Bobbleheads, yes, but not just.
Over at his blog Get Religion, Terry Mattingly–nom de Web “tmatt”–links to an L.A. Times story on the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress, which I returned from last week. Mattingly, a religion journo who apparently has never heard of the nearly forty-year-old event, finds the Congress, at least as described in the Times, deeply mysterious:
You see, the event seems really confusing. The whole think seems to lurch past diversity and into a kind of theological buffet approach. Some very serious issues are jammed right in there, along with the silly stuff. Come one, come all.
Positively Joycian. Mattingly asks for some clarification from people who have actually been there, which occasioned the following comment: “This conference is nothing more than a place for the heterodox, the trite and the trivial to gather yearly to celebrate their idea of a church post-Vatican II.” I have no idea whether Thomas Szyszkiewicz has ever been there. (Perhaps he was the dour-looking gentleman using his camera phone to photograph the gay and lesbian outreach booth next to Commonweal‘s spot in the exhibition hall.) What he writes, however, gives the strong impression that he has never attended Congress.
Anyone who has been to Congress (or perused its Web site, where the schedule and speakers have been available for months) knows that there are lectures and exhibits for every kind of Catholic. You can attend a talk on Harry Potter by a Jesuit film critic (I missed it, but doubt it focused solely on the young wizard), and you can listen to Fr. Robert Barron discuss the centrality of the Eucharist in the 8,000-seat arena. You can hear Fr. Bryan Massingale talk about how the church has dealt with the issue of racism since the civil-rights era (as I did), and you can listen to Fr. John Cusick deliver catechetical pointers to a crowd of about 1,000 (as I did). John Allen spoke. So did Timothy Radcliffe, OP, and Kathleen Norris, and a cast of hundreds. (You can find the full listing here.)
Or you can shop the exhibit hall, which also houses everything Catholic under the sun. Interested in stones from the Holy Land? You got it. Vestments? Check. Free copies of Commonweal? Check. Chastity magazine? Check. What about Fr. Barron’s books? Available at the Crossroad booth. Maybe you’re interested in graduate work in theology or ministry–Loyola Chicago is there for you. So is Notre Dame. Feel a calling to religious life? Several booth staffers are ready to discuss your discernment. Maybe your school is in the market for new textbooks. You’re covered at Congress. Or you want to know more about LifeTeen. That’s covered, too.
Point is: 40,000 Catholics show up for Congress (and the vast majority are laypeople, contra the suggestion of the L.A. Times). It’s a big event. It’s a big church. Nothing confusing about it.
Tags: GetGetReligion
Grant, it seems you have ruffled TMatt’s estimable plumage:
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3259#comments
Odd thing about many media critics is they don’t seem to take media criticism very well.
I also found it odd that Terry seemed to call the bona fides of the event into question but then deployed the fig leaf of ignorance. On the other hand, the LA Congress is a favorite whipping boy for conservatives, though I’m not sure why. Perhaps it counters the thesis that “liberal” Catholicism is “an exhausted project”? Perhaps they don’t think there are any “orthodox” Catholics there? One understandable challenge for Terry Mattingly and others who follow the news may be that the Congress doesn’t actually get that much coverage–which is good fodder for discussion by GetReligionistas.
I poked around his blog a bit. I found it rather puzzling. What exactly counts as “getting religion” in a way that would satisfy Mr. Mattingly’s standards? All the bloggers made explicit their religious commitments. Do they think one has to be a believer to cover religion fairly? Does one have to be a certain stripe of believer?
Cathy: The Get Religion goal is a good one, that of encouraging more and better coverage of religion in the “secular” press, as we like to call it. I’m all for that! Terry Mattingly (and the rest, I’m pretty sure) actually don’t argue that you need to be religious to cover religion. But I think their own impact is limited by their determined worldview of conservative Christianity. Also, perhaps more to the point, they don’t have much experience–none at all, I think–covering religion for daily newspapers, which is the focus of their criticism. Of course there is much to criticize in the media, and they do make good points. I am a faithful reader. But their criticisms are often on the order of wondering how on earth the Contra Costa Times (or whatever) could write about a story with exploring the backstory of the Council of Chalcedon, or citing Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion…Their expectations, both for what they would like to see covered and the POV they would like, inevitably raises the level of their disappointment in religion coverage–and thus provides ever more fodder for the blog. Too little of that criticism, IMHO, gets to the many other problems beyond the media’s “blind spot” on religion coverage.
Prof. Kaveny — I think the answers are “no” and “no.” Instead, as can be seen in the most recent (and quite typical) post (http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3262&print=1), that blog is usually concerned with the fact that journalism often gets religion wrong, i.e., it misunderstands various aspects of religion, or even makes basic factual errors (like, in that story, claiming that people “light Advent calendars” at Christmas!) Other common themes of the blog are: 1) criticizing journalists for forcing certain types of religion stories into a pre-determined pigeonhole, rather than exploring what’s really going on;2) a call for religion stories to include additional perspectives and voices.
David’s only half right on his explanation of what Get Religion is all about. They’re simply arguing the case for knowledgeable coverage of religion. Belying the dreaded (at least around here) “conservative” angle, one of their drumbeats over the past month has been the MSM’s neglect of the religion side of the Democratic vote – after every primary we get assessments of how GOP voters went in terms of religious affiliation, but no one asks about the Democratic side, which is just as, if not more interesting.
I would add that one of the themes of Get Religion is spotting “ghosts” in reporting – that is the secular media reporting on a story that clearly has a religious dimension, and ignoring that dimension. Or even suppressing it. Terry has been particularly intent on this in regard to coverage of conflicts in the Middle East, particularly Iraq.
“On the other hand, the LA Congress is a favorite whipping boy for conservatives, though I’m not sure why. ”
I’m taking it upon myself to assemble a track of presentations for conservatives who wander into the congress by mistake next year. So far, I have Rev. Donald Cozzens, “Spiritual Survival in a Polarized Church”, Rev. Timothy Radcliffe, “Is Dialogue Possible in the Church Today?”, and Sr. Anne Bryan Smollin, “Being Catholic and Having a Sense of Humor”.
Fr. Robert VerEecke, “Let There Be Light: Seeing New Ways to Dance the Good News”, maybe not so much.
Ha! I’m sure the polemical cons would have a field day there. But they better sneak in with their tie-dyed shirts on…
As for Stuart and Elaine–are we talking about the same blog?!
After reading 20,000 posts here at Commonweal blog in “Pope and Prophet” and some of the comments here, I keep thinking about Eliza telling Henry “Words, word,words, I’m so sick of words…”
From what I read, LA was clearly about issues the Pew report noted in Catholic departure and immigrant numbers joining. “Show me,” as Eliza sings, seems to me to be the major perspective there.
If the TWKB remnant is really worried with BXVI about the crisis of ‘secularism”, they need to focus on behavior, their behavior, the institution’s behavior and create a real counterculture that is less absorbed in its own individualistic materialism and desire for power.
Gibson — I’m talking about the Get Religion blog. (getreligion.org). I already cited one blog post that shows one of the most common themes (i.e., religion journalists who write about religion with the same misunderstandings or factual errors that would arise if they were writing about Martians). Do you disagree with anything that I said? If so, why?
Jim,
How about these
“What’s Wrong with Assisted Suicide? Understanding the Evil of Euthanasia,” by Fr. Richard
“Lourdes: 150 Years of Hope and Healing for a Hurting World” by Elizabeth Ficocelli
“The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus, According to Matthew” by Rev. Felix Just
“A Perennial Pro-Life Philosophy: A Convincing Curriculum for both Sacred and Secular Environments” by Rev. Robert Spitzer
“Pope Benedict XVI’s Vision of the Church” by Bishop Luis Tagle
Buck: I love the fact that we’re on a suitably tough guy, locker room, throw-down last-name basis…We should get together for some HGH shakes. But dude, seriously, chill. Yes, I disagree with your characertization, as I pointed out above. You actually fail to cite any evidence for your assertion, so why is the burden of proof on me? I think anyone can and should go to Get Religion and check it out. Is there much to critcize about religion coverage? Sure. And they get a lot of it right. But they get a lot wrong, I think, and I think it stems from their viewpoints and their lack of knowledge and experience in the field. So it goes. Back to you, bro!
No, actually I’m the only one who cited any evidence; to wit, I cited the most recent post on Get Religion, which points out the inaccuracies in a new story that claimed that people “light Advent calendars at Christmastime,” which is remarkably inaccurate. In my reading of the Get Religion blog, that’s a very common theme — pointing out how journalists write about religious believers (of all stripes) while making straightforward errors about what those believers do or think, let alone bothering to dig deeper into why they act that way. I could give a hundred examples of posts like this, but why bother? You’re a regular reader.
If you can’t provide any evidence or even any specifics (“they get a lot wrong” — what exactly?), then there’s nothing to respond to.
Someone commented above that “they don’t have much experience–none at all, I think–covering religion for daily newspapers.” If you look at their biographies, it turns out that “Douglas LeBlanc began covering religion in June 1984 as religion editor of the Morning Advocate in Baton Rouge, La.,” and that Mattingly “has worked as a reporter and religion columnist at the Rocky Mountain News in Denver and the Charlotte Observer and the Charlotte News.”
LA Congress is slowly beginning to include more than just the usual liberal voices. Part of it is the market. Much of the workshop subject matter is predetermined by book publishers who submit their authors for workshops, and since “liberal” titles and publishers are basically tanking, the see-saw is tilting the other way, naturally because the “liberal” publishers have less and less to offer.
Anyone familiar with the LACongress world knows that even 3 years ago, Robert Barron would never have been invited to speak, much less keynote. That was startling for a lot of us – and good news.
But we’re long way from seeing, say Scott Hahn at LA Congress, as popular as a speaker as he is in the Catholic world, and as strongly as his books sell. A long way.
Umm, Stuart (if I may be so familiar), the author of the WaPo piece obviously meant to write “candles,” not “calendars.” Such mistakes happen, as people who work under deadline know. It is not an indication of widespread ignorance or antagonism or, as Elaine would have it, “suppression.” Jumping on such minutiae to prove some vast left-wing conspiracy strikes me as more than a tad over the top.
Who said anything about a “vast left-wing conspiracy”?
You’re some sort of journalist, right? (The Commonweal bio page is uninformative.) If you are, it’s a bit ironic that you’re confirming one of the themes of Get Religion, i.e., that some journalists don’t seem to mind mischaracterizing religious conservatives. Both here and in the Blumenthal/George thread, you seem rather nonchalant about elementary factual errors regarding someone’s biography.
Grant, I think Elaine asks a valid question about Scott Hahn. Any thoughts?
I didn’t see any questions. Perhaps Elaine has some expertise in how Congress has selected its speakers–and how it will. I was told by a highly placed source that the list of speakers and the names of their talks is sent to Rome for approval beforehand. (This was in response to the flyer handed out every year by the Concerned Roman Catholics of America, which lists so-called dissenters speaking at Congress and their offenses.) In some cases, I understand, the titles of talks have had to be changed.
My experience of Congress is that attendees are not terribly ideological or even particularly interested in the liberal vs. conservative debate.
Stuart it seems to me that you’ve correctly identified an overarching theme of Get Religion– “Some journalists don’t seem to mind mis characterizing religious conservatives.” It seems to me, however, that the blog is by no means as vigilant bout mischaracterizations of religious liberals–or those they perceive as such. In fact, some entries seems to trade in them. The blog entry on the LA conference seems to me at least, to be significantly infused with the common stereotypes that one sees about religious liberals (they’re trite, not very well educated, prone to follow fads, etc.).
That’s fine–but it’s not commenting on news coverage–it’s fundamentally commenting on the news itself. In my own view, the blog is an “opinion” blog on the conservative religious side, not a balanced blog on the coverage of religion in the news.
Are there other blogs–or sites–that deal with the coverage of religion?
Actually, I think I can help you and Elaine on that, Kathy. I have been going to the RECongress for about 15 years, and have worked on our own local diocesan catechetical congress. I have made inquiries in the past about why someone was not a speaker, and I have received various reasons from both official and unofficial sources. Based on my own experience, this is what makes sense.
First off, do the attendees want to hear a particular speaker? It is obvious from year to year that attendee evaluations and requests largely drive the process. You see some speakers every year because every year a lot of people attend their sessions, rate them highly, and ask that they return. The best way to get the RECongress staff to consider a speaker is for a lot of people to ask for them by name in their evaluations. I.’ve seen it work before.
Next, who will pay for the speaker to attend? The expenses of many, if not most speakers is covered to some extent by their publishers. Check out page 75 of the program guidebook (available as a pdf on recongress.org) and you will see just which publishers are providing which speakers. If I remember correctly, Scott Hahn is published by both Doubleday and Ignatius, both of which have booths at Congress, and both of which display and sell his books, often quite briskly. But neither publisher is providing any speakers at all. The RECongress is big, but it pretty much has to break even each year. The budget for paying the all of the usual fees and expenses for big speakers may be quite limited.
And finally, is Scott Hahn available? Some of the bigger names tend to be booked more than a year in advance (I would not know about Dr. Hahn in particular). Many of the decisions on who will be invited for the 2009 Congress have yet to be made because the evaluations have not been analyzed yet. And to make it worse, the date for next year is only tentative — it may change, depending on the Anaheim Convention Center and other factors. It is difficult to schedule speakers in great demand, when you really aren’t sure when you want them to speak.
Yes, that sounds likely. I remember seeing a study in which people-in-the-pews were asked about their views on inclusive language. The most common response was, “I don’t know what that means.” So people do not come to these things with an agenda.
All the more reason to ensure that the presentations reflect truly big-tent Catholicism. That’s more than a negative judgment (nothing here offends the faith) but also a positive judgment (everything good is available).
(I should clarify that I was responding to Grant–there were just 3 comments posted in 2 minutes!)
With all due respect, I don’t see any of that — indeed, I don’t see that he’s characterizing the conference as involving “religious liberals” in the first place. What I see in that blog post is someone who was reading a news story that initially appeared to be about religious kitsch (Mattingly points to a past example of such kitsch), but then the story noted that the event involved some “very serious issues” along with the bobbleheads. (Note that Mattingly says “very serious,” not “liberal.”) So Mattingly concludes by asking whether the “story” presents a “fair and accurate picture.” I don’t see how you could characterize this post, let alone the entire blog, as something other than “commenting on news coverage.”
On that larger point, here are a few examples, all from the past week:
This post criticizes various news stories for claiming that the Catholic Church just invented seven new deadly sins: http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3265&print=1 That post is about news coverage.
This post is about a news story on Buddhist and Hindu burial customs: http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3261&print=1 It doesn’t have an overarching theme, but just points to various questions that the story could have explored. That post is about news coverage.
This post is about a public art project to install “prayer booths” rather than phone booths: http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3252&print=1 That post is about news coverage.
This post is about news coverage of the recent California homeschooling decision: http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3250&print=1 It criticizes a news story for featuring quotes only from fundamentalist religious homeschoolers, and for ignoring the fact that homeschooling is a much wider phenomenon than just that. That post is about news coverage.
This post, by occasional Commonweal contributor Mark Stricherz, is about a news story on so-called “death metal.” http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3245 Stricherz begins his post with the sentence, “One of my persistent criticisms of the MSM’s coverage of religion is that reporters fail to note the significance or larger implications of a story.” Sure enough, his post is about that theme.
This post is about a news story on Anne Rice: http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3256&print=1 It criticizes the news story for claiming that Anne Rice is a “born-again Christian,” a term that is typically used by Protestants (and especially fundamentalists), even though the story also claims that Rice had returned to her “Catholic” roots. This is a paradigmatic Get Religion post — it points out that religion journalists often use terminology that they just don’t seem to understand. The point isn’t that you have to be religious or a religious conservative to be a good journalist, but that you need to be familiar enough with your subject (religious people) that you don’t label Catholics with a fundamentalist Protestant term.
So yes, I do think that Get Religion occasionally criticizes journalists for being too casual with the facts when they talk about religious conservatives (with good reason, as David Gibson helpfully demonstrates every time he talks about religious conservatives). But that is far from the only thing that Get Religion does, and it’s a mistake to think that the blog can be hand-waved away on that basis.
Stuart, you’re a good advocate–but you haven’t convinced me.
“You see, the event seems really confusing. The whole think seems to lurch past diversity and into a kind of theological buffet approach. Some very serious issues are jammed right in there, along with the silly stuff. Come one, come all.”
Stuart, I just don’t see how this isn’t a comment about the event itself–and how it doesn’t, with its image of “theological buffet,” conjure images of cafeteria Catholicism. He could have googled the program, and seen who else was there, before blogging. It’s not hard.
He also could have mounted a more nuanced critique of the program. But this statement, as it stands, simply echoes the standard conservative criticism of the LA Conference-which is a big event in the Catholic world.
Would he complain if a journalist, talking about an Adoremus conference, talked about the predominance of the Latin “mumbo jumbo.” My guess is yes. But why is it okay for HIM to call what goes on here “silly stuff?” Why isn’t he an example of what he criticizes–a superior, dismissive attitude toward religious manifestations he doesn’t like?
Or on the homeschooling issue–his concern seems to be to present homeschooling in a positive light–not as the province of weird fundamentalists. He’s not seeking a religious spectrum. He’s trying to defend what’s mainly, statistically, now a conservative Christian practice. If it’s the religious angle that’s interesting, why not speak to some liberal Christians who think homeschooling is not such a great idea or ideal. I’ve not seen any stories on this.
He’s entitled to his opinion. It’s an interesting opinion. It’s a well-informed opinion. My point is simply that this isn’t an ideologically balanced take on the role of religion in the media.
So, Stuart is fine with this blog as an unbiased resource. I’m not. So I ask my question again, of anyone: are there any blogs, with a broader perspective, that tackle this subject? Is the Pew Forum the best bet?
I think it was pretty clear in the blog post covering the LA convention that the term “silly stuff” was about stuff like the bobbleheads. Do you think bobbleheads are a weighty and somber matter?
If you really want a blog that is completely neutral and objective and that is dedicated to covering the way that journalism covers religion, I don’t think such a thing exists or is even possible; everyone has a point of view, and you can always find something to misinterpret and nitpick about.
Prof. Kaveny,
I’d also point out that at least until David Gibson realized that I like the Get Religion blog, he gave it some praise: “there is much to criticize in the media, and they do make good points. I am a faithful reader.”
If you want the REAL TRUTH about the REC, visit this paragon of veracity and Christian dialog:
http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=ccd3eded-8036-49b8-ad61-486ba3780745
http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=525f09c7-6f5c-4497-948e-a66ad09b7041
Don’t forget to read the comments!
My sense is that getreligion’s real beef is with the press. In the top story, a paper is taken to task for putting “snarky quotes” around George Bush’s comment about the Archbishop’s “murder.”
The quotes are not there for “snark” value, but because “murder” was the word Bush used and the official cause of death had not been established.
The story also wanted the ABP’s abduction and death to be a bigger story, especially in light of what it sees as overcoverage of the Spitzer debacle.
While I agree that trotting out Heidi Fleiss, “Kristin’s” yearbook, and psychologists armchairing everyting from why Spitzer’s wife has appeared with him to why Spitzer sought out prostitutes in the first place, is excessive, most news outlets in the States will rank the Spitzer story of higher interest because of its proximity and impact.
Getreligion is a useful site and offers helpful cautions, but often getreligion does not get the press.