If you have followed news about the many, many clashes between the emerging doctrines of sexual liberty and the First Amendment's \"free exercise\" of religion clause, you know this isn't a tidy, simple story with two sides and that's that. <\/p>\n
Coverage of Sam Brownback's nomination to a key global religious freedom post is the latest fight. <\/p>\n
Yes, there are LGBTQ activists in these debates and there are cultural conservatives. But there are also economic and libertarian conservatives who embrace gay-rights arguments and old-style liberals (Andrew Sullivan leaps to mind) who back gay rights and the defense of religious liberty, free speech and the freedom of association. There are Catholics on both sides. There are self-identified evangelicals on both sides. <\/p>\n
In the mainstream press, this conflict has put extra pressure on journalists, with some striving to accurately and fairly cover voices on all sides, while others have thrown in the editorial towel and embraced open advocacy in their coverage. BuzzFeed remains the most candid newsroom on this front, with its \"News Standards and Ethics Guide\" that states: <\/p>\n
Leaders at the New York Times have not been that candid, at least while in power. There was, of course, that 2011 talk by former editor Bill Keller (days after he retired) in which he said America's most powerful newsroom never slants its news coverage \"aside from\" issues -- such as gay rights -- that were part of the \"liberal values, sort of social values thing\" that went with the Times being a \"tolerant, urban\" institution. <\/p>\n
Is this \"Kellerism\" ethic, or doctrine, still being used? Let's take a look at a key chunk of a recent Times news story that ran with this headline: \"In One Day, Trump Administration Lands 3 Punches Against Gay Rights.\" The overture paints the big picture: <\/p>\n
The usual Trump-ian chaos surrounded two of these stories, which led some cultural and moral conservatives to note that there were times when it was hard for anyone to defend this president's tweet-zap approach to policy decisions. <\/p>\n
What interests me is the part of this report covering the nomination of Brownback to the international religious freedom post. <\/p>\n
Now, it's clear that Brownback -- an evangelical convert to Catholicism -- is a controversial figure for the cultural, religious and political left, for a variety of reasons. Any well-researched and balanced news story about his nomination to this post would have to cover the views of LGBTQ and abortion-rights activists who oppose him. Is that clear? <\/p>\n
Thus, the Times piece ends with this summary material: <\/p>\n
That was that. End of story. Apparently, there was no need to mention Brownback's years of work on religious freedom issues or the views of those supporting his nomination. <\/p>\n
Over at The Economist, the editors sided with the Brownback critics. However, the story made sure that readers knew there were multiple issues linked to his nomination and that he had supporters, as well as critics. <\/p>\n
The headline: \"Americas point-man on religious liberty is contentious: Why Sam Brownback divides religion-watchers.\" The word \"divides\" certainly implies that this is a debate in which there are multiple points of view. The story also includes this: <\/p>\n
If readers want to know the views of people who support Brownback, they can -- naturally -- turn to coverage in conservative and religious publications. <\/p>\n
But note the implication here. It would appear that one-side, pro-Brownback coverage is \"religious\" and \"conservative.\" <\/p>\n
So, if that is the standard, what is the coverage in the Times, which frames his nomination totally in the reactions of LGBTQ activists and offers zero information that would be cited by his defenders? Is this mainstream journalism these days or a less-candid form of advocacy? <\/p>\n
Who could Times journalists have called, seeking input about Brownback's work on religious freedom? Lots of names leap to mind, but this man -- featured in a Christianity Today piece -- would head the list, in my opinion. <\/p>\n
Last time I checked, Georgetown University is not a mecca for the Religious Right or right-wing Catholicism. <\/p>\n
In conclusion, let me repeat: It was essential for reporters to note the strong liberal opposition to Brownback's nomination to this post. <\/p>\n
It was also essential, if the goal was to help readers understand the dynamics at play here, to include the views of those familiar with his years of work in causes linked to religious freedom, including those who strongly support his nomination. <\/p>\n
So what happened here? What journalism doctrines were in play? <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
More here: <\/p>\n
Brownback has critics and supporters: All these voices matter in religious freedom debates - GetReligion (blog)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" If you have followed news about the many, many clashes between the emerging doctrines of sexual liberty and the First Amendment's \"free exercise\" of religion clause, you know this isn't a tidy, simple story with two sides and that's that. Coverage of Sam Brownback's nomination to a key global religious freedom post is the latest fight Continue reading