So what’s the problem in Maryland pews?

August 27, 2012 By tmatt

Whenever you read one of those reflective essays on how The New York Times serves as a cheerleader for progressive causes — thank you, M.Z. — what you really need next is a kind of chaser to clear the journalistic palette.

I cannot provide that, at the moment.

Instead, let’s jump right back into the same subject — only this time through a new-old Times report about political — dang it, we’re talking about POLITICS, people — events unfolding in the deep-blue state of Maryland. You’ll be stunned to know that the headline reads, “In Maryland, Gay Marriage Seeks a ‘Yes’ at the Polls.”

As always, the word “could” shows up very early in this report. Readers who consume lots of news know that the word “could” is often a sign that a news organization has its fingers crossed about the direction a particular issue should, as opposed to “could,” take in the immediate future. Thus, The Times goes down to Maryland to check up on how things are going:

WASHINGTON — When Marylanders go to the polls in November, the state could become the first to affirm same-sex marriage in a popular vote.

In March, lawmakers in Maryland approved a measure to allow such unions, but it came with a built-in escape hatch: it would not take effect until 2013. The waiting period was intended as a compromise with opponents of the measure and as an insurance policy for supporters. Lawmakers feared validating marriages for a period, only to have them overturned by a popular vote later, as happened with Proposition 8 in California.

Opponents of same-sex marriage in Maryland seized the opportunity to contest the law and gathered more than 100,000 signatures to put a referendum on the November ballot, setting the stage for a renewed debate on the issue.

Now, like I said, the state of Maryland (I live on the south edge of the Baltimore Beltway) is about as true liberal blue as a state can get. So the whole purpose of this story is to answer the following question: How can gay marriage lose in some of America’s most liberal political terrain? WHo are the opponents? Will the Times team listen to these bizarre folks?

Naturally, the Maryland Marriage Alliance shows up immediately, as it should. But who IS the Maryland Marriage Alliance? It is an “alliance” of what kinds of groups? If you know anything about Maryland culture, then you will know that the answer is that this an interracial network of religious groups.

The Times story, explores — from a liberal perspective — the role of race in this scene, but not religion (although there is brief, vague, content-free reference to the much-debated religious conscience exemptions written into the Maryland law that passed). Readers are told:

The ballot language will also be different in Maryland. In the other 32 states where voters have been asked about the issue, the referendum question was phrased so that a vote in favor of the measure was a vote to reject same-sex marriage. In Maryland, ballots will ask the question in the affirmative and will explain that there will be an exemption for religious groups.

In January, a poll conducted by The Washington Post found that half of Maryland residents supported same-sex marriage. Since then, polls have suggested a rise in support — in large part, advocates believe, because more black voters have warmed to the idea. That will be particularly significant in Maryland, where in a typical election blacks make up roughly one-third of voters.

Please read the whole story. Based in the information offered by the Times, would readers know that the key to this entire story is whether church-going African-Americans will turn out large enough numbers — with President Barack Obama on the ballot, this is likely, but not certain — and thus vote to defend a traditional definition of marriage? Readers are told that “more black voters have warmed to the idea” of changing the definition, without a single concrete reference to the fact that this pivots on debates in African-American pews.

So what are African-Americans in Maryland debating? What is the content of this pivotal discussion, which will almost certainly determine the fate of this item on the ballot?

Wait, you mean talking to African-American believers on both sides of this issue is a possibility? Who knew?

Paper of record or church bulletin of the left?

August 27, 2012 By mollie

The New York Times‘ outgoing public editor — Arthur S. Brisbane — wrote his final column this weekend. Most of it is outside the purview of this blog, which is discussion of media coverage of religion news. He talks a lot about how the Times has streamlined and responded to social media. But part of it was interesting enough to some readers to send it in for discussion. Here it is:

I also noted two years ago that I had taken up the public editor duties believing “there is no conspiracy” and that The Times’s output was too vast and complex to be dictated by any Wizard of Oz-like individual or cabal. I still believe that, but also see that the hive on Eighth Avenue is powerfully shaped by a culture of like minds — a phenomenon, I believe, that is more easily recognized from without than from within.

When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.

As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.

It is to the New York Times’ credit that it publishes critiques such as this.

You’ll recall former public editor Daniel Okrent’s column headlined “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” The first line of that piece was “Of course it is.” It went on to mock anyone who thought the paper “plays it down the middle” on the issues of “gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others.” Okrent said the newspaper’s coverage of same-sex marriage resembled “cheerleading.”

One of the things I find most astute is how Brisbane notes that it’s easier to see the homogenous thinking on display across the paper’s many departments from the outside. Almost as if to prove his point, Times‘ executive editor Jill Abramson said to Politico in response to the column:

“In our newsroom we are always conscious that the way we view an issue in New York is not necessarily the way it is viewed in the rest of the country or world. I disagree with Mr. Brisbane’s sweeping conclusions,” Abramson told POLITICO Saturday night.

It’s interesting to read through some of the comments from readers, too. Ron from New York City says, “I’m all for gay marriage. But the obsession of The Times with gay marriage and all gay issues is beyond bizarre.” Dave from Texas writes “Groupthink can be a very dangerous thing. So many at the Times think the same way that they literally cannot comprehend how any thinking person could hold an opposing viewpoint. Sadly that inability is costing the Times tens of millions of dollars a year because their thinking is so one-sided that half, yes half, their potential customers refuse to buy their product.”

Media critics also responded to the piece. Jay Rosen says “Look: The New York Times would be better off if everyone knew where it was coming from.” National Review’s Jay Nordlinger agrees, saying that the Times must abandon “the fiction that ‘We’re just reporting the news here.’” The Washington Post‘s Erik Wemple avoids the more interesting charges about same-sex marriage to criticize the public editor for failing to document bias covering Occupy Wall Street.

As for me, I’ll only say that I think that the type of bias that the New York Times displays when it advocates for same-sex marriage is hurting our ability to be civil with each other. Even before the politically motivated shooting at the Family Research Center, I wrote about my concern that unbalanced and inaccurate media treatment of same-sex marriage battles was harmful to civil society. I mentioned a few recent incidents — the reporter going off on a Chick-fil-A-related Facebook tirade, the same-sex marriage proponent losing his job after bullying a remarkably composed young Chick-fil-A drive-thru worker, a lesbian who said watching lines at Chick-fil-A made her feel like there were boots on her chest.

All of these stories made me sad, for one reason or another. Obviously something in civil society had broken down. As I wrote then:

If it is true that believing marriage is the conjugal union of one man and one wife is bigoted, the equivalent to the most vile racists of the past centuries, then it makes sense to react in the way the reporter, the recently fired corporate executive and the lesbian passer-by did.

If the idea that marriage is the conjugal union of man and wife is bigotry — and the mainstream media and the cultural elite have pounded this view non-stop for years (here’s the latest example of the accompanying holier-than-thou pietism with which the view is pushed) — then you should respond by tormenting drive-thru workers who are part of the bigotry-industrial complex. You should speak ill of people who hold this view on Facebook. Often! You should feel like eating a chicken sandwich was about people putting their boot on your chest.

The thing is, though, that it’s not…

When I first began covering this issue — back when California was deciding Prop. 8 — I was shocked to learn that what the media had told me was wrong. When I interviewed people who supported Prop. 8, I found that they were eminently calm and reasonable. Their arguments did take a while to learn, but they were able to be learned.

These people explained why marriage law exists and what it is designed to protect. They explained why they viewed a change to those laws as seriously misguided. They pointed out some of the logical conclusions to changing the definition of marriage.

Now, you may agree or disagree with what they have to say (and to learn more about what they say, I think this paper is easy to read and digest), but it’s not bigotry. And it is a scurrilous indefensible charge to say otherwise.

If our country is to work through these debates about what marriage is and what it should be, we simply must devote ourselves to listening to arguments and thinking things through. It is impossible to do that when we dismiss supporters of traditional marriage as bigots.

Even more than the reflexive cheerleading for same-sex marriage that Brisbane refers to, it is the media’s demonization of those who retain a traditional definition of marriage that concerns me. I am in no way blaming the media for recent violent attacks against people or businesses. Only the people who assault employees or their buildings are responsible for their actions. It’s just past time to start talking about what marriage is without charging people with bigotry. Some people believe that marriage is the conjugal union of a man and woman who make permanent and exclusive commitment to each other, based on their gender differences and built around conjugal acts — those acts that naturally lead to reproduction and unite them as a reproductive unit. Other people believe that marriage is the union of two (or some might say more) people of any sex who commit to romantically love and care for each other and share domestic burdens. These are different definitions that have consequences that are far-reaching.

We probably haven’t even touched the surface of what those consequences might be. And we will never be able to think these things through rationally and calmly if we denounce one or the other view as unfit for public discussion. Heck, I’d say that most media outlets haven’t even begun for a moment to think about any consequences for changing this definition — apart from what you read about in terms of particular people who would be affected by the change.

This is one of the wonderful things about a mainstream press. It can help promote civil discourse, rational thinking and an improved society (I thought this recent debate led by a New York Times religion columnist was a good step in the right direction). When the paper of record becomes a particularly virulent propaganda arm for one side in the culture war, those things don’t happen — and I hope we can agree no matter which side we take on hot-button cultural issues.

(For what it’s worth, I stole the headline from one of the commenters to the public editor’s last column.)

Reporters pretend they’re confused about rape

August 23, 2012 By mollie

Earlier today, I highlighted a couple of examples of how the media suffer from some serious blind spots when it comes to coverage of the hot-button topic of abortion. I noted that the struggles of pro-life Democrats to have their existence simply acknowledged by their party receive very little, if any, mainstream media coverage. Conversely, the pro-life platform of the Republican Party is big media story.

I also pointed out how reporters love to ask consistent pro-life politicians about rape exceptions to abortion but hardly ever ask consistent pro-choice politicians about sex-selection abortions, late-term abortions or Down syndrome abortions.

For a look at how reporters have had historical trouble covering abortion with even a semblance of balance, you may be interested in this essay by Newsweek contributing editor Kenneth Woodward or the Los Angeles Times media analysis he references therein. Let’s move on to another area where the media have had trouble reporting — as opposed to advocating for a particular social issue goal. That’s the curious attack on the pro-life Paul Ryan as someone who was trying to “redefine rape.”

For anyone who has not been paying attention to newspapers or legal dramas for the past few decades, the justice system distinguishes between forcible rape (which is, well, exactly what is described by the words “forcible rape”) and statutory rape. Statutory rape is where someone who is of legal age to consent to have sex (say, 18 in some jurisdictions) has sex with someone who is not of legal age to consent to have sex (say, 17 in some jurisdictions).

Now, I think most people with a basic comprehension of words understand this distinction. I think most people understand that there is a difference between someone who is violently assaulted and someone whose boyfriend is a couple of years older than they are. They may be strongly opposed to both sexual encounters, but I don’t think that there’s any real question that these are different types of rape and that it’s in no way offensive to distinguish between them.

But for some reason the media have been pretending that they don’t understand the difference and that to distinguish between these two legal definitions of rape is an attempt to “redefine” rape. These are perfectly fine talking points for pro-choice activists, but should journalists be playing along?

Here’s ABC:

Now with Akin making headlines, Democrats will seek to tie Ryan to the Missouri congressman by highlighting social-issues legislation on which they’ve partnered.

Akin and Ryan cosponsored a 2011 bill, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, that would redefine rape as “forcible rape,” narrowing the scope of what’s considered rape in cases of abortion.

First off, there is absolutely no evidence provided by ABC that this would “redefine” rape, as it claims. There is no evidence provided that it would narrow the scope of what’s considered rape. And there’s no mention of the fact that — since Republicans dropped the wording because they viewed it as redundant or a political liability. They don’t mention that 225 other representatives cosponsored this legislation — including, shhhhhhh, eleven Democrats. Now, maybe it’s totally legitimate to focus this much attention on one word that was never voted on because it was dropped from a bill cosponsored by 225 representatives from both parties. I don’t know. But I smell something a bit lacking in terms of balance or fair reporting. Or, as one reporter noted, Barack Obama holds a position in support of taxpayer funding of abortions that is opposed by 72 percent of Americans, according to a Quinnipac Poll. Have the media been writing breathless reports about that? It’s fantastic to write about abortion. But if you’re writing about Ryan and abortion — and you haven’t found the time to cover sitting President Barack Obama’s abortion record — you may be doing it wrong.

But it looks like journalists are all in for pushing this pro-choice talking point about forcible rape. Do they really not understand the distinction between forcible rape and statutory rape? Really? Really? Come on. But here’s Anderson Cooper of CNN:

Last year Paul #Ryan distinguished between “forcible rape” and other kinds. How come today he won’t explain what he meant?

Is anyone else pretending that they don’t understand the distinction? Sadly, hundreds of reporters are pretending they don’t understand the distinction. Even Jake Tapper’s otherwise fine and balanced report for ABC News emphasized that Paul Ryan didn’t explain something we all know — the headline was:

Ryan Refuses to Explain “Forcible” Rape as Dems Attempt More Akin-izing of the GOP Ticket

NBC‘s Kelly O’Donnell also played along with her story “Ryan backed more than one ‘forcible rape’ abortion bill,” that repeated the same talking points and has been “updated” (which is what others call “corrected”) for problems with the reporting. That includes the last paragraph which, after tarring Ryan as having some magical, mystical understanding of rape that is different from everyone else’s, concedes that, well:

For broader context, the term “forcible rape” appears to have roots in the legal community, where it has been used by prosecutors to distinguish that crime from “statutory rape,” which involves a minor unable to legally consent or a person who lacks mental capacity for legal consent.

By Wednesday night, one reporter found that there were already 337 stories about this pro-choice talking point that requires reporters to pretend that they don’t actually understand the difference between statutory and forced rape. As I finish writing this, we see that the New York Times is now also pretending not to understand rape — as this comprehensive take-down of that story’s inaccurate and misleading reporting makes clear.

Either reporters are pushing an agenda supportive of abortion rights or they’re idiots. It’s one thing for pro-choice activists or the Democratic Party to advocate in support of those goals. But reporters playing games in service to that agenda is ridiculous. We’re all better than that, no matter what side of the issue we’re personally on.

Confused guy image via Shutterstock.

Akin deluge highlights media struggles with abortion coverage

August 23, 2012 By mollie

A few days ago a religion reporter tweeted at us:

Will @getreligion cover Todd Akin’s #legitimaterape comments & the conservative #Christian reax? Would grab new @Patheos readers, too.

Now, even though we’ve been around for many years, some people are still confused about precisely what we do. We actually have a very limited focus. We don’t “cover” anyone’s comments or the “conservative #Christian” reaction (or anyone else’s reaction) to same. We understand that there are many places on the internet where people may want to discussion politics or religion but we are only interested in media coverage of religion news. And not just general media coverage but only mainstream media coverage. Opinion sites and opinion pieces are just that — disseminators of opinions (for example, you can read a liberal New York Times columnist compare Rep. Paul Ryan and all other pro-lifers to the Taliban, a moderate Washington Post columnist compare Rep. Todd Akin to the Taliban, and a libertarian Washington Examiner columnist interview women who were conceived via rape or who conceived and bore children of rape). We only care about the news reporting.

Now, the comments referenced above are being covered by news pages, too, in a manner we might call “flooding the zone” (one media research outlet notes that already these comments have received four times the coverage of another notable gaffe last week from a much higher-ranking politico). So we have a variety of mainstream media news stories to look at.

The most fruitful avenue for first-day Godbeat reactions to the story were to examine where Akin got the idea that the bodies of women who’ve been raped reject pregnancy. I thought this Tim Townsend story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was a great read for the origins of those claims (turns out that Akin did get his views from medical doctors, although their views aren’t widely accepted, to put it mildly). Someone should consider doing a story on how natural family planning education, which focuses on how female fertility works and is popular among pro-lifers, is at dramatic odds with these views Akin mentioned.

Most of the Akin stories are related to politics (for example, ABC News’ “Obama Team Continues to Try to Akin-ize GOP Ticket“) or about trying to make political points. In this case, the media and the Obama team seem to be on the same page. Yesterday, for instance, the Washington Post offered coverage of Akin on pages A1, A6, A7, A15, C1, and C5. Far too many mainstream outlets have conflated the particular statement of one denounced Senate candidate with the general policy views of pro-lifers. These are two separate things but you might not know it from the media coverage.

Before I continue, I want to mention that roughly the same percentage of Americans report consistent views at the extreme ends of the abortion debate. In a poll showing that half of Americans self-identify as pro-life (compared to 41 percent who self-identify as pro-choice — a record low), only 25 percent said they thought abortion should be legal in all cases. I believe it was the same poll that showed that 22 percent of people think that abortion should be illegal no matter the circumstances of the pregnancy. But only one of these minority views is treated as a minority view in the media (to find media coverage that treats the other minority view as newsworthy, you generally have to leave the arena of mainstream media).

Take, for example, the media coverage of the two major political parties’ platform disputes. Pro-life Democrats agitated for changes to the Democratic Party platform this year. It’s kind of striking how little they asked for, particularly considering that they were refused. They just wanted recognition that not all Democrats support the official party platform against any limitation on abortion (their statistics indicate that the party platform is out of step with the views of many Democrats). Was there any media coverage of this? I don’t believe so. You can read about it at pro-life sites, but what about mainstream media sites? When it comes to the Republican Party platform debates on abortion, start spilling the ink and pixels.

Or take it down to the micro level. If roughly the same percentage of Americans hold the view that all abortion should be legal (whether the abortion takes place moments before birth or simply because the child is female or has Down syndrome) as hold the view that all abortion should be illegal (even if the child is conceived because of rape), why do the media only ask candidates about one of these positions?

When was the last time you heard a reporter ask a similar question of one of the 246 members of Congress who voted that it should always be legal to terminate an unborn child simply because she is female? Consistent pro-life politicians are routinely asked why women who get pregnant as a result of rape should be forced to continue their pregnancy. Consistent pro-choice politicians are almost never asked why they think it should be legal to kill an unborn child just because she happens to be female. Consistent pro-choice politicians are rarely, if ever, asked why it should be legal to kill an unborn child just because she happens to have Down syndrome. Heck, they’re rarely even asked why it should be legal to kill an unborn child on her way to the birth canal. Why is that? Or check out this analysis of how many reporters have asked President Obama about his record on legislation that would protect infants born after failed abortions (the answer — and the outlet — may surprise you).

It’s not even that these stories are particularly bad so much as they only crop up on one side of the debate. Even as the country becomes more and more pro-life, the long-time media struggles to report this issue well show no signs of abating. It fits with the media’s year of the “war on women” trope we’ve seen so much of, but it’s not good journalism.

Mormon Mitt Romney goes to church — with reporters!

August 22, 2012 By Bobby Ross Jr.

Mitt Romney’s surprising decision to allow reporters to follow him into church Sunday drew a slew of major mainstream media coverage.

The New York Times opened its story this way:

BOSTON — Mitt Romney read Scripture from his iPad as he juggled his 2-year-old grandson on his lap.

He made sure to accept a small piece of white bread and cup of water, representing the flesh and blood of Jesus, from a member of the clergy who looked like he was about to accidentally pass him by.

And with a knowing nod, he encouraged his wife, Ann, to leave the pew and join the women’s choir in a rendition of “Because I Have Been Given Much.” (She did.)

On one level, it was a typical Sunday morning for Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and a devoted churchgoer. But on another level, his Sunday observance was an extraordinary moment for a candidate who zealously protects his privacy and rarely talks about his Mormon faith.

Now, at this point, I should acknowledge that I am not GetReligion’s resident expert on Mormonism. In my secular religion writing career, I did a feature on a day in the life of Mormon missionaries and covered a sermon by retired Atlanta Braves star Dale Murphy at a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In more recent times, I toured the Mormon world headquarters in Salt Lake City. But like most Americans, I have much to learn concerning the intricacies of the Mormon faith.

I mention my background only as an explanation of the elementary-level questions that came to my mind as I read the Times report. Among those questions: Why the sacrament of water instead of grape juice or wine? Maybe I’m the only person with that question, but I wish the story had addressed it. Also, I wish the pool report had been more specific on exactly what Scripture(s) Romney read on his iPad? Was the Scripture(s) from the Bible or the Book of Mormon or both?

The report did offer some specifics on the candidate’s wife, Ann Romney, joining the church women’s choir in a rendition of “Because I Have Been Given Much”:

At one point, volunteers were invited to join the women’s choir in song. Mr. Romney glanced at his wife, and gently and wordlessly suggested she do so. Mrs. Romney and her daughter-in-law both stood, walked to the front pulpit and along with about 40 others — nearly all the women in the congregation — began singing “Because I Have Been Given Much,” a popular Mormon hymn about using one’s blessings to help other people. The lyrics include this line: “I shall divide my gifts from thee with every brother that I see, who has the need of help from me.”

All in all, the Old Gray Lady offered a fairly straightforward account of Romney’s time at church. The sourcing on the decision to bring reporters (“his advisers said”) was extremely vague, but that seems, rightly or wrongly, to be the nature of most attribution in campaign stories.

The Washington Post inserted Romney’s Sunday church experience into a lengthy investigative report on the candidate’s years as a church leader in Boston:

On the presidential campaign trail, Romney has sealed off his experience as a Mormon prelate, only rarely and vaguely mentioning his church leadership. On Sunday, Romney, who often goes to Mormon services when on the road, read scriptures from an iPad, received the sacrament of white bread and water and sang hymns with his family as he attended church near his lake house in New Hampshire. And for the first time since becoming a presidential candidate, he invited the media to watch, indicating that he was willing to put aside reservations about the political consequences of his faith and start allowing some access to that private space.

(Romney, by the way, is not the only person of faith taking his iPad to church these days.)

For those more familiar with the Mormon faith than I am, I’d be interested in your reaction to the Post story: Was it fair to Romney? Did it accurately portray the typical inner workings of the church? How, if at all, might the story have been improved?

The Associated Press, meanwhile, used Romney allowing reporters into his church as a peg to explore the candidate’s decision to open up “a little” about his religion. Godbeat pro Rachel Zoll’s story impressed me as a quintessential piece of concise but quality journalism by AP — filled with revealing details about Romney’s faith background and expert analysis by qualified sources.

CNN, on the other hand, took a more sensational approach, delving into polygamy and asking “if powerful church leaders could somehow control a Mormon president.”

From the CNN transcript:

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN: The Southern Baptist Convention calls the church a cult. Many Americans say they don’t even consider Mormons Christians. An article in the online magazine “Slate” brands the religion’s founder Joseph Smith a con man. In fact, he was Elder Russell Ballard’s great, great uncle.

My question: Does the Southern Baptist Convention really call the Mormon church a cult? Yes, a Texas pastor made headlines last year for labeling Mormons a cult. Yes, Southern Baptists obviously have major theological differences with Mormons. But did the convention as a whole endorse the “cult” terminology? CNN might want to consider a little more nuanced reporting on the subject. To its credit, the CNN report did include interviews with Romney and Elder M. Russell Ballard, a member of the church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Finally, for those who savored tmatt’s scoop the other day on “Mitt Romney, consumer of sinful ice cream,” this just in: Religion beat specialist Peggy Fletcher Stack of the Salt Lake Tribune reports that Mormons, like Mitt, can indulge in caffeine ice cream. Enjoy!

Salt Lake Temple image via Shutterstock

Where have all the foreign correspondents gone?

August 22, 2012 By geoconger

“Truth is true only within a certain period of time,” observed a spokesman for the Burma’s military junta in the aftermath of that country’s 1988 pro-democracy uprising, reported Emma Larkin in her 2004 political travelogue-cum-biography “Finding George Orwell in Burma”. “What was truth once may no longer be truth after many months or years.”

My mind turned to Burma and these musings on the nature of truth after reading Thomas Fuller’s solid story in the New York Times on the end of press censorship in Burma. Reading this piece also brought home the importance of having a correspondent in place that knows the territory, the players, the culture – a reporter who not only is in place, but who “gets it”. Compare the coverage in the New York Times with its story datelined Bangkok with that of the Los Angeles Times article written from California and you can see what I mean.

The LA Times opened its article with:

Journalists in Myanmar will no longer have to send their articles to state censors before publication, a landmark step announced Monday toward lifting restrictions on the press.

But reporters in the changing country still fear being punished for what they write. Free speech activists say other rules that clamp down on government criticism or touchy topics are still in place, inhibiting journalists from writing freely.

It followed with analysis, drawing quotes from scholars and Burmese activists outside of the country. On its face a nice, but thin story.

Compare it to the New York Times piece which opened with:

BANGKOK — The government of Myanmar said on Monday that it would no longer censor private publications, a move that journalists described as a major step toward media freedom in a country where military governments have tried for decades to control the flow of information.

The announcement was made to editors on Monday and posted on a government Web site. “All publications in Myanmar are exempt from the scrutiny of Press Scrutiny and Registration Department,” the government said in a terse statement.

It then moves to an analysis of the event, quoting Burmese journalists in Burma before moving to the close with context and further detail.

Like the democratization process itself in Myanmar, the government has scaled back censorship gradually. In June 2011, articles dealing with entertainment, health, children and sports were taken off the list of subjects requiring prior censorship. In December, economics, crime and legal affairs were removed. Education topics were taken off the list in March. The only two topics remaining on the list — religion and politics — were freed from censorship on Monday.

Like the New York Times, the Telegraph’s South Asia editor took an upbeat tone, but what the Times put in its last sentence the Telegraph put in its first:

Until yesterday all political and religious news had to be submitted to the government’s Press Scrutiny and Registration Department for prior approval, but the requirement was dropped in what was hailed as another significant step in Burma’s fast-moving democratic reform process.

In the past twelve months, since democracy movement leader Aung San Suu Kyi met former military leader President Thein Sein, the government has relaxed censorship and controls on trade unions, freed hundreds of political prisoners, and held a series of by-elections which were almost all won by the Nobel Laureate’s National League for Democracy and hailed as ‘free and fair.

Given that there has been a gradual relaxation of press restrictions over the past year, it makes sense that politics would be one of the last taboos. But why would religion reporting be banned?

The LA Times article does not mention the topic of religion at all, while the New York Times does not explain why religion reporting and not economics, for example, was banned. Why would a report on Burma’s parlous economic state be less of a threat to the regime than a report on a religious topic?

My assumption is that as Buddhist monks have been at the forefront of the pro-Democracy movement news about religion would be controlled by the state – but I have no knowledge on this point, and none of the articles address this. Nor is this likely to be something that falls within the catch-all of conventional wisdom about Burma – for until recently foreign reporters were banned from the country and its citizens were threatened with jail if they spoke with foreign reporters.

Why was religion so dangerous to the military junta? I can guess, but after reading these articles I do not know.

The New York Times however did a good job in capturing the excitement resident Burmese journalists felt. A joke current in Myanmar during the year Emma Larkin researched her book about George Orwell, who served as a colonial policeman in Burma during the 1920’s, was that “Orwell wrote not just one novel about the country, but three: a trilogy comprised of ‘Burmese Days,’ ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’.”

Larkin saw some truth in this joke noting that Orwell’s 1934 novel “Burmese Days” savaged British colonial rule; “Animal Farm” (1946) prophesied Burma’s “miserable experiment with socialism,” which transformed the country from one of the richest in Asia at the time of the left-wing military coup in 1962 to the one of the poorest today; while “Nineteen Eighty-Four” (1949) foresaw the transformation of the country into a society dominated by informers, doublespeak, political repression, torture and censorship.

In “Nineteen Eighty-Four” the protagonist Winston Smith works as a clerk in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth, redacting history to conform to the party line of the present. Just as Winston Smith would “vaporize” dissidents from memory, until last year it was a crime in Burma to write the name of someone held to be an unperson, like pro-Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

The tone of the New York Times piece better states, to my mind, the freedom felt by the Burmese, as does the Telegraph story. While skill in the craft of journalism plays its part, I also credit the high quality of these stories to the presence of Western reporters in the region.

This is now to often the exception rather than the rule. In an article entitled “How to Read Today’s Unbelievably Bad News” published by the Gatestone Institute, the Istanbul-based American journalist Claire Berlinski argues:

In-depth international news coverage in most of America’s mainstream news organs has nearly vanished. What is published is not nearly sufficient to permit the reader to grasp what is really happening overseas or to form a wise opinion about it. The phenomenon is non-partisan; it is as true for Fox News as it is for CNN.

Do look at this great piece by Ms. Berlinski — whose work I long have admired. It speaks to the reasons and consequences of the collapse of overseas reporting. Focusing on overseas religion reporting for GetReligion, I feel at times that I am working under a double disadvantage. The quantity and quality of international news coverage in U.S. and British newspapers has declined — and on top of that the few remaining foreign correspondents sometimes do not “get religion”.

Catholic priest was ‘assisting’ in a gay wedding?

August 21, 2012 By tmatt

What we have here, in this short New York Times wedding announcement, is a dangerously vague and terribly loaded word — “assisting” — being used in a liturgical context of some kind. It’s crucial that the word “assisting” is being used in a way that directly connects it with another controversial word in this day and age — “married.”

Here is the bulk of this short society-news item:

Roger Thomas Danforth and Richard James Termine were married Friday evening in New York. The Rev. David C. Parsons, a Lutheran minister, officiated aboard the Lexington, a chartered yacht, on the East River, with the Rev. Michael DeVito, a Roman Catholic priest and a cousin of Mr. Termine, assisting.

Mr. Danforth (left), 63, is the artistic director of the Directors Project, a career development program for theater directors run by the Drama League, a New York organization dedicated to professional theater. He is also a freelance director. …

Mr. Termine, 59, is a freelance photographer in New York. He has done work for the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Carnegie Hall and the 92nd Street Y. He is also the on-set photographer for “Sesame Street,” and is on the board of the Jim Henson Foundation in New York. …

The couple’s wedding took place on the 30th anniversary of their meeting at a performance of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park.

Pretty ordinary wedding stuff in the Gray Lady, other than, of course, that reference to the Roman Catholic priest. So let’s walk through this logically, trying to find out what may or may not have happened here.

For starters, it seems that we have a generic Lutheran wedding, which one can only assume is a rite linked to the liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, an oldline Protestant body that is steadily moving to the doctrinal left on issues of moral theology.

But here’s the key journalistic question: What does it mean to say that a Catholic priest was “assisting” in an ELCA wedding?

The bottom line: I do not think that it is safe to assume that the Times is accurate in it use of the word “assisting.” The liturgical implication is that this priest actually took part in the prayers and blessings during the service, that he was, in effect, vested and participating as a clergyman. What if he was simply sporting a clerical collar and merely said a few words on behalf of the Termine family? What if he read a poem?

Yes, Catholic readers need to know where the priest was standing and what he was wearing. For Catholics, the Devil is truly in the details of this case.

There are ways that this Father DeVito could have taken part in the event that would not represent a Catholic priest “assisting” in a same-sex marriage, in a true liturgical sense of the word. The rite did not take place in a church, after all.

In other words, did the Times get the facts straight?

Without question, the priest’s participation in any way will scandalize many traditional Catholics. One website has already noted that a priest of this name is, in fact, active in the Archdiocese of Hartford (Conn.). Others have, with appropriate caution, stressed that it is not safe to assume that this is the same man. Here’s hoping that someone from the diocese speaks out to clarify matters.

Stay tuned.

(Hat tip to Deacon Kandra at The Deacon’s Bench)

Skinny-dipping in the most holy and venerated Sea of Galilee

August 21, 2012 By mollie

I believe it was President Obama who once said something about the press corps in Washington getting all “wee-weed up” in August. There have been a few news stories in recent weeks that have drawn more attention than they should have (and a few that have certainly received less). But the story we’re going to look at here might take the cake for summer silliness.

Apparently it’s huge news that a Republican congressman skinny-dipped. Now, I can’t say I come from a culture of skinny-dipping exactly, but I’m pretty sure I know no one who really cares about whether people occasionally take a dip in the altogether. And yet, this story led (!!) various newscasts yesterday morning.

To justify the story, the media took to seriously playing up the location of the skinny-dipping. See, Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kansas, took his swim sans clothing in … the most holy of holies — the Sea of Galilee. You can see above that ABC News considers this a “holy sight.” I am pretty sure that’s something similar to a holy site. But either way, is that the takeaway of this news?

Is the Sea of Galilee viewed as exalted or worthy of complete devotion? Is it considered divine or devoted entirely to God or His work? Is it venerated? I certainly took a dip in it when I visited it a couple of years ago. Still, it’s not like I’ve heard of Christians protesting the use of the sea for fishing or other commercial activity. Or swimming. There are many holy sites surrounding the sea, of course, but that can be said about much of Israel.

And yet the media messaging was clear. Here’s the Kansas City Star:

Christians consider the Sea of Galilee a holy site; it is where the Bible says Jesus walked on water.

Well, yes. And the Bible records quite a bit of special activity on the Sea of Galilee. The Washington Post tweeted out a story to its one million followers that included the line:

Not very respectful of the site where the Bible reports Jesus walking on water.

The Associated Press sent the story out with the headline “Nude Dip in Holy Sea Puts Kansas Rep. in Spotlight.”

Now, I fully expect the Daily Mail to run captions for photos of the Sea of Galilee like this: “Sacred: The Sea of Galilee is where the Bible says Jesus Christ walked on water. It remains holy to Christians” right next to pictures of naked or half-naked celebrities. That’s what they do. But I sort of expect other media outlets to be a bit less silly. My other favorite British entry into this hall of shame was The Independent, which claimed:

A US congressman has had to apologise to his Christian constituents after being caught swimming naked in the holy Sea of Galilee while on a fact-finding mission to Israel.

To his Christian constituents? I’m sure American journalists sound just as silly when trying to weigh in on British electoral politics.

A few other notes. The story originated with Politico, which — whatever else you might say about it — emphasized the holy sites around Galilee as well as the general Holy Land tourism. The New York Times definitely wins the award for the most melodramatic retelling of this swim in Galilee. BBC seemed to have the most straightforward story on the matter. And CNN, the New York Times and this local broadcast report did the best job of reporting out religion angles more than just using “holy” buzzwords. It is interesting to see which news outlets reported the public information that one congressman and his wife brought back Galilee water to baptize the baby they were expecting at the time of the trip.

But my favorite religion angle came in a media criticism piece by Conor Friedersdorf over at The Atlantic:

When President John Quincy Adams lived in the White House, between 1825 and 1829, the erstwhile diplomat and U.S. Senator frequently went skinny-dipping in the Potomac River, causing no fuss. President Teddy Roosevelt, an avid outdoorsman, swam naked in the Potomac too. Billy Graham was one of many to go skinny-dipping with President Lyndon Johnson in the White House pool. Yet today in a story emailed out to media professionals as a “POLITICO EXCLUSIVE,” Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan write about mere congressional skinny-dipping like it’s a serious scandal, though no one even tweeted iPhone photos.

Billy Graham went skinny-dipping with LBJ? I never knew. As late as 2007, the media described this not as a scandal so much as “an encounter that included both prayer and skinnydipping in the White House pool.” But that was written in May, not August.