Westboro’s winnings

March 3, 2011 By

Westboro Baptist Church keeps popping up in GetReligion territory thanks to its ability to capture attention through protests and lawsuits. Of course, the news yesterday that the Supreme Court ruled in the group’s favor is impossible to ignore.

Assuming readers don’t necessarily know what Westboro is, it can be difficult to find a short headline that gets to the point. Here’s what the Los Angeles Times went with: “Supreme Court sides with churchgoers who picketed military funeral.” The descriptor “churchgoers” is about as vague as you can get. Print editions may have space constraints, but editors could consider search engine optimization and come up with clearer headlines online.

Most of the coverage focused on the Supreme Court decision, reporting the majority and minority opinions. Space is limited, but it would be nice if reporters would slip in a sentence or two explaining who Westboro is and what they believe. Barbara Bradley Hagerty gave a “peek” inside Westboro in her round-up for NPR.

The Phelpses and their church are isolated in more ways than one. Few news organizations have profiled them. One exception is Bill Sherman, the religion writer for newspaper Tulsa World. He visited them in their compound in an upscale neighborhood of Topeka. He found them polite, normal people–and a model of success.

“They’re college educated. They’re well-spoken. The daughter herself argued before the United States Supreme Court,” Sherman says. “They’re not what I expected.”

This took me back to Bill Sherman’s Tulsa World piece that explains how the congregation is mostly made up of Phelps’ own family.

Phelps, a Topeka civil rights lawyer during the 1960s through the 1980s, has 13 children. Eleven are lawyers, and nine are directly involved in the church and the ministry. Four of them practice in the law firm that Phelps founded.

Most of his children – as well as 56 grandchildren and nine great-grandchildren – live in the compound or within a block or two of it. The school-age children attend public schools, where they make good grades. Most of the adults hold professional jobs. Some of Phelps’ children are estranged from the family and have spoken publicly against it.

The church is fenced and gated, but contrary to some rumors in Topeka, its services are open to the public, family members say.

Phelps still preaches a 45-minute sermon every Sunday to a congregation of about 70, nearly all of them related to him by blood or marriage.

This kind of context gives people a picture that this isn’t like your average church around the corner. Overall, it would be helpful to explain that Westboro is an independent congregation with no ties any Baptist conventions or networks.

When the arguments came before the Supreme Court, Terry noted that the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 21 news outlets filed friend-of-the-court brief supporting the church’s right to hold protests.

After yesterday’s decision, Poynter promoted Kelly McBride’s column on how to cover hate speech. She drew on earlier ideas when she wrote a planned Quran burning in Florida.

When you give hate speech too much attention, or the wrong kind of attention, you cause more harm than good. Here are some of the common negative affects of hate speech stories that miss the mark:

You alienate your audience and they turn away.
Like rewarding a toddler who throws a tantrum, you encourage the speaker to keep talking.
You embolden others to share their hate speech, so they too can get attention.
You create a climate, both virtual and real, that fosters screaming instead of civil dialogue.
You inadvertently pile harm onto innocent individuals who are the target of the speech.

Many of these points may be true, but they feel a bit too utilitarian when journalists can’t always try to predict the outcome of coverage. A basic question local newspaper editors should ask is, “Is this really news? Westboro protests at lots of funerals, how does this particular one make it different.” Westboro is considered outrageous by many, but it’s unclear is how McBride decides what consists of hate speech and who decides whether it’s worth covering.

We’ve looked at a few slices of the coverage, but feel free to let us know if you have come across particularly good or bad stories.

Filed Under: Creeping Fundamentalism, People, Religion, Sex

Ghosts of Sundance? Present!

February 8, 2011 By

It’s always nice to see a writer on some other site cut loose and give the “GetReligion” treatment to media coverage.

Anthony Sacramone has a piece up at First Things that does just that. He looks at mainstream media coverage of the religious angles at the Sundance Film Festival. He begins by highlighting The Los Angeles Times piece “Sundance Film Festival: Movies look at faith in all its forms“:

Five films are singled out — out of 120 entries, or a little under five percent. This, apparently, constitutes a significant number in what is ostensibly a very religious country. But this is Hollywood (actually, Utah, but you get the picture.)

As you read on, you quickly realize that these “submissions focused on faith” reflecting how “filmmakers [are] considering issues larger than themselves,” as Peter Cooper, the festival’s director, put it are about psychos, hypocrites, quasi-fascists, and empty, lonely believers looking for something more out of life.

Now, I have not seen any of these films. Very few people have. They’ve yet to be put into general release. But what I found interesting was that the Times writer didn’t stop to google a little film history as a basis of comparison for this new generation of films that “use faith — and specifically Christianity–as either a narrative fulcrum or key expositional backdrop.” From Going My Way and Song of Bernadette and A Man for All Seasons to The Mission and Shadowlands and The Passion of the Christ to five films for which Christianity is, apparently, a fool’s paradise only.

One exception to this may be Vera Farmiga’s Higher Ground, in which the central character, a Pentecostal Christian, “is a seeker. She’s got to find herself,” as Farmiga, the film’s director, describes her. While the director sounds like she attempted to provide some nuance, and is not particularly hostile to faith, I couldn’t help asking, Is this is as good as it gets? A case study in which everyone’s lost and no one is found, to twist the lyrics of “Amazing Grace”?

OK, I can’t excerpt the whole thing so you’ll have to go over to First Things to read more. But Sacramone notes the review of one of the films in which The Hollywood Reporter says that one character “is so plainly unhinged and his view so extreme within Christianity that the debate is meaningless.”

Another film by Kevin Smith, Red State, is a “religious thriller and a horror film” based on, of course, the Westboro crowd. Apparently a hate-filled preacher lures gay men into his compound in order to kill them. Sacramone writes “So, no, A Man Called Peter this is not.”

The angle the media took in covering this film could not be more devoid of religious understanding and Sacramone has a few questions.

Back to the Times‘ piece, Sacramone wonders why there was no reaction from filmgoers themselves:

Were any of the audience members who saw these films Christians, by chance? Did they perceive the films as mere hatchet jobs, the product of some anti-fundamentalists with an ax to grind? Were any of the Christians depicted in any way as three-dimensional — flawed but perhaps strengthened and ennobled by their faith? Did anyone come away seeing something positive in Christianity, something they might like to explore? Or did all these entries do nothing but confirm an already anti-religion, anti-Christian bias?

In which case, would that be all that surprising? Even to the Los Angeles Times?

In other words, does the story have more than one side? Any diversity of viewpoint?

Just asking.

Filed Under: Creeping Fundamentalism, Evangelicals, Film, Journalism, Pop Culture

Asking questions about Sarah Palin, ‘blood libel’

January 14, 2011 By

Americans received a nice little history lesson this week, thanks to Sarah Palin’s video reaction to the shooting in Arizona. We were quickly informed by just about every national news outlet that the “blood libel” is generally used to historically mean the accusations that Jews murdered Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals.

Now, I’m the first to say that the media could use more historical context in their work. A more careful study of history would help us understand the actual significance of events and how they play out over time. Perhaps we would then spend less time on the Justin Bieber tweet of the day and consider, for instance, what’s going on in Tunisia, Australia, Haiti and Lebanon this week. (The Onion‘s masterful headline captures this comparison with the headline “Standoff In Ivory Coast Threatens To Boil Over Into Full-Scale News Blurb”)

Back to Sarah Palin and “blood libel,” it’s hard to know how to start a thoughtful discussion. Why don’t we start with the beginning, when reporters thrust Palin and a map into the coverage of the shooting in Arizona. I do not consider myself a defender of Palin, but I wondered whether editors and reporters stopped to consider whether she was, in fact, relevant. And don’t give me headlines like “Twitter abuzz over Palin’s map.” Mainstream media outlets are supposed rise above and attempt to decide what actually matters in the grand scheme of things.

Editors and reporters could have asked similar questions over whether it was relevant to cover Westboro’s earlier announcement to protest 9-year-old Christina Green’s funeral. Now, don’t get me wrong. You could make a case for covering these angles, especially when it led to legislation in Arizona. But few outlets seemed to consider asking questions like “Is this really news? How predictable is this? Does Westboro have any influence without media coverage?” Are we asking these kinds of questions before we hit publish? I’m not suggesting Palin or Westboro don’t deserve any ink, but the level of coverage seemed disproportionate to other issues going on in the world.

Sadly, with diminishing newsrooms and a rush for page views, reporters are increasingly unable to cover all the beats, so why do we need outlets covering the same angles? Part of the problem might include the number of blogs media outlets are creating. Don’t get me wrong: I’ve been blogging nearly daily for several years and they definitely have their place. But I worry that reporters are spending their time posting the most minute details instead of allowing for long-term, big-picture, thoughtful coverage.

One of the bigger questions we have to start with is whether the media inserted Palin into the cycle unnecessarily. On Wednesday, though, you might argue that Palin inserted herself into the cycle when she posted a video reaction to the shooting. Most outlets zoned in on her “blood libel” comment, which led to article after article over reactions and outrage. Some of the coverage offered some good historical background, such as Laurie Goodstein’s piece for the New York Times. You could argue that Palin’s “blood libel” comment is worth noting, but how much coverage does it actually need before reporters squeeze every last angle out of it?

All of this brings me to one of the most confusing pieces I’ve seen come out of the Palin coverage. Matthew Cooper, a managing editor of the National Journal, suggests, “‘Blood Libel’ comment was likely used to fire up pro-Israel evangelicals.” Usually editors ask their writers to do some reporting, but it appears this one did very little.

After all, it’s not the first time Palin has aligned herself subtly with Jews. She has noted that after her election as governor in 2006, her childhood pastor suggested that she take the Bible’s Queen Esther as a role model. Esther was a beauty queen who became a fierce protector of the Jewish people. Palin is comfortable in the role of Esther, and many of her evangelical supporters see her in that guise, describing her as Esther-like. The multi-faith website Beliefnet called this phenomenon “Esther-mania.”

By adopting the blood libel language, Palin was most likely trying to pull another Esther–aligning herself with Jews, not denouncing them. It appears to have been a badly miscalculated effort, but it’s unlikely that it was her intention to offend.

“It was a dog whistle,” said one Jewish Republican who worked in the George H.W. Bush administration and declined to be named to avoid becoming enmeshed in the intraparty debate over Palin. The reference was to a device that’s silent to some ears but calls to others. “The media didn’t get it, but Christian activists did,” this source added.

Cooper’s one example to support his theory may not live up to what he’s imagined. For instance, Sarah Posner shoots back that Christians who identify with Esther usually aren’t identifying with Jews or Jewish history. Further, why does Cooper use one anonymous source to back up his theory? One of the first writers to use “blood libel” after the shooting was Glenn Reynolds in the Wall Street Journal. It would be interesting if a pro-gay marriage, pro-choice blogger was signaling evangelicals, wouldn’t it?

Unfortunately, Politico ‘s Jennifer Epstein only furthers this narrative with the headline “Some say ‘blood libel’ signaled base.” Apparently, all you need to do to get yourself in a Politico story is “float an idea” on a blog. Since when did reporters stop calling scholars or first-hand sources? Did anyone think to maybe ask an evangelical whether this might have served as a signal?

Reporters tend to whine about how Palin won’t do interviews with the mainstream media. On the other hand, they seem to wet their pants for every jot or tittle on Twitter. You might argue that she has a popular base, but how is she different from someone like Mike Huckabee, Glenn Beck, or someone else who has a media platform? Because she generates clicks? You would think that she was currently an elected official, a candidate for president, or something. Religion reporters especially should rise above the political filter the media generates.

Art: This xtranormal video came out last year teasing Politico’s coverage, but it serves as a nice critique of general media coverage.

Filed Under: Evangelicals, Journalism, Judaism, Politics, Religion

Connecting Arizona’s dots

January 10, 2011 By

As the media continues to feed us play-by-play updates from Arizona’s shootings, we’re reading about the endless calls to civility, the confusing ties to Sarah Palin and the (predictable?) reaction from Westboro, we’re seeing some further religion coverage within profiles of some of the victims.

The New York Times offers some nice details about Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ religious background, though it seems to downplay the impact of faith in her politics.

Ms. Giffords is the first Jewish congresswoman from Arizona, a point of pride for many at Congregation Chaverim. She did not attend services every week and rediscovered her Jewish faith only about a decade ago. But she is described as a dedicated member of the temple whose work and compassion embody the best of Jewish practice.

“My Jewish heritage has really instilled in me the importance of education and caring for the community,” she said in a 2006 interview with The Jewish News of Greater Phoenix.

She called a 2001 visit to Israel a turning point in her life that set off a fresh interest in Judaism. Her faith has never become a major issue in her political campaigns, which, most recently, focused on her opposition to Arizona’s hard-line immigration law and her support of President Obama’s health care overhaul.

I’m not sure how the writers quantifies when faith is a major issue in a campaign, unless he was expecting something like a Jeremiah Wright moment. The Times switches course and plays up religion again towards the end.

Ms. Giffords, a member of Hadassah, the Jewish women’s organization, has said that her religion helped her become a leader.

“If you want something done, your best bet is to ask a Jewish woman to do it,” she said in a 2006 interview. Jewish women, she continued, “have an ability to cut through all the reasons why something should, shouldn’t or can’t be done, and pull people together to be successful.”

In comparison, the brief profile of U.S. District Judge John M. Roll doesn’t even mention his Catholic faith. You would think that it would merit at least a brief inclusion, since he died after just attending daily Mass. On the other hand, a few media outlets like the Wall Street Journal captured more details on the 9-year-old girl who was born on 9/11.

More than two hundred parishioners gathered Sunday at the St. Odilia Catholic Church in [Tucson] for a mass remembering Christina Taylor Green, the 9-year old victim of the Safeway shooting, whose patriotism and passion is being commemorated across the nation.

Miss Green attended the church, a modern building in an affluent part of Tucson, set against the dramatic backdrop of the Santa Catalina Mountains, for four years; she was part of the “Joyful Noise Choir” and last year she took her First Communion here, less than a mile away from the parking lot where she was felled.

Bobby Ross continues to follow the story of Dorwan Stoddard, the Church of Christ member who tried to protect his wife during the rampage. Another victim, Phyllis Schneck, spent much of her time as an active member of Tucson’s Northminster Presbyterian Church.

I like this little snapshot feature from the Associated Press/Los Angeles Times, which seems to mention religion when it seemed especially relevant in the victims lives.

There are still few details surrounding the motive of the alleged gunman, Jared Loughner. As Mollie mentioned earlier, he posted a video suggesting that he was able to control all religion “by being the mind controller.” The Associated Press includes a comment from one of his friends briefly mentions religion, or lack thereof.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Wiens also said Loughner used to speak critically about religion. He also talked about how he liked to smoke pot.

“He wasn’t really too keen on religion it seemed like,” Grant Wiens, 22, told The Associated Press. “I don’t know if floating through life is the right term or whatever, but he was really just into doing his own thing.”

Crying “exclusive,” The New York Daily News reports on a “shrine” that appears in Loughner’s yard.

A sinister shrine reveals a chilling occult dimension in the mind of the deranged gunman accused of shooting a member of Congress and 19 others.

Hidden within a camouflage tent behind Jared Lee Loughner’s home sits an alarming altar with a skull sitting atop a pot filled with shriveled oranges.

A row of ceremonial candles and a bag of potting soil lay nearby, photos reveal.

Experts on Sunday said the elements are featured in the ceremonies of a number of occult groups.

Who, exactly, are these “experts” who are commenting that this structure? Sure, you don’t see that on everyone’s back patio, but since when do reporters jump to such conclusions, using words like “sinister,” “chilling” and “alarming”?

Finally, the political angles are quickly getting old. While I’m still trying to figure out how Politico justifies six links on its home page linking Palin to the shooting (While the NYT has one, the WSJ has one and CNN has zero), I hope further coverage will find some responsible connections to add.

Filed Under: Journalism, Politics, Religion

Um, Wallis represents the new Christian right?

December 11, 2010 By

Jim Wallis has been calling the religious right dead for a while now. I can’t imagine his surprise when he was included in Newsweek‘s new list on “faces of the Christian right.” It is as if the editors at Newsweek are saying, “Ha ha, you thought it was dead, but you’re actually the leader of it — joke’s on you!”

Perhaps writer David A. Graham didn’t write the headline, but he certainly makes a lot of assumptions in his slideshow attempting to capture the current politically-inclined religious leaders.

My friend Anna sent me this note:

That Newsweek piece is abysmal. My favorite quote? “It’s not as sexy as praying with the president.” [In the bio of Melissa Rogers] Since when is Palin an “evangelical rock star”? [In the bio of Marjorie Dannenfelser] The bit about Cizik is wildly inaccurate -he never backed gay marriage. [In the bio of Jim Wallis]
This guy makes young journalists everywhere look bad. The arrogant sarcasm running throughout this piece is inexcusable; it’s not even appropriate for the op-ed page!

Let’s start with his introduction and move back to the bios in a bit:

Who speaks for the religious right? That used to be an easy question to answer: on matters of faith and politics, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson were towering figures: opinionated, controversial, and vastly influential.

Excuse me? “Who speaks for the religious right” has never been an easy question to answer, in part because of the vague labels and definitions involved. But I just don’t understand Graham’s criteria for “Christian right.” Yes, there is a new generation on the scene, but does the Rev. Billy Graham really not merit any inclusion whatsoever? Anyone can be both opinionated and controversial. Is you-know-who from Westboro Baptist the leader of the religious right? Um, no. Were Falwell, Robertson and Dobson influential? Yes, in their own ways, but it probably depended on who you talked to, at what time of their life and on what issue.

But with Falwell’s death in 2007, Robertson’s outlandish comments about the 2010 earthquake in China and Hurricane Katrina, and Dobson’s gradual retirement, it’s harder to pinpoint a similar council for the second generation of the movement, which is more strategically, denominationally, and ideologically diverse.

Did Falwell’s death and Robertson’s China/Katrina statements really mark the moment of their diminishing influence? You could argue the influence waxed and waned as the media kept their ideas alive. Is there any data to support the idea that the Christian right is more strategically, denominationally and ideologically diverse than it was in the past? Where does this idea stem from?

Here’s Newsweek‘s wish list: Robert George, Jim Daly, Maggie Gallagher, Matthew and Nancy Sleeth, Melissa Rogers, Marjorie Dannenfelser, Tony Perkins, Jim Wallis and Joel Hunter.

If you must create such a list, some of the choices might make sense, and I don’t necessarily want to quibble about who’s in and who’s out. For what it’s worth, though, I wrote a piece last year exploring whether the term “Christian/religious right” is even helpful anymore. Now, one might argue that conservative religious leaders just want to abandon a term because it isn’t very good PR, but others could argue that the label has become so confusing that no one knows how to apply it effectively. But who do these people represent and/or influence? Do their endorsements of a candidate or policy matter and how do you measure that? Do some of them perhaps have more influence in the media than for some congregation or coalition? Can Catholics — representing a very broad agenda on social issues and economic justice — really be slipped comfortably under the Religious Right umbrella?

The author included minor defenses of why each person was on the list. One of the funniest bits was the section on Maggie Gallagher:

“I don’t object to the [Christian right] label, but it’s not how I think of myself,” she tells NEWSWEEK. But her work, which also includes writing for the conservative National Review and others, is informed by her faith, and she’s collaborated closely with black preachers whose congregations strongly oppose gay marriage.

I love how she says “I don’t think of myself that way” and the writer comes back with, “Oh, but she definitely is. Anyone who is informed by their faith are definitely part of the Christian right. And she collaborates with black preachers whose congregations oppose gay marriage. No question about it!” I’m just not following the logic.

Back to Wallis, the author describes him as flying the flag of the “Christian left,” if it exists. In the same section, he describes Brian McLaren as a “moderate evangelical.” I don’t go around slapping on or quibbling over labels, but I would imagine that any reporter would get some raised eyebrows out of that one. So leaders of the Christian left are now part of the Christian right?

What was the process in selecting these particular individuals? What’s the criteria? How do you judge whether someone is a leader or has a following? The author cites little bursts of news he can remember (she was on the presidents faith-based advisory council), but does the same person really influence a large group of followers? What about other influencers like New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, the Rev. Franklin Graham, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput or World Vision president Rich Stearns, for instance? You could argue against their inclusion, which is fine, but you could also point to their pretty huge followings or potential for influence. Besides, whatever happened to Lisa Miller’s idea that Sarah Palin could invigorate the religious right? (lol)

I tweeted about Newsweek‘s list yesterday and received this feedback from @chrisblackstone: @spulliam I’d include @albertmohler, @rickwarren, @johnpiper, @billhybels. While they may not be politically influential, they do influence.

That’s a key point. Who is influencing who, and why does that matter? For instance, does a person really influence anyone if he or she appears some council or as leader of some organization? I can tell you that if, for instance, Al Mohler, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, etc. decided to support a particular candidate privately, it could definitely turn some heads. They may not lead politically-focused organizations, but that’s the thing about some religious leaders. These individuals are trusted by some large numbers because of their religious role as pastor/leader of a seminary, not because of who they rub shoulders with in Washington.

Lisa Miller also has a new Newsweek story on what could motivate the religious right in 2012. Miller offers some new reporting — apparently Wallis, Joel Hunter and Tony Campolo met to build a new communications strategy — as well as some historical background. Few reporters are able to incorporate history due to time and space, but Miller makes a concerted effort. Her thesis seems to build around Glenn Beck.

Evangelicals characteristically see themselves as a persecuted group whose values are under assault by the mainstream culture, and Beck has most successfully (and visibly) reframed those values in terms of patriotism. The enemy is no longer “moral relativism,” a term that encompasses sexual promiscuity, divorce, homosexuality, and pornography. It’s socialism, the redistribution of wealth, immigrants–a kind of “global relativism” that makes no moral distinction between America and every other place.

Read that first sentence again. Evangelicals characteristically see themselves as a persecuted group? Funny, I don’t remember that in David Bebbington’s classic description of evangelicals. Also, is there any data to suggest there the “enemy” shifted from “moral relativism” to socialism, immigrants, etc.? I’m not saying that shift did not take place, but haven’t seen this theory before or reflected in any data. History is employed for background purposes, but where’s the current proof?

It’s ironic that Beck, a Mormon, would gain acceptance as a leader of a new Christian coalition: Mormon theology in the 19th century was seen as so heretical–such a threat to the Protestant establishment–that the followers of Joseph Smith were routinely persecuted and killed. But Beck’s gift, and Palin’s, is to articulate God’s special plan for America in such broad strokes that they trample no single creed or doctrine while they move millions with their message. Jerry Falwell had a similar gift, and in 1980 his Moral Majority helped make Jimmy Carter a one-term president–and elect Ronald Reagan in a landslide.

It’s ironic that Miller sees Beck as a leader of a new Christian coalition the same week a new Lifeway survey suggests that most Protestant pastors do not see him as a Christian. Ed Stetzer reports that 75% consider former President George W. Bush to be a Christian, while 66% consider the same thing about Palin and 41% about President Barack Obama. In contrast, only 27% think of Glenn Beck as a Christian. There were definitely concerns raised over Beck after his comments on social justice and then concerns about his Mormon faith after his rally. His interest among certain evangelicals (Richard Land, Jonathan Falwell) is interesting, but I don’t see much evidence that he’s the new leader of religious involvement in politics.

Like many outlets, Newsweek is trying to predict 2012 outcome, but it’s unclear how important politically these individuals will become in the coming months. That said, the article raises an interesting idea and doesn’t frustrate me as much as the little slideshow did.

Sometimes reporters throw out a theory or idea, but then they go through this process called reporting. You research background info, you do interviews, you check polls–in other words, you make your theory as rock solid possible. I’m not sure Newsweek‘s list of the Christian right is any more than a gimmick, designed to get clicks on the website. Reporters should definitely watch for future religious leaders, but pigeonholing them into a list like this seems to turn journalism into a little guessing game.

Filed Under: Catholicism, Evangelicals, Journalism, Politics, Religion

Juan gets cut off short — again

October 27, 2010 By

So Juan Williams gave a lecture — on the legacy of Justice Thurgood Marshall — at the University of Maryland School of Law, where he received a standing ovation from a pack of lawyers from Baltimore. That, my friends, is not a Fox News crowd.

Williams also agreed to an interview with The Baltimore Sun, in which he declined to declare himself a sinner.

What interests your GetReligionistas, of course, is the ongoing issue of what Williams actually said in his now infamous visit with Bill O’Reilly. We are interested in everything he said, especially since Williams was offering a classic “Yes, but” message. I remain convinced that one of the worst sins that journalists can commit is to edit a person’s words so that they end up saying the opposite of what they actually said.

Alas, here is the short Sun summary of the controversy:

NPR announced Williams’ firing last Wednesday for comments made two nights earlier on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox show saying that when he sees passengers in traditional Muslim “garb” on an airplane with him, he feels “nervous.” Within hours of the firing, Fox News expanded his duties at the top-rated cable news channel with a three-year, $2 million contract.

Williams said Tuesday that he remained emotionally “roiled” by the abrupt termination that has earned NPR harsh criticism, and which touched off a firestorm over political correctness and whether the public radio network welcomes divergent political views.

Later, the Sun did allow Williams to throw another dose of gasoline on one of the many hot issues linked to his departure from public radio:

“At NPR … they don’t know this: A third of the audience for Bill O’Reilly’s show is made up of people of color,” Williams said. “At NPR, they think, ‘Oh, these people who watch Fox don’t appreciate diversity of opinion, they’re not smart people. They’re not informed people. Oh, yeah? I’ll tell you what: They’re informed. …

Williams said Tuesday that Fox executives were more enlightened than many on the left give them credit for, especially since the network “allows a black guy with a Hispanic name to sit in the in the big chair and host the big show. Do you see it on CNBC? … Do you [see] it at CNN in prime time?”

So, you can watch William’s controversial statement for yourself or you can read the transcript of his statement in which he reminds viewers of what he said the first time, putting his words back into context. Here’s a sample of that:

The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims. This is not a bigoted statement. It is a statement of my feelings, my fears after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 by radical Muslims. In a debate with Bill O’Reilly I revealed my fears to set up the case for not making rash judgments about people of any faith. I pointed out that the Atlanta Olympic bomber — as well as Timothy McVeigh and the people who protest against gay rights at military funerals — are Christians, but we journalists don’t identify them by their religion.

And I made it clear that all Americans have to be careful not to let fears lead to the violation of anyone’s constitutional rights, be it to build a mosque, carry the Koran or drive a New York cab without the fear of having your throat slashed.

Actually, people do — and rightly so — note that the Westboro Baptist protesters are Christians who keep attacking other Christians. Oh, and Timothy McVeigh went out of his way to distance himself from Christianity in any known form.

Nevertheless, what Williams said went something like: This is what I feel, but we cannot allow our feelings to interfere with the rights of others. We cannot blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.

So, if you are looking for an in-depth look at what started this media storm, from a viewpoint just about as far from Fox as possible, check out William Saletan’s “frame game” piece at Slate.com, which has many useful links for further research. Here’s a look at some of the key analysis:

The damning video clip of Williams … cuts off the speaker just as he’s about to reverse course. According to the full transcript, immediately after saying, “I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts,” Williams continues: “But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it’s not a war against Islam.” That continuation has been conveniently snipped from the excerpt.

A few seconds later, Williams challenges O’Reilly’s suggestion that “the Muslims attacked us on 9/11.” … Williams reminds O’Reilly that “there are good Muslims.” A short while later, O’Reilly asks: “Juan, who is posing a problem in Germany? Is it the Muslims who have come there, or the Germans?” Williams refuses to play the group blame game. “See, you did it again,” he tells O’Reilly. “It’s extremists.”

The bottom line for Saletan is that it’s wrong when journalists play this game, turning the meaning of a person’s words upside down. It’s wrong when conservative activists do it, too. It’s wrong when liberal activists do it. It’s even wrong when the high priests of NPR do it.

Filed Under: Interviews, Islam, Journalism, People, Race, Radio & TV

Why journalists love Westboro Baptist

October 7, 2010 By

Actually, the headline on the top of this post should say, “Why so many mainstream journalists are biting their lips and showing reluctant support for the fundamentalists — self proclaimed, fitting Associated Press style — from Westboro Baptist Church.” But that wouldn’t fit very well in our format.

It goes without saying that there is too much coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court sessions about Westboro Baptist (surf this) to deal with in a single GetReligion post, especially one written quickly while I prepare to split town for a speaking gig.

Here is what I can do for you.

Strangely enough, I can point readers once again to an excellent Time piece on the core issues in this case that, sadly, is still not available in its entirety on the magazine’s website. I will continue to watch to see if and when the text is posted.

Ironically, the key element of that article, from my point of view, is its emphasis on secular issues, not religious issues. You cannot understand this case without grasping the fact that the members of the Westboro legal team — once again, a wave of folks related to the Rev. Fred W. Phelps Sr. — have been willing to follow whatever laws local authorities throw at them, in terms of the locations of their protests.

These folks have a modus operandi and they know how to use it. They do legal protests that make a wide variety of people so mad (justifiably so) that they file lawsuits. The church then wins the lawsuits and collects the legal fees. Rinse, wash, blow dry. Repeat.

Phelps and his crew know that they will draw media coverage. For them, that’s the exposure that matters. They get to stand in front of cameras and shout, “God damn America” (as opposed to “God bless America”).

Thus, here is what I want GetReligion readers to do.

Go out in your front yard — literally, or digitally — and grab your local newspaper. Read the Westboro story that you will find there.

Then answer these questions. In addition to telling the story of the grieving family, which is essential, does the report in your local news source tell you (a) that the protests were moved to another location that was not in view of the church at which the funeral was held and that mourners did not need to pass the demonstration? Then, (b) does it note that the grieving father’s only viewing of these hateful, hellish demonstrations took place when he viewed news media reports or read materials posted on the church’s website? Those facts are at the heart of this case, when you are looking at the legal arguments from a secular, legal, even journalistic point of view. This is why so many mainstream news organizations are backing the church.

For my local newspaper, The Baltimore Sun, this is literally a local story, for two reasons. The emphasis is, as it should be, on the family of the U.S. Marine from Maryland. Then there is the scene at the Supreme Court.

While members of Westboro Baptist Church waved a sign outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday thanking God for dead soldiers, the nine justices inside tried to define the line at which such public protests become personal attacks during arguments in an emotionally charged case prompted by the picketing of a Maryland Marine’s funeral.

Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder was 20 years old when he was killed in a Humvee accident in Iraq on March 3, 2006. A week later, publicity-seeking members of the fire-and-brimstone Kansas congregation — all strangers to the Snyders — appeared at his family’s Catholic funeral service in Westminster with posters proclaiming sentiments like “God Hates America” and “Semper Fi Fags.” They later posted online a diatribe blaming Snyder’s death on the sins of the country and his divorced parents.

Snyder’s father sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and initially won, though the multimillion-dollar verdict was overturned on appeal. That series of legal decisions vaulted the Maryland case to the country’s highest court, where it’s testing the boundaries of the First Amendment and putting liberal free-speech advocates in the position of siding with fringe Christians. …

The case put several specific questions before the court — addressing the rights of private versus public figures, whether free speech is more important than freedom of religion and peaceful assembly, and whether a funeral constitutes a captive audience that needs protection from certain communication. But at its heart are issues of intellectual freedom and human decency.

Actually, the church believes that it’s religious freedom is at stake, too. So there are claims of religious liberty on both sides.

The Sun story covers most of the bases that must be covered (although, strangely enough, Pastor Phelps loses “The Rev.” in front of his name somewhere along the way).

Finally, toward the end, readers are offered this description of the actual event at the heart of this case:

Five days after Matthew Snyder was killed, the Phelpses sent out a news release warning his father and the authorities that they planned to picket the Westminster service at the “St. John’s Catholic dog kennel.” The funeral procession was rerouted, a SWAT team brought in, and a team of motorcyclists shielded the funeral-goers from viewing Westboro members.

But Snyder knew they were there, and later saw them on television and read their online diatribe, which the group called an “epic,” against his son.

While it is accurate to note that the “funeral procession was rerouted,” it is also crucial to note that the media-friendly demonstration was moved away from the Catholic church and that the Westboro activists honored that decision by civic officials. The family saw the protesters only in mainstream news reports — a big issue for defenders of freedom of the press.

Thus, there were only two ways to avoid the pain caused by the demonstrators — ban the protests, even on public cites chosen by civic officials, or ban media coverage of the protests. These are high hurdles for any justices who want, literally, to justify the silencing of these very bizarre religious believers.

So, what was in your local news? Did the reports tell you what you needed to know to understand this case? Once again, stick to the journalism issues.

Filed Under: Creeping Fundamentalism, Journalism, Marriage & family, People, Politics

Frustration, from time to Time

October 3, 2010 By

Week after week, your GetReligionistas receive mail from people who genuinely distrust or dislike America’s mainstream media.

There is no way to group all of these people into one simplistic camp. Some of them make a lot of sense and some do not.

Some of them, after all, are simply reacting to the fact that the press struggles to cover religion stories, period, and seems to have special problems doing accurate and balanced coverage of hot-button social issues, from abortion to the ordination of women, from gay rights to free speech in an increasingly complex and divided culture.

Many of these writers believe that most journalists are, to be perfectly blunt about it, “liberals” — whatever that word means. Now, it is true that studies keep showing that elite journalists, especially in the powerful corridor from Washington, D.C., to Boston, tend to be moral libertarians when it comes to most social issues, taking stands in favor of a kind of radical individualism that is hostile to most traditional forms of religious faith.

Once again, the best writing ever done about one of these issues was the Los Angeles Times series about bias issues in abortion coverage, written by the late David Shaw (who, by the way, was an articulate supporter of abortion rights when describing his own convictions). In part one, Shaw offered this blunt, simple, devastating summary:

Responsible journalists do try to be fair, and many charges of bias in abortion coverage are not valid. But careful examination of stories published and broadcast reveals scores of examples, large and small, that can only be characterized as unfair to the opponents of abortion, either in content, tone, choice of language or prominence of play:

* The news media consistently use language and images that frame the entire abortion debate in terms that implicitly favor abortion-rights advocates.

* Abortion-rights advocates are often quoted more frequently and characterized more favorably than are abortion opponents.

* Events and issues favorable to abortion opponents are sometimes ignored or given minimal attention by the media.

* Many news organizations have given more prominent play to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion-rights advocates than to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion rights opponents.

* Columns of commentary favoring abortion rights outnumber those opposing abortion by a margin of more than 2 to 1 on the op-ed pages of most of the nation’s major daily newspapers.

* Newspaper editorial writers and columnists alike, long sensitive to violations of First Amendment rights and other civil liberties in cases involving minority and anti-war protests, have largely ignored these questions when Operation Rescue and other abortion opponents have raised them.

That was published in the mainstream press.

The key, for Shaw, is that this bias is real, but it is not universal. Thus, the goal is to describe these bias issues — yes — as fairly and accurately as possible.

You see, it is simply simplistic to say that the mainstream press is always “liberal.” It’s simplistic to say that the New York Times is always biased, as opposed to offering coverage that is fair and accurate in handling the beliefs involved in debates about religious and cultural disputes in America and around the world. And right now, although it is tempting to say so, it would be simplistic to say that editors at Time have made some kind of conscious decision — similar to the one made by the fallen editorial team at nonNewsweek — to ditch the American model of the press and turn their magazine into an advocacy publication for the moral and cultural left.

I know it feels that way, when you read something like the recent feature on the ordination of women to the priesthood by schismatic groups that are fighting the Catholic Church hierarchy. This piece is still being pushed out front at Time.com.

But that’s only part of this complex picture.

On the other side, there is “The Price of Free Speech,” a solid news feature by Sean Gregory in the current issue about the U.S. Supreme Court and the rights and wrongs of the anti-gay, anti-America protesters from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan.

This piece is long, it’s complex, it’s careful, it’s sensitive to viewpoints on both sides. It’s serious. In the end, it’s agonizing, just like the case it describes. Here’s the opening (the only part of the story you can read online, at the moment):

This is Matt’s day, Albert Snyder kept telling himself that March morning in 2006, hours before he laid his only son to rest. This is about Matt. Concentrate on Matt. Ignore them.

Them were the seven protesters he had been warned about who were planning to picket his son’s funeral. They had never met Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. They didn’t know much about him except that he had been killed in Iraq the week before. And yet they had flown more than 1,000 miles (1,600 km) to brandish signs saying things like “You’re going to hell,” “God hates fags” and “Thank God for 9/11.”

If you have access to a copy of Time, please check this out. The full text will go online in a few weeks, under the magazine’s current approach to its new material.

As you read it, please experience the frustration of knowing that this fine piece of American journalism was published in the same magazine that published that complete skewed, unbalanced, advocacy piece on the female priests. Read both pieces. So, which is the real Time? Try to describe this magazine’s current approach to journalism.

Good luck. Frustrating, isn’t it?

Filed Under: Announcements, Creeping Fundamentalism, Godbeat, Journalism, People, Religion