------------------------
The author uses the term "dangerous," as if she is soberly warning evangelicals about some sort of ominous peril they should take note of. They are attacking, apparently, and those attacks are rife with menace.
We will discover that the author never gets around to explaining why evangelicals' perfectly justified and easy-to-document distrust of the mainstream media (MSM) has nay danger for anyone.
---------------------
Dear evangelicals,
You tease about the mainstream media being “Satan’s newspaper.” (Apparently the author did not read the link. The writer there expressed some thoughtful commentary about the problems of being a Christian in a debased culture. He engaged in satiric hyperbole when he wrote about "satan's newspaper," which means that he wasn't actually calling the media "satan's newspaper.
The author uses the term "dangerous," as if she is soberly warning evangelicals about some sort of ominous peril they should take note of. They are attacking, apparently, and those attacks are rife with menace.
We will discover that the author never gets around to explaining why evangelicals' perfectly justified and easy-to-document distrust of the mainstream media (MSM) has nay danger for anyone.
---------------------
Dear evangelicals,
You tease about the mainstream media being “Satan’s newspaper.” (Apparently the author did not read the link. The writer there expressed some thoughtful commentary about the problems of being a Christian in a debased culture. He engaged in satiric hyperbole when he wrote about "satan's newspaper," which means that he wasn't actually calling the media "satan's newspaper.
However, Ms. Bailey seems to think the writer was expressing a common way of characterizing the MSM. Ironically, Ms. Bailey is faking news-ing in her own article. If she can't get this right, we can rightly question everything else she says.)
When I tell you I’m a journalist, I hear your cynicism. (Does the author understand that the cynicism is perfectly justified? Gallup printed this graph of the level of trust for the MSM:
Note that fully half of Democrats distrust people like her! Ms. Bailey wants to blame evangelicals for their "dangerous" attitudes, but this is clearly not an evangelical problem. )
Listen, I was raised in an evangelical home. I know the media is supposed to be the butt of many jokes and the source of many of our problems. ("Supposed to be?" The author has an odd view of evangelicals.
But more to the point, what if it's true that media *bias* is a source of many of our problems? The author seems entirely self-unaware.)
For many conservatives, the phrase “fake news” is now being used to describe “liberal bias,” but fake news has real consequences. ("Fake news" is actually a leftist neologism. The term gained widespread use among the Left as an insult used to explain Hillary's loss. That is, those stupid conservatives were supposedly swayed by fake news and voted wrong.
Listen, I was raised in an evangelical home. I know the media is supposed to be the butt of many jokes and the source of many of our problems. ("Supposed to be?" The author has an odd view of evangelicals.
But more to the point, what if it's true that media *bias* is a source of many of our problems? The author seems entirely self-unaware.)
For many conservatives, the phrase “fake news” is now being used to describe “liberal bias,” but fake news has real consequences. ("Fake news" is actually a leftist neologism. The term gained widespread use among the Left as an insult used to explain Hillary's loss. That is, those stupid conservatives were supposedly swayed by fake news and voted wrong.
With a certain amount of irony, the author impugns conservatives/evangelicals for using the phrase themselves.
The linked article contains no documentation that they are doing this, but it certainly looks good in print.)
The linked article contains no documentation that they are doing this, but it certainly looks good in print.)
A man who was investigating a conspiracy theory about a secret child sex ring showed up at a Washington pizza place on Sunday(We have read over and over that this was a conspiracy theory, that it has been debunked, that there was nothing here. But we have never read anything that actually debunked the rumor. We have never seen any investigative reporting.
If this has been debunked, we'd love to see some of the actual debunking. Point us to the articles, Ms. Bailey. Show us the evidence. Show us the journalistic investigations.)
with a rifle and fired at least one shot. Gunman Edgar Welch says he has been influenced by the book “Wild at Heart,” by John Eldredge about faith and masculinity, a popular one for some evangelicals. (The author uses an incident with a single disturbed person to generalize about an entire group of people.)
The jokes aren’t funny anymore. (What jokes? Conservatives/evangelicals are generally saddened by the failures of the MSM. That's why they created their own, to tell the other side of the stories that the MSM so often gets wrong.)
If this has been debunked, we'd love to see some of the actual debunking. Point us to the articles, Ms. Bailey. Show us the evidence. Show us the journalistic investigations.)
with a rifle and fired at least one shot. Gunman Edgar Welch says he has been influenced by the book “Wild at Heart,” by John Eldredge about faith and masculinity, a popular one for some evangelicals. (The author uses an incident with a single disturbed person to generalize about an entire group of people.)
The jokes aren’t funny anymore. (What jokes? Conservatives/evangelicals are generally saddened by the failures of the MSM. That's why they created their own, to tell the other side of the stories that the MSM so often gets wrong.)
We are living in a post-truth time of fake news and misinformation, (Now the author uses the phrase herself.)
something that should be deeply troubling to people of faith who claim to seek truth in their everyday lives. (Indeed, it is deeply disturbing. It is troubling to people of faith that Brian Williams lied. Dan Rather's fake memos. Jayson Blair. Hands up don't shoot was never uttered by Michael Brown. The Benghazi video. Alar. The list goes on and on.
something that should be deeply troubling to people of faith who claim to seek truth in their everyday lives. (Indeed, it is deeply disturbing. It is troubling to people of faith that Brian Williams lied. Dan Rather's fake memos. Jayson Blair. Hands up don't shoot was never uttered by Michael Brown. The Benghazi video. Alar. The list goes on and on.
The real problem is that the MSM is a hotbed of fake news and rarely polices itself, preferring to circle the wagons. That distrust conservatives/evangelicals have will not abate until the MSM can show itself trustworthy.)
I was raised in both a religious home and a newspaper home. My parents would pull out books for Bible study in the morning and plop them next to the local newspaper. The Bible and newspaper went together like cereal and milk. I grew up believing journalism was a noble profession because the best journalism is based on the relentless pursuit of truth. (Journalism WAS based on this. Not any more, which explains the above-cited graph. The MSM forfeited its trust in pursuit of its own agenda.)
Your quick dismissal of the entire “mainstream media” feels deeply inaccurate to me as a Christian and a journalist — at least the kind of Christianity I was raised on, where the newspaper informed how we understood the world. (If that's true, then hold your industry accountable.)
The act of doing journalism is a way to live out my faith, a way to search for and then reveal truth in the world around me. (Having created a straw man [i.e., the "relentless pursuit of truth"], the author now turns to evangelicals to impugn them for no longer trusting the noble MSM, that is, the MSM as it was when she was a child. As we have noted, the fault for this must be laid directly at the feet of the MSM, not evangelicals.)
I sympathize with some frustrations you have, including a lack of ideological diversity within some media outlets. Some reporters have unfortunately stepped into more advocacy-oriented journalism and we’ve seen a blurring of opinion with reporting. And yes, sometimes editors must issue corrections. (Ahh, now she now concedes here is cause to mistrust the MSM. Hmm.)
I was raised in both a religious home and a newspaper home. My parents would pull out books for Bible study in the morning and plop them next to the local newspaper. The Bible and newspaper went together like cereal and milk. I grew up believing journalism was a noble profession because the best journalism is based on the relentless pursuit of truth. (Journalism WAS based on this. Not any more, which explains the above-cited graph. The MSM forfeited its trust in pursuit of its own agenda.)
Your quick dismissal of the entire “mainstream media” feels deeply inaccurate to me as a Christian and a journalist — at least the kind of Christianity I was raised on, where the newspaper informed how we understood the world. (If that's true, then hold your industry accountable.)
The act of doing journalism is a way to live out my faith, a way to search for and then reveal truth in the world around me. (Having created a straw man [i.e., the "relentless pursuit of truth"], the author now turns to evangelicals to impugn them for no longer trusting the noble MSM, that is, the MSM as it was when she was a child. As we have noted, the fault for this must be laid directly at the feet of the MSM, not evangelicals.)
I sympathize with some frustrations you have, including a lack of ideological diversity within some media outlets. Some reporters have unfortunately stepped into more advocacy-oriented journalism and we’ve seen a blurring of opinion with reporting. And yes, sometimes editors must issue corrections. (Ahh, now she now concedes here is cause to mistrust the MSM. Hmm.)
But it does not make sense to replace unwise mainstream media outlets you believe you can’t trust with websites and other sources that lack any accountability. (A false binary choice. Our choice is not between the MSM and unaccountable sources. Especially since it is clear that accountability does not exist in the MSM.)
Gallup recently reported that “trust and confidence” in media have fallen to record lows. (As we have noted. Maybe the author should stop blaming evangelicals, given the mistrust is widespread, and fix her credibility problem.)
“News has become akin to religion; it’s accepted or rejected as a matter of faith, depending on the source,” Robert Samuelson, a right-of-center columnist, recently wrote for The Washington Post. The Post’s Erik Wemple wrote that one of the biggest media trends this year was an anti-Semitic backlash against journalists, a trend that should be incredibly troubling for people of faith. (Again the author admits that the distrust is justified...)
A post-truth era seems to threaten something we have historically agreed on: We trust journalists to act as information gatherers and truth tellers who hold leaders and institutions responsible to the public for their actions, including religious leaders. (Well, that's the point, isn't it? We no longer trust the MSM to do this, thus the rise of alternative news sites.)
When the Catholic Church faced media attention over sex abuse, Ross Douthat, a columnist for the New York Times who is Catholic, wrote that religious leaders should not focus on the media as the culprit. He urged them to welcome scrutiny “as a spur to virtue and as a sign that their faith still matters, that their church still looms large over the affairs of men, and that the world still cares enough about Christianity to demand that Catholics live up to their own exacting standards.” (An irrelevant tangent.)
It’s no secret the country is growing less and less tied to institutional religion. (Irrelevant.)
The rise of our post-truth culture has in some ways brought the media to a similar place as religion, seen as subjective and viewed with skepticism by many people. Americans trust scientists and those in the military, but they are least confident in clergy, the news media, business leaders and elected officials to act in the best interests of the public, according to the Pew Research Center. This lack of trust does not bode well for the institutions of media or religion. (Again an admission that negates the author's premise. Yet it is evangelical "attacks" that she blames.)
As a reporter who also happens to be a Christian, (This is the second time she has claimed this, as if it were relevant somehow.)
I believe that truth exists and can be ascertained, even if imperfectly and the fact that we understand it imperfectly heightens our duty to pursue it diligently. And I believe journalism is the one of the best practical pursuits of truth in earthly life, (The polls would disagree.)
one that allows us to reveal and explain the truth to others. Many religions seek a truth that is beyond the scope of journalism, yet if people of faith no longer accept the veracity of factual truth, (Notice the shuck-and-jive. People DO accept the veracity of factual truth. They just don't think the MSM is providing them this.)
then they threaten to undermine their own pursuit of ultimate questions. (That is, evangelicals are in danger of not finding transcendent truth by rejecting the MSM narrative. Truly bizarre.)
Fake news has taken hold in religious circles. Ahead of the election, a widely circulated website insinuated that famed evangelist Billy Graham endorsed Donald Trump. (The link does not mention Billy Graham.)
Gallup recently reported that “trust and confidence” in media have fallen to record lows. (As we have noted. Maybe the author should stop blaming evangelicals, given the mistrust is widespread, and fix her credibility problem.)
“News has become akin to religion; it’s accepted or rejected as a matter of faith, depending on the source,” Robert Samuelson, a right-of-center columnist, recently wrote for The Washington Post. The Post’s Erik Wemple wrote that one of the biggest media trends this year was an anti-Semitic backlash against journalists, a trend that should be incredibly troubling for people of faith. (Again the author admits that the distrust is justified...)
A post-truth era seems to threaten something we have historically agreed on: We trust journalists to act as information gatherers and truth tellers who hold leaders and institutions responsible to the public for their actions, including religious leaders. (Well, that's the point, isn't it? We no longer trust the MSM to do this, thus the rise of alternative news sites.)
When the Catholic Church faced media attention over sex abuse, Ross Douthat, a columnist for the New York Times who is Catholic, wrote that religious leaders should not focus on the media as the culprit. He urged them to welcome scrutiny “as a spur to virtue and as a sign that their faith still matters, that their church still looms large over the affairs of men, and that the world still cares enough about Christianity to demand that Catholics live up to their own exacting standards.” (An irrelevant tangent.)
It’s no secret the country is growing less and less tied to institutional religion. (Irrelevant.)
The rise of our post-truth culture has in some ways brought the media to a similar place as religion, seen as subjective and viewed with skepticism by many people. Americans trust scientists and those in the military, but they are least confident in clergy, the news media, business leaders and elected officials to act in the best interests of the public, according to the Pew Research Center. This lack of trust does not bode well for the institutions of media or religion. (Again an admission that negates the author's premise. Yet it is evangelical "attacks" that she blames.)
As a reporter who also happens to be a Christian, (This is the second time she has claimed this, as if it were relevant somehow.)
I believe that truth exists and can be ascertained, even if imperfectly and the fact that we understand it imperfectly heightens our duty to pursue it diligently. And I believe journalism is the one of the best practical pursuits of truth in earthly life, (The polls would disagree.)
one that allows us to reveal and explain the truth to others. Many religions seek a truth that is beyond the scope of journalism, yet if people of faith no longer accept the veracity of factual truth, (Notice the shuck-and-jive. People DO accept the veracity of factual truth. They just don't think the MSM is providing them this.)
then they threaten to undermine their own pursuit of ultimate questions. (That is, evangelicals are in danger of not finding transcendent truth by rejecting the MSM narrative. Truly bizarre.)
Fake news has taken hold in religious circles. Ahead of the election, a widely circulated website insinuated that famed evangelist Billy Graham endorsed Donald Trump. (The link does not mention Billy Graham.)
As how we receive our news has evolved with the growth of social media, we need to be extra vigilant to consider how that information is gathered. We need trusted people (we call them reporters) (They are not trusted. Read the poll again, Ms. Bailey.)
who are held accountable by others (we call them editors) who are committed to telling the truth. (We certainly agree.)
What separates journalists from someone else posting information on the Internet? As journalists, we are guided by certain standards and ethics, taking issues of fairness and bias seriously, including avoiding conflicts of interest. With few exceptions, we are careful to attribute information we report to named sources. We conduct original research, and we fact-check what we write. ("We," as in every reporter? There is no dearth of information regarding media bias, failure to fact-check, misrepresenting what people say, editing video, etc, etc, ad nauseum. So the author's claims of nobility seem a little self serving.)
Eugene Meyer, who owned The Washington Post for several decades, said the newspaper’s duty is to the public, not to the private interests of its owner. “In the pursuit of truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such course be necessary for the public good,” Meyer said. “The newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest, but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs and public men.” (Apparently the fact that Mr. Meyer said this is sufficient proof that the Post is actually doing this. But the Post has its own problems with the truth.)
At its best, the media provides citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives. Journalists help shed light on what’s happening around us, from the latest city council meeting to the newest stock market changes to shifts in larger political, cultural, religious ideas and attitudes. When we do not have journalists who are held to ethical standards, we are left to whatever is most popular or highly shared within our networks. ("At its best" suggests that the MSM is not always doing so.)
Abandoning mainstream media sites for opinion sites you already agree with is not the answer. (Nor has anyone claimed it is. Again the author presents us with a false choice.)
who are held accountable by others (we call them editors) who are committed to telling the truth. (We certainly agree.)
What separates journalists from someone else posting information on the Internet? As journalists, we are guided by certain standards and ethics, taking issues of fairness and bias seriously, including avoiding conflicts of interest. With few exceptions, we are careful to attribute information we report to named sources. We conduct original research, and we fact-check what we write. ("We," as in every reporter? There is no dearth of information regarding media bias, failure to fact-check, misrepresenting what people say, editing video, etc, etc, ad nauseum. So the author's claims of nobility seem a little self serving.)
Eugene Meyer, who owned The Washington Post for several decades, said the newspaper’s duty is to the public, not to the private interests of its owner. “In the pursuit of truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such course be necessary for the public good,” Meyer said. “The newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest, but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs and public men.” (Apparently the fact that Mr. Meyer said this is sufficient proof that the Post is actually doing this. But the Post has its own problems with the truth.)
At its best, the media provides citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives. Journalists help shed light on what’s happening around us, from the latest city council meeting to the newest stock market changes to shifts in larger political, cultural, religious ideas and attitudes. When we do not have journalists who are held to ethical standards, we are left to whatever is most popular or highly shared within our networks. ("At its best" suggests that the MSM is not always doing so.)
Abandoning mainstream media sites for opinion sites you already agree with is not the answer. (Nor has anyone claimed it is. Again the author presents us with a false choice.)
The “mainstream media” is collectively valuable because it presents a range of information and viewpoints, while the Breitbarts of the world present a singular voice to a targeted group of people. (What's wrong with a singular voice? Could the author please provide some documentation that the things found on Breitbart are uniformly untrustworthy?
It's worth pointing out the MSM "singular voice." If you miss NBC news, it will be on CBS. What CBS reports will be on ABC. There is a notable similarity of approach, terminology, presentation, and story selection, so much so that a conspiracy theorist might speculate there is collusion.
It's worth pointing out the MSM "singular voice." If you miss NBC news, it will be on CBS. What CBS reports will be on ABC. There is a notable similarity of approach, terminology, presentation, and story selection, so much so that a conspiracy theorist might speculate there is collusion.
Oh, and while we are at it, does the author have similar criticism for the Huffington Post, thinkprogress, or Daily Kos?)
Could the media do a better job of covering various topics — including religion — with nuance? (No one is asking for "nuance." Conservatives/evangelicals want unbiased news.)
Absolutely. We need more media outlets committed to covering how faith influences politics, business, culture, education and so many areas of our lives. (Conservatives/evangelicals are not interested in more media outlets that do any sort of that. They are making their own. And there is no desire to beg for scraps of fair and unbiased coverage. Conservatives/evangelicals are not a special interest group that somehow deserves a seat at your table.)
But for that to happen, we need you to be committed to reading and engaging with the media. (No, you have it backwards, Ms. Bailey. WE need YOU to make some wholesale changes before we trust or read you. The ball is in your court.)
To demean a journalist’s profession of “truth-telling” and to suggest that reporters are uniformly dishonest in their search for the truth threaten to undercut the idea that truth exists and that it can and should be pursued. (JOURNALISTS have demeaned their profession, Ms. Bailey. THEY have to fix it.)
Could the media do a better job of covering various topics — including religion — with nuance? (No one is asking for "nuance." Conservatives/evangelicals want unbiased news.)
Absolutely. We need more media outlets committed to covering how faith influences politics, business, culture, education and so many areas of our lives. (Conservatives/evangelicals are not interested in more media outlets that do any sort of that. They are making their own. And there is no desire to beg for scraps of fair and unbiased coverage. Conservatives/evangelicals are not a special interest group that somehow deserves a seat at your table.)
But for that to happen, we need you to be committed to reading and engaging with the media. (No, you have it backwards, Ms. Bailey. WE need YOU to make some wholesale changes before we trust or read you. The ball is in your court.)
To demean a journalist’s profession of “truth-telling” and to suggest that reporters are uniformly dishonest in their search for the truth threaten to undercut the idea that truth exists and that it can and should be pursued. (JOURNALISTS have demeaned their profession, Ms. Bailey. THEY have to fix it.)
We know this is true: Firing a gun in a pizza parlor over fake news is no laughing matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment