Marvin Olasky is a biased journalist.<\/p>\n\n
World magazine\u2019s editor freely admits that he often asks his reporters to ditch traditional journalistic standards of fairness and objectivity. Instead, he says journalists should write the stories that God wants them to write, the way God wants them written. The goal is \u201ctrue objectivity\u201d or \u201cthe God\u2019s-eye view.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
\u201cBiblically, there is no neutrality. \u2026 Christian reporters should give equal space to a variety of perspectives only when the Bible is unclear,\u201d argues Olasky, in his book \u201cTelling the Truth.\u201d \u201cA solidly Christian news publication should not be balanced. Its goal should be provocative and evocative, colorful and gripping, Bible-based news analysis.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Olasky calls this \u201cdirected reporting\u201d or, with a laugh, \u201cbiblical sensationalism.\u201d Many others \u2013 including Christians \u2013 call it heresy. This doesn\u2019t surprise him, since he says most of what he sees \u201cthat is called \u2018Christian journalism\u2019 is merely baptized secularism.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
The University of Texas journalism professor is best known as a historian whose work on poverty, abortion and other cultural issues have influenced Newt Gingrich and others during the GOP surge in the 1990s. But in the claustrophobic world of Christian publishing, Olasky is known as a rebel who keeps splashing ink in the faces of dignified church leaders. Some say he runs the evangelical version of The American Spectator.<\/p>\n\n
Recent articles claimed that a trio of powerful groups was quietly preparing a \u201cgender-neutral\u201d revision of the New International Version Bible translation. World\u2019s slant was captured in headlines such as \u201cThe Stealth Bible\u201d and \u201cThe Feminist Seduction of the Evangelical Church.\u201d After weeks of warfare, the International Bible Society said it would abandon plans to revise the text, return traditional gender references to its New International Readers Version and ask a British publisher to pull an inclusive-language NIV. World\u2019s critics did not, however, withdraw a formal complaint to the Evangelical Press Association ethics committee.<\/p>\n\n
Echoing specific language in the EPA code, the 10-page complaint claims: \u201cRather than avoiding distortion and sensationalism, World employed them. Utmost care was not exercised. Opposing views were not treated honestly and fairly. And World seems to be unconscious of its duty to protect the good names and reputations of Zondervan Publishing House, International Bible Society and Committee on Bible Translation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
World\u2019s editors say their facts are solid. However, noting the public- relations language in the complaint, Olasky admits that World is guilty of being pushy and of covering stories that others are not willing to risk printing. The controversy has underlined the \u201cdistinction between \u2026 journalists and public relations officials,\u201d says a World response to the complaint. Ethics committee members face a \u201chistoric decision: they have the power to promote independent Christian journalism or to stifle it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
The problem is that the media marketplace includes at least three clashing versions of what is \u201cgood journalism,\u201d let alone good \u201cChristian journalism.\u201d They are:<\/p>\n\n
* A modern American model that preaches \u201cobjectivity\u201d or, at the very least, insists that journalists should provide a fair balance of viewpoints. Many conservatives \u2013 including Olasky \u2013 believe that most American media have abandoned this model.<\/p>\n\n
* A classically European model in which media admit their subjectivity and advocate specific viewpoints. Ironically, while this approach is usually identified with overtly progressive publications, or covertly progressive mainstream media, Olasky\u2019s \u201cdirected reporting\u201d concept offers a conservative Christian version of this approach.<\/p>\n\n
* A public relations, or church press, model that promotes \u201cgood news\u201d that strengthens institutions and causes. It may even justify efforts to hide news or coerce publications to bypass embarrassing stories. The result is what one pro calls \u201chappy little Christian stories.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
If those who use other approaches disagree with his style or slant, then Olasky thinks they should start breaking some of these stories on their own. Meanwhile, World will keep giving its readers what they pay for \u2013 an openly conservative, \u201cbiblical\u201d take on the news.<\/p>\n\n
\u201cWe\u2019re hearing about quite a few other developments in Bible publishing that are very interesting and, after all that\u2019s happened, we\u2019ll certainly be looking into them,\u201d he said. \u201cThere are a lot of stories out there to be written and we\u2019re going to keep writing them.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Marvin Olasky is a biased journalist. World magazine\u2019s editor freely admits that he often asks his reporters to ditch traditional journalistic standards of fairness and objectivity. Instead, he says journalists should write the stories that God wants them to write, the way God wants them written. The goal is \u201ctrue objectivity\u201d or \u201cthe God\u2019s-eye view.\u201d […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":610,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-978","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n