Watch Sarah Pulliam Bailey Destroy The Atlantic

Sarah Pulliam Bailey

Sarah Pulliam Bailey, writer for Christianity Today, is one of my more favorite writers in the evangelical-journalist community. Like me, she was emailed a downright absurd article posted on the Atlantic‘s website last week, linking KONY2012 to the emergent church movement.

In our world, the Atlantic is supposed to represent good, serious reporting. And Christianity Today is supposed to represent slanted, non-objective reporting.

Well, read Sarah’s piece if you’re ready for your categories to be upended. She completely pwns the Atlantic at Get Religion:

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.

Please read the rest of Sarah’s paragraph-by-paragraph deconstruction of the Atlantic article here: Correction please on The Atlantic’s lol Kony report » GetReligion.

"Have you considered professional online editing services like ?"

The Writing Life
"I'm not missing out on anything - it's rather condescending for you to assume that ..."

Is It Time for Christians to ..."
"I really don't understand what you want to say.Your"

Would John Piper Excommunicate His Son?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Sarah

    Thanks, Tony. But “And Christianity Today is supposed to represent slanted, non-objective reporting.” — You sure?

    • When, over coffee, Mark Galli told me that CT has an official position on which view of the atonement is biblically and doctrinally correct, it was confirmed to me that CT is not objective.

      It’s advocacy, not journalism. That’s alright, so is this blog.

      • aaron

        I stopped my subscription to Christianity today when I saw an advertisement from the American Family Association, a hate group, and another article advocating or including “Dr.” Michael Brown, a man who loves spouting lies and hateful comments about gays as a living.

      • Brantley

        Tony–to where do you go for your “objective” reporting? I’m surprised that you’re still using “slanted” as a descriptor, but I assume you’re judging on a relative scale.

        • Larry Barber

          Well, in this case, its not so much “slanted” as “utterly clueless”, Mark Driscoll a liberal, I mean, get real.

        • Yes, that’s right. No magazine or newspaper is truly objective. But some aim for that, while others unapologetically defend a POV. CT is in the latter category.