

I want to propose another scenario, one based on my own experiences in newsrooms and past conversations with liberal Catholics, including journalists. What if the source or sources for this information are, in reality, liberal Catholics and ex-Catholics IN THE TIMES NEWSROOM? They know about these rites or have participated in them, yet they do not want to betray their own liberal priests? Thus, the reference is simply stated as fact, because the people in the know are actually involved in the news process.

Surely the Times staff includes more than its share of ex-Catholics and liberal Catholics. What was the label that former editor Bill Keller pinned on himself in his infamous post-Sept. 11 column (the one that compared the Vatican with Al Qaeda) that ran under the headline, “Is the Pope Catholic?” He said, “I am what a friend calls a ‘collapsed Catholic’ — well beyond lapsed.” I would be shocked if Keller was alone in his own newsroom.

How would a reporter include that information in a story, in an attempt to honor the Times policy?

Print Friendly

5Q+1: How Kate Shellnutt’s technophilia meshes with religion

We have lamented the Dallas Morning News‘s near departure from religion coverage, but almost simultaneously, we’ve noticed the growth of another religion hub down the Texas road at the Houston Chronicle. Nearly every day, the editor of Houston Belief posts a religion news story on Believe It or Not, as she directs the rest of her team of bloggers in other religion-related coverage.

The lady behind the site is Kate Shellnutt, a religion reporter, blogger and web producer for the Chronicle whose work has earned honors from the Society for Features Journalism and Religion Newswriters Association. Before her time at the Chronicle, she studied religion and journalism at Washington and Lee University and Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. Shellnutt says her academic background, focusing on religious communities and the Internet, plays into some of her philosophies about Houston Belief as well as her approach to engaging with religious groups on social media. Her thesis was on the digitization of the Bible, and she conducted a sociological study on religious rituals on the web, particularly online confession.

Naturally, you can also find Shellnutt on Twitter (personal & professional) and Facebook, or RSS feed. We asked her to weigh in on how she handles the mix of responsibilities, especially in a climate where the traditional religion reporter’s role could be changing.

You’re editing a mix of opinion and news for the religion site Houston Chronicle and writing news posts. How does religion coverage compare online to what goes in print? Is online a better outlet for the mix of coverage you do?

HoustonBelief.com offers more stories and represents a broader range of faiths on a day-to-day basis than our weekly print section, Belief. The site is newsier and has a social component, with about 20 blogs from community members and active commenters.

Much of what we do on the web feeds into the print section, which typically includes one of my best blog entries from the week, one of our readers’ best entries, a couple wire news stories and a local religion feature story.

Since you probably know exactly how many hits a story sees, how do you see analytics impacting the future of religion news? Do you see numbers that show religion news does well on the Chronicle’s site? Is there a temptation to cover stories just for hits?

I do pay attention to site traffic, and luckily, Houston readers care about religion. Big names like our own Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes always draw in clicks, as do stories about celebrities and faith, news-of-the-weird, the culture wars and certain religious groups, like atheists, Muslims and Mormons. Rather than cover a shallow story solely to draw up site traffic, I try to present thoughtful reporting or timely aggregations in ways that are particularly enticing for online readers—striking headlines, buzzy framing, strong images, etc.

As you assign and edit a mix of opinion, blogging and reporting, do you find yourself managing writers who could turn into sources? Do you think religion reporters at mainstream outlets will fill more of an editor/aggregator role?

The volunteer bloggers for Houston Belief come up with their own story ideas and write their own posts, and they do a great job. I’m here to provide general direction to the group about topics they might want to address or to help with the technical side of the site, but I don’t have editorial control. I try to avoid quoting Houston Belief contributors in my coverage, but I often ask them to recommend friends, leaders, organizations or events for stories. They’ve been very helpful connecting me with their religious communities.

Like many others covering religion for a newspaper, I split my time between this beat and several other tasks. Bringing in community bloggers and aggregating news stories when possible make my job more manageable. For religion reporters who work on the web (or are responsible for a web component), I think these strategies allow them to keep readers interested and updated in a time-efficient way.

The Dallas Morning News once had a robust religion section, which turned into a robust religion blog before the paper decided to focus energies elsewhere. Is there something about Texas that makes religion coverage tricky?

This change happened years before I lived in Texas, but I would assume the decision to scale back on religion coverage wasn’t because of the religious landscape in Texas, but the financial situation of the paper. Religion sections can be hard to maintain ad-wise because often the most interested parties—churches, non-profits, schools, etc.—aren’t dropping as much money on advertising as companies may spend in other sections. At the Chronicle, our Belief section in print has gotten a little smaller over the past few years, but HoustonBelief.com is getting more traffic than ever.

Several journalists seemed to resonate with Steve Buttry’s post “Dear Newsroom Curmudgeon…” Do you think religion reporters could become a bit more open to new media? How would you recommend they start harnessing newer technology better?

I think all reporters should be more open to new media. For religion reporters, it’s especially essential because (as I mentioned at the Religion Newswriters Association panel on social media) our sources and our readers are online. America’s most influential pastors, churches and religious leaders—for the most part—are blogging, tweeting, Facebook-ing and Instagram-ing. If we’re unplugged, we miss the chance to follow them, learn more about them and pick up on news stories.

If you’re hesitant or consider yourself technology-impaired, it’s fine to start by “lurking,” that is, tracking online activity without engaging just yet. Start following blogs and social media accounts relevant to your interests or your beat. Take note about what you like about the best ones (what info they shared, how often they posted, tone, etc.) and keep that in mind when you do decide to begin your own.

Where do you get your news about religion? Do you seek out sources for watching news different than religion reporters have in the past (Twitter, Facebook, etc.)?

I absolutely rely on the Internet for religion news and story ideas. I follow local and national religious leaders and organizations on Twitter and Facebook. Because they’re updated so often, I can get more news and context than I would from a press release, bulletin or even a quick conversation with a pastor.

Every day, I read popular personal blogs written by people of faith, blogs by religion reporters and articles in religion journal and publications, in addition to following wire stories. There’s a huge amount of information out there, and I’ve become a filter for sharing, retweeting or contextualizing what’s most relevant and interesting to the HoustonBelief.com audience.

Print Friendly

More with less: should MSM focus on niche or general?

The other day, my husband and I began the fifth season of The Wire. So four years ago, right? We watched this episode called “More with Less,” showing how reporters and editors at the Baltimore Sun have to do “more with less,” more stories, more tweeting, more multimedia with less reporters, less pay, less resources.

Since I work for a print publication, I think I know a little bit about the state of the publishing industry and this concept of “more with less.” But Fred Clark at Patheos isn’t convinced, based on a post he wrote in response to a brief comment I posted earlier this week. Let me explain.

Last week we discussed the state of the philanthropy beat where I lamented that the New York Times no longer has someone focused specifically on that beat, instead moving the reporter over to the business desk. In promoting the podcast discussion, I wrote the following comment:

We’re also noticing a possible disappearance of the philanthropy beat where a reporter focuses specifically in that area.

… One thing is becoming clearer: newspapers seem less eager to assign reporters to such specific beats.

In response, Clark wrote:

How can anyone claim to be performing media criticism without being aware that newspapers don’t have enough reporters anymore.

A beat reporter for philanthropy? What universe are you living in if you imagine that’s anything more than a pipe-dream luxury for a 21st-century American newsroom?

The key here, though, is that the reporter wasn’t laid off, so the newspaper could obviously still afford to employ the staffer. The question is, should she be devoted to a niche like philanthropy or something more broad like business? What I see is newspapers following each other in droves to capitalize on the latest trending topic instead of developing niche, original stories. How many reporters do we need covering Jessica Simpson’s baby or even Instagram’s sale to Facebook?

Clark quotes a study that newspapers now employ 40,600 editors and reporters, compared to a peak of 56,900 in the pre-Internet year of 1990. Yes, that’s tough, but we also all have access to more news than ever before. Keeping people in niche beats isn’t necessarily about the state of the industry, but if we’re talking in economic terms, it seems like you would want your reporters to offer something unique to the news hole, not become more generic in coverage.

Back to Clark, who says:

Newsrooms are doing less with less. A lot less with a lot less.

The editors and reporters all know it. Their readers certainly know it. Even the beancounters themselves know it.

But the news seems not yet to have reached the media critics at GetReligion.

Believe me, I know about “more with less.” Just today I worked on a feature piece, edited stories and blog posts, brainstormed and assigned others, formatted some photos, tweeted and Facebooked a bunch, responded to several emails, jumped on a Google video chat, made a few phone calls, toyed with Google+ and Pinterest, read part of a book for an upcoming interview and clicked through most of my Google reader. I don’t even know what it’s like to write one story per day anymore, and I work for a monthly publication. Watch Kate Shellnutt, Dan Gilgoff/Eric Marrapodi, Elizabeth Tenety, Cathy Grossman, Bob Smietana, Kevin Eckstrom, and many more at daily (or hourly) publications. Many reporters and editors will likely resonate with this new Tumblr.

Yes, there were 28% more reporters and editors before, but journalists also didn’t have equipment like smartphones, laptops, iPads, equipment that allows every outlet to post all day every day. And all of a sudden, we’re in competition for eyeballs with the rest of the internet, Justin Bieber’s twitter feed and all. If publications want to be smart about “more with less,” they would ask reporters to find more unique stories instead of chasing the same story. Sure, you might tip your blog or twitter hat to the Time magazine boob cover, but you don’t need to have eight reporters producing a predictable, bland story about President Obama and gay marriage.

What I meant in my very quick/passing comment was that as more and more niche sites are popping up (Golf for women! Vegan for the foodie! Mormons who love Pinterest!), newspapers seem to be getting even more and more generic, putting someone from the philanthropy beat into the generic business category. The business model is complex, but perhaps newspapers would do a bit better if they assigned people to really niche categories so they could generate fascinating stories about a particular area, not try to make everyone so generically bland in their beats.

Yes, it’s more with less, but that doesn’t mean you have to stoop to the lowest common beat. If your newsroom staff gets cut by 50%, do you hone in on what you do best or stop trying to offer something unique in the absence of others on the beat? From a business model, I would think you want to do the latter. It’s why more newspapers are trying to go local, local, local. If they extended that idea, they would go beat, beat, beat.

Just look at the Washington Post‘s recent Elizabeth Flock-gate where the newspaper had one reporter capitalizing on the most popular stories through aggregating. “The goal is to surf the trend waves on the Internet, hoping to catch a few thousand page views as a story crests,” Patrick B. Pexton wrote. “It’s cashing in on the passing popularity of a story even if you don’t have a reporter covering it.” The problem was, Flock made some mistakes under pressure to write a lot under little deadline. The question many outlets will have to face is, should they invest in very nimble content through experts who can really exploit coverage areas, or should they go generic to try to save money but possibly degrade the brand?

This all goes back to the religion beat for us, where we strongly advocate media outlets employ at least one person with an expertise in religion to spot stories, prevent holes and explain nuances to an audience. It’s about prioritizing more what you do have with less resources.

Image “do less be more” via Shutterstock.

Print Friendly

Google’s Zen qualities

As I eye new developments like Google glasses, Google Drive, Google Car, I am fully aware of how much Google permeates my life between my phone, email, docs, maps, reader and more.

As much as Google makes me a little anxious (Why do my search habits follow me around? Will the company suddenly start charging for currently free products?) despite its “Don’t be evil” mantra, its inner-workings intrigue me as much or more as Apple entrances others.

A new piece from the New York Times offers some of those inner workings, focusing on how some employees deal with the stress of working at the company.

Little wonder, then, that among the hundreds of free classes that Google offers to employees here, one of the most popular is called S.I.Y., for “Search Inside Yourself.” It is the brainchild of Chade-Meng Tan, 41, a tall, thin, soft-spoken engineer who arrived at Google in 2000 as Employee No. 107.

Think of S.I.Y. as the Zen of Google. Mr. Tan dreamed up the course and refined it with the help of nine experts in the use of mindfulness at work. And in a time when Google has come under new scrutiny from European and United States regulators over privacy and other issues, a class in mindfulness might be a very good thing.

The class has three steps: attention training, self-knowledge and self-mastery, and the creation of useful mental habits.

If it sounds a bit touchy-feely, consider this: More than 1,000 Google employees have taken the class, and there’s a waiting list of 30 when it’s offered, four times a year. The class accepts 60 people and runs seven weeks.

The Zen of Google, huh? Are there religious underpinnings here?

But what is Mr. Tan’s ultimate goal? A Buddhist for many years, he says without irony that he wants to create world peace. “I was always very different from the other kids,” he says. “I have an I.Q. of 156. I didn’t play sports. I thought big. I thought I could achieve great things. I don’t want to sound megalomaniac, but my whole life is about doing something for the world, from as far back as I can remember.”

Ah ha. There it is. The reporter discovers that Mr. Tan is Buddhist, but the story does little to explain whether the course has Buddhist ideas or even Buddhist motivations behind his desire to spread his thinking.

Born and raised in Singapore, Mr. Tan describes his childhood as “very unhappy.”

“It was the geek thing,” he says. He taught himself how to write software code at the age of 12. And by 15, he had won his first national academic award. At 17, he was one of four members of the national software championship team.

“In Singapore, the way to distinguish yourself is to win competitions,” he says. But public attention and external rewards brought him no satisfaction. “It wasn’t making a difference,” he says. “I wasn’t any happier. There was a compulsion to be the best.”

So was the turning point happen when he became Buddhist? When did that come in? There’s one other brief mention of faith in the story.

Mr. Tan likes to refer to the example of Matthieu Ricard, a Buddhist monk once described by a British newspaper as the happiest person in the world. At first, that rang hollow to Mr. Chang. “Matthieu’s a monk; I don’t want to be a monk,” he says. “But Meng was able to make that bridge for me. He presented S.I.Y. the way we all present to one another: here’s my premise, here’s my control, here’s my experiment.”

There isn’t necessarily an obvious religion angle here, but it could use just a little more detail in the same way that it explains Mr. Tan’s upbringing and eventual employment at Google. Without more, the mention of his faith is like describing his height or the kind of car he drives, color for the story with little connection to the main point of the piece.

Please excuse me while I go sit quietly for long, unproductive minutes. Because Google tells me so.

Print Friendly

Correction for Driscoll, but abysmal article remains

A few weeks ago, we all sighed in unison over The Atlantic‘s piece on the emerging church’s supposed connection to Invisible Children, the group behind the viral video Kony 2012.

The piece had many, many problems, but one of the most glaring ones was the description of Seattle megachurch pastor Mark Driscoll as “an Emerging Liberal.”

Sorry, what?

A reader sent us a note that the piece had been updated, a welcome correction after we called for one. But if you go into the piece, you’ll see that not much has been changed. This is the paragraph in question:

Contemporary institutional religion, as opposed to “redemption,” is “the most disgusting false gospel in the world!” Pastor Mark Driscoll, who identifies himself as an Emerging Liberal, declared in a sermon on YouTube.* “Religious people are the ones murdering Jesus.”

You have to go all the way to the bottom of the lengthy article to find the update:

* – This sentence originally identified Mark Driscoll as an “Emerging Liberal” in the Emerging Church movement. According to a spokesperson for Driscoll’s Mars Hill ministry, he was once affiliated with other theologians affiliated with Emerging Liberals, but now identifies himself as an “Emerging Reformer.”

What a joke. It’s like the editor mumbled, “Well, this is what he said, but we don’t really believe him.” Why even bother updating it if you’re not going to completely correct the sentence?

I asked Mars Hill about the correction, and a spokesperson sent me this note:

Their update was a nice gesture, although buried at the bottom of the second page in the “fine print.” It would have made more sense for them to change it in the article with a strikethrough or something more obvious. The writer certainly doesn’t understand the emerging movement, and doesn’t seem to know Pastor Mark very well. However, we are not worried about the quotes they used or how they represent Pastor Mark, other than the liberal label.

This section of the article was enough to set off the alarm bells of many of the commenters that the reporting behind the entire piece. Piece by piece, the article fails to draw clear connections between the emerging church and the organization behind Kony 2012.

Jordan spotted another error I completely missed the first time around. The piece links to an interview by the “Catholic radio station Relevant Radio.” Wait, he means the evangelical magazine Relevant? Oh man. Yet another reason why the editors of The Atlantic should consider just pulling the entire piece off the web.

David commented:

That liberal Mark Driscoll! (No one tell Slate.)

The writer of the Atlantic piece has this bio:

JOSH KRON – Josh Kron is a writer backed in Kampala, Uganda. He covers east Africa and Africa’s Great Lakes Region for The New York Times and has written for Foreign Policy, The Guardian, CNN, and Ha’aretz.

What does it mean by “backed in Kampala”? Is that a typo? Should it be “based”? Is the Atlantic a professional organization?

Mollie responded: “That confused me, too. And set the tone for the entire piece ….”

A friend of mine asked if the quality of journalism is going downhill. It’s too complicated to say across the board, but at The Atlantic, I wonder if there’s a high demand for online content that wouldn’t reach the standards needed for print. I still subscribe and enjoy getting the monthly print edition, but leaving a piece like this on its website does at least some damage to its credibility.

Print Friendly

Correction please on The Atlantic’s lol Kony report

Earlier this week, a reader sent us a “slightly alarmist” piece from The Atlantic on a Christian sect driving Africa. Can you guess what might be “The Upstart Christian Sect Driving Invisible Children”? Wait for it: the emerging church. That’s right. The movement that no one is talking about anymore.

I asked Tony Jones what he thought of the piece, given that he has been one of the leaders of the Emergent Church Village, and he had some strong words.

I read the Atlantic piece on KONY and the emerging church, and I was dumbfounded. Firstly, I found the article nearly indecipherable. But even more troubling was the supposed connection between Invisible Children and the emergent church movement is ludicrous. But then, when the reporter referred to Mark Driscoll as a liberal, we all knew that he had no idea what he was writing about. That should be enough for the Atlantic to take the article off their website, and fire the editor who greenlighted it.

Why does Jones feel so strongly about this piece? Walk with me through bits and pieces to find out why it’s such bad journalism.

For Jason Russell, co-founder of Invisible Children, stumbling into Uganda’s one-time civil war wasn’t an accident; it was a divine calling.

While the rest of the world laughs at or ponders the psych ward-ridden creator of Kony 2012, the unlikely Internet video sensation that brought both himself and a vicious Ugandan rebel instant and overwhelming fame, the mystery of his inspiration and success only grows more curious.

Who is this man? Is he crazy? What drives him? Russell summed it up in two hesitant words — Jesus Christ.

Who in the world is laughing at a man in a psych ward? Other than the reporter who wrote this piece, that is?

“I can’t do it without that faith,” he said, calling Jesus the “ultimate storyteller.” Excitement rushed through his voice. “If I thought I was doing it myself, it would feel myopic.”

Behind the origins and success of Kony 2012 is an eclectic and powerful network of Christian activists, traditionally dominated by the Christian right, that has at times brought mass attention, almost single-handedly, to some of Africa’s worst and most ignored conflicts, from South Sudan to the Nuba Mountains, Darfur to the Lord’s Resistance Army.

Who says a Christian activists in Africa are dominated by “the Christian right” (and what does “Christian right” even mean outside of the context of American politics)?

The group is a product, and perhaps the most successful manifestation of, a little-known, ultra-liberal, and highly controversial post-Evangelical Christian movement known as the Emerging Church.

Like more traditional evangelic organizations, Invisible Children is out to spread the gospel. But they are not out just for Africa.

What is an “evangelic” organization? The emerging church network still exists, but Jones says that it’s a shell of its former self. How is it currently controversial? And how, exactly, is Invisible Children out to spread the gospel? I don’t see them talking about Jesus or anything associated with the gospel, but am I missing something?

No doubt, Russell is evangelic, but he and Invisible Children are spreading the gospel in the Emerging Church style. No Bibles, but movies. Instead of telling us what to believe, silently, secretly pulling our consciences towards Jesus.

“America has wrapped itself around the cross, and that is blasphemy,” Russell told me. “Our point is, let humanity be the identity; then just join with humanity.”

Why does the reporter keep using the word “evangelic”? How is this movement secretly pulling our consciences towards Jesus again? What does Russell’s quote even mean? It’s also ironic that the reporter brings up again and again how Invisible Children says it’s not a religious organization. It’s like the reporter was mumbling “Yeah right!” when he portrays it exactly the opposite because “A week later, that [religious] question on the FAQ page had been deleted outright.” Watch for the secrets, people!

Russell’s Christian upbringing focused as much on faith as an experience as it did on faith as a belief. It was a time when a generation of young believers who “crave spirituality but feel disconnected,” as a local newspaper article put it, began moving towards something different. It didn’t have an address, but people threw around the name Emerging Church.

Ah ha! People threw around the name emerging church during Russell’s Christian upbringing. So that’s where the connection to the emerging church comes in? Is there any solid evidence Russell was ever formally connected to the movement?

Brian McLaren and Donald Miller are two authors and Christian theologians closely associated with the Emerging Church movement in the United States. McLaren was once named one of the most influential evangelicals in America by Time. Miller sits on an Obama White House taskforce on family values.

Two things: Donald Miller has never self-identified with the emerging movement. Also, is he still on the Obama taskforce? I thought those rotated by year. Anyway, the best part of the piece comes right here:

Contemporary institutional religion, as opposed to “redemption,” is “the most disgusting false gospel in the world!” Pastor Mark Driscoll, who identifies himself as an Emerging Liberal, declared in a sermon on YouTube. “Religious people are the ones murdering Jesus.”

Anybody who knows anything about Mark Driscoll knows that he could not be considered an Emerging Liberal in the sense that this reporter is describing him. The Atlantic should fix the description and update the story with a correction. The idea is completely laughable, considering Driscoll would probably see himself as pretty much the opposite of that description. See the above video at about minute 5 to see how Driscoll really feels about the emerging church. The article’s photo of Driscoll angrily pointing illustrates …what again?

There’s also a part where the reporter brings in that supposedly scary organization in DC called The Fellowship because they also do work in Africa. The leaps the reporter makes are pretty amazing: Christian founder>Christian movement>other Christian leaders>other Christian groups in Africa>Uganda’s homosexuality bill. I won’t go into all the Uganda homosexuality bill details, but it’s safe to say that the reporter is making crazy leaps and painting sweeping pictures of Christian involvement in Africa.

I actually laughed at this line:

Evangelists fly to Uganda regularly, holding mass prayer sessions with blind, broken-limbed, or AIDS-afflicted Africans. They pass out bibles and political advice.

Today we retweeted this line from an AP stylebook satirical Twitter feed:

@FakeAPStylebook: Always capitalize “Bible.” You don’t want to get letters from those people.

And then the article includes these sweeping claims:

But Russell’s evangelism, like the Emerging Church faith that drives him, is different. And that’s part of Kony 2012′s power, as well as the subtext against which many critics seem to be reacting.

Again, where’s the connection between Russell and the emerging church? And how do we know that there’s this subtext? The leaps! The piece amazingly finds a way to bring Rick Warren into the mess. And I love how he throws in Justin Bieber “(he’s got Jesus tattoos).”

There is a line in the piece that makes me think, “Okay, maybe that’s where the reporter made the connection between the group and the emerging church.” Here it is: “In 2006, Invisible Children received roughly $10,000 from an Emerging church in Santa Barbara.” Mind you, though, this is a fraction of the organization’s budget. “And it’s not only Christians who are giving: Invisible Children won $1 million from a Chase Bank charity competition.” Are you sure? Because the rest of the piece makes it seem like it’s mostly a Christian-financed organization.

The other line in the piece between the emerging church and Invisible Children came from a mention of one of the board members who is described as an openly gay pastor and the head of an emerging church. But between those two pieces of evidence, it’s still not clear how the reporter made a connection between the movement and organization.

I also laughed at the line that described the Kony video’s sequel video. “Yet only 1.3 million people have bothered watching so far…” Okay, next time you make a video with a million views, you can say “yet only” about it. The reader who submitted the piece noted how many of the comments point out the errors in the piece, so it’s kind of amazing The Atlantic hasn’t moved to fix anything.

What’s most interesting to me about this isn’t the multitudinous mistakes (Mark Driscoll? a *liberal*?), but the fact that the extensive comment section has many, many people pointing out all the errors. Twenty or even ten years ago, you wouldn’t have had that. I’ve more or less given up hope that the Atlantic will ever again have someone who really gets religion, but it’s pretty clear that there are a lot of their readers who do.

The sad part about this piece is that there are actually some interesting details about Russell’s background and the organization’s connections to some Christian groups, but it’s couched in such a terribly reported piece. How do we know we can trust the basic facts if other parts are exaggerated or flat-out wrong? Much of the sourcing comes from other news articles or radio interviews, so it’s hard to tell what percentage is original work for the 5,000 word piece. All we really know is that this reporter thinks he knows a lot about the emerging church movement and read several previous reports on Invisible Children.

Print Friendly

For Sun editors, this one had to hurt (updated)

There are days when the age of specialty websites and reporters are especially cruel to the old guard in the mainstream press.

This is one of those days for the leaders of The Baltimore Sun.

If you read the newspaper that lands in my front yard, this morning’s tree-pulp edition contained zero about the biggest story in town. It’s clear that the Sun has its sources in some offices in the Archdiocese of Baltimore (click here to see what I mean), but not others.

However, if you are a news fanatic who reads Whispers in the Loggia, then you heard the big news, in depth, early Monday night from the omnipresent Rocco Palmo. Yes, I know. He didn’t name his sources. However, ask The Los Angeles Times if his track record is good.

More on Palmo’s scoop in a moment.

If you read the Sun, then the following information just went up online this morning. It’s easy to note that it appears there are key elements in the life and recent career of the city’s new archbishop with which the editors are not familiar.

Yes, this is the whole report:

Bishop William E. Lori, previously of the diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., was named as Cardinal Edwin O’Brien’s replacement as head of the Archdiocese of Baltimore by Pope Benedict XVI, the archdiocese announced Tuesday.

Lori, 60, becomes the 16th Archbishop of Baltimore. He replaces O’Brien, who served as archbishop from October 2007 to August 2011 before leaving the post to become the Grand Master of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem.

Archbishop-designate Lori will be introduced at a news conference at 10:30 a.m. today at the Baltimore Basilica. Lori was ordained a priest in 1977 and a bishop by Pope John Paul II in 1995, according to the archdiocese. He has served as Bishop of Bridgeport since 2001.

I am sure that there is more information to come, once the Sun folks look it up online. Meanwhile, if you read Palmo, you already know this:

From its founding in the lone American colony founded by Catholics, the Premier See of Baltimore and its illustrious occupants have stood as a preeminent icon of religious freedom in these States. And now, the golden thread of that 223-year line is set to continue with particular vigor in the choice of its 16th Archbishop.

As soon as tomorrow, sources tell Whispers that Pope Benedict will name Bishop William Lori, 60 — leader of Connecticut’s Bridgeport diocese since 2001 — as the next head of the nation’s oldest local church, first shepherded for 18 years by John Carroll, a cousin of the lone Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence, and founder of the nation’s first Catholic university at Georgetown shortly after his appointment in 1789.

And the solid hard-news hook for the key words in that lede (I refer, of course, to “religious freedom”)?

The chief protege of the capital’s late Cardinal James Hickey (who ordained him a bishop at 43), Lori has come into an even brighter spotlight over recent months as the appointed head of the bishops’ newly-created ad hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, and thus the quarterback of the church’s recent surge against the contraceptive mandate of the Federal health-care reform law.

While the skirmishes have included Lori’s penning a widely-circulated swipe at America magazine following an editorial in the Jesuit journal lamenting the bishops’ strategy on the issue, in his most recent comments on the hierarchy’s tense face-off with the White House, Lori said he found a meeting last week with Obama administration officials “distressing” given a stance that, he said, made the policy appear “non-negotiable” and “here to stay.” The tenor of the sit-down “does not bode well for future discussions,” the bishop told Catholic News Service.

And you need more of a local news hook? Perhaps even a news hook related to the postmodern Catholic who is the apple of the Sun‘s editorial eye?

In Baltimore’s case, however, the liberty concerns aren’t limited to Washington. A concerted religious freedom push by the Maryland church failed on the floor of its state legislature last month, as the cradle of American Catholicism became the seventh US jurisdiction to legalize same-sex marriage. With its enactment, the bill’s lead champion, Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley, became the nation’s fifth Catholic chief executive to sign full recognition of gay unions into law. (For purposes of context, Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage into law in 2008.)

As a binding referendum on the issue is expected to be held in November — prior to the move’s entering into force next year — any new archbishop will arrive to find his tenure’s first major battle already lined up.

So it should be a rather dark day in the Sun editorial offices. But cheer up, folks! Maybe there will be another WomenPriests exclusive to cover between now and Easter. The Sun team will hear about that — perhaps they will even help do the planning for the rites — way in advance.

UPDATE: We now have a full Sun report on the appointment and, I swear, the lede might cause the Divine Mrs. MZ’s head to explode. Are you ready?

A Catholic bishop who has been at the forefront of fighting the Obama administration’s contraception policy will lead the Archdiocese of Baltimore and replace Cardinal Edwin O’Brien.

Bishop William E. Lori of the Bridgeport, Conn., diocese, becomes the 16th Archbishop of Baltimore, a historically important seat given that the Roman Catholic Church established its U.S. base in the city.

But, but, but … What about the national leadership post he holds in the Catholic hierarchy? That shows up later and, sure enough, the same talking point defines that biographical detail, as well.

Lori heads the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops’ recently created ad hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, making him the church’s leader in the fight against the birth control mandate.

Go ahead, read it all.

Print Friendly