NYT bigfooting media religious coverage

On my primary blog, I recently discussed a New York Times story about President Donald Trump's continued support among the religious right, especially in rural heartland areas.

Here, I'm going to shift that focus more to the New York Times' coverage of religious issues and how it bigfoots other media and shows some arrogance as part of that.

There's an old joke off the Old Gray Lady's masthead of "All the news that's fit to print," that runs: "It's not news until the New York Times prints it."

And, on the Religious Right's willing, individual-believers wedding with Donald Trump, in a piece a month ago, the Old Gray Lady would have you think so on this issue as well.

"Christianity will have power"? Yes, Trump said it. But, many other sites have done reporting on various angles of individual believers, and not just nameplate pastors like Robert Jeffress, lining up for Trump. So, did the Times really roll the ball forward?

Its top editorial staff would have you think so.

First, two of their marketing Tweets and my responses:

Understanding religion requires reading @elizabethjdias, one of the best religion reporters in the business. She spent months on this piece explaining Donald Trump's support among white evangelical Christians and it shows. https://t.co/7VJissul9R

— Marc Lacey (@marclacey) August 9, 2020

Uhh, no. I don't "need" anyone.

Actually, no, I don't need Elizabeth Dias at all for "understanding religion." I'm an atheist with a graduate divinity degree from a seminary far more rigorous than Religious Right bible colleges, the type of person the Religious Right hates.

— Nagasaki 75: Remember the FULL STORY 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) August 9, 2020

There you are, Mr. NYT National Editor Marc Lacey.

Then this:

If you have found yourself baffled by white evangelical support for Trump, this extraordinary piece by @elizabethjdias is for you. This is journalism as translation, requiring literacy in multiple cultures.https://t.co/vxL3VmfNoM

— Jia Lynn Yang (@jialynnyang) August 9, 2020

Sorry, but no translator needed, Ms. Deputy National Editor Yang.

Here you are:

Nope, not baffled. But?! Elizabeth Dias left stuff on the table, like not delving into the "martyr" mentality held by much of the Religious Right. (It's not quite as deep as Jehovah's Witnesses martyr mentality, but it's deep enough.) https://t.co/qrQLFPYHkq

— Nagasaki 75: Remember the FULL STORY 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) August 9, 2020

Just what did Dias leave off the table?

First, why Trump instead of Ted Cruz? That speech was in January 2016, before the Iowa caucus vote. On paper, Dominionist Ted Cruz and his Seven Mountains daddy were the ideal candidates for the Religious Right to back. So, why didn't they? Pew notes that, in polling, the most devout among the evangelicals DID tilt Cruz, even though, overall, the Religious Right tilted Trump. Obvious deduction? Lots of these people may be sincere in their belief claims but don't go to church that often!

Related? One other thing Dias left on the table (well, there's yet more, but this covers the basics):

Cliff Notes "Christianity will have power" part 4
8. One other big issue Elisabeth Dias left on the table is the issue before the Religious Right backing Trump vs. Democrats; it's the 2016 primaries issue of the #ReligiousRight backing Trump vs. other Republicans. 4/x

— Nagasaki 75: Remember the FULL STORY 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) August 9, 2020

Remember, Trump's speech was in Iowa, January 2016, before the Iowa caucuses.

Did she ask any of the people interviewed whether Trump was their first choice or not? Did she ask about the frequency of their attendance? Or, since this was reported over that long of a period, did she hang out a few Sundays to check for herself?

If you're going to have someone with a graduate religious degree from Princeton work on this story for, I presume, several weeks, and you can't answer that? The story comes off as election-year pandering, in my book. True, you would still want the focus on Trump, but if you can't explain why him, not Cruz, then you can't fully explain "why still him" today, can you?

Second is Dias claiming that this is all new:

The Trump era has revealed the complete fusion of evangelical Christianity and conservative politics, even as white evangelical Christianity continues to decline as a share of the national population.

In reality, with data research sites like Pew having written about this for three or four years straight now, the "Rise of the Nones" (which is a broader issue than just the decline of conservative evangelical Xianity, and blogged about me three years ago, as well as last year) is yesterday's news. Indeed, the piece of mine three years ago noted that, by this year, per Pew estimates, "nones" would equal Catholics in the American population.

The problem is not just that the NYT is behind the curve on Nones. It's that a lot of people who might fall into "Nones" territory may not know this if they get much of their religious news from the Times, or from outfits following its lead. This ties to how politicians think their constituents are, overall, even more conservative than is true.  

As for the "complete fusion" issue? Forty years ago, the Religious Right backed for president a man who had expanded abortion access while governor of California, who never went to church and who consulted astrologers. (Ronnie turned Nancy on to that, not the other way around.)

In other words, I don't see anything beyond the idea that the politer, mainline Protestant rural versions of the Religious Right were, in their own way, thinking they'd "own the libs" with Trump as president. Per my take on sociology of religion issues within the Religious Right, that's not new to me, either.

Indeed, I mentioned that in my first tweet in a thread after my responses to the editorial marketers.

Cliff Notes "Christianity will have power"
1. White #ReligiousRight Xns used to be able to bully America as Trump bullied tenants
2. SCOTUS has #FirstAmendment rulings
2A. America changed
3. So, Rel Right became #snowflakes
4. Trump came as bully-saviorhttps://t.co/HG0FV7gHeL

— Nagasaki 75: Remember the FULL STORY 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) August 9, 2020

See, that "bully" part is important. Per "The Rise of the Nones" issues, the Religious Right has been losing power for some time. Rather than sidle up to Hillary Clinton and her conservative DC prayer circle warrior background with The Fellowship, though, because she was pro-choice, and ignoring that Trump long had been so, they backed Trump.

The bullying? Bullying and shaming people into expression of religious belief in small town America, even in blue states (Galloway vs Town of Greece) was and still is a real thing. Remember, most members of the Religious Right hate atheists even more than gays, and may hate non-Christians, especially Mooslims, almost as much.

OK, next:

Cliff Notes "Christianity will have power" part 2
5. #ReligiousRight has long been hypocrites
5A. Being #snowflakes w/ back-of-hand-to-forehead martyrdom was used 2 justify doubling down on hypocrisy
6. Trump's sense of faux martyrdom was flame 2 moths 2/xhttps://t.co/HG0FV7gHeL

— Nagasaki 75: Remember the FULL STORY 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) August 9, 2020

Trump has played the faux-martyr role to a T since HUD sued him and his dad 50 years ago for racism in apartment renting. He knows how to play an audience like a cheap fiddle.

More sociology of religion that was missed.

And, I haven't even touched on the issue of possible political framing being involved with how the story was crafted.

So, for folks at places like CJR who say the New York Times has no competition? That's kind of the problem. For folks like Jay Rosen who have said in the past that papers shouldn't be competing with one another for angles on the same story? In cases like this, yeah, maybe they should.

CJR claims early-days VOA was not propaganda

That claim was made in the pages of Columbia Journalism Review by Joel Simon of the Committee to Protect Journalists.

The Cold War was fought not with weapons, but with information and ideas. In the struggle, the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, American government-funded news outlets, were on the front lines. They were powerful not because they were propaganda, but because they weren’t.

Now, I "get" that Simon was writing a "Trump bad" piece, and on one particular instance of Trump being bad — his politicizing of the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe by his appointee, Matthew Pack.

BUT! Two wrongs don't make a right.

And, the reality is that these agencies WERE propaganda from early on.

On the print side of the early CIA front world, the book "Finks" of a few years ago illustrates that with Paris Match and other mags. In the big picture world, Scott Anderson's new "The Quiet Americans" discusses this in passing.

Per my current featured post, and the one I had featured below that about CJR caving to Zionism, this is FAR from the first time it's had a pretty big boo-boo. And, how much do people shell out for J-school degrees from there? So, I've added a CJR tag for further stupidities on its part.

The Texas Tribune plays Social Darwinist

We all know the media world in general, and newspapers and related print in particular, is undergoing a craptacular new coronavirus implosion, furloughing hundreds, if not thousands, across the country.

And, here we have good old Evan Smith hiring glorified interns, including one "reporting fellow" well enough off to be at Northwestern.

Nonprofit status no cure for what ails Salt Lake City Tribune

Ten months ago, Jay Rosen was raving about the SLC Trib quickly getting approved for nonprofit status. The Texas Tribune was offering to help it (including, surely, with making big bucks off events promotion which has now been dinged by COVID).

At the time, I said "not so fast" with the huzzahs and handsprings.

I noted on the financial side that the SLC Trib had no paywall, just a fauxwall. (It has now started one, reportedly, though I'm not sure how real it is.) I also noted it was still a legacy print paper, with overhead the Texas Trib didn't have. I also noted it's in a two-paper town. (And the Deseret News still has no paywall.) Finally, I noted that foundations who might have help for such transitions will have less help as more papers consider them. (And, in hindsight, they'll have less help available as COVID hits those foundations, too.)

Finally, I noted how the Trib's news coverage (especially on environmental issues) has been impacted by its "sponsors." 

And Poynter now says, indeed, indeed. And, it notes that last issue is the one at point.

SLC Trib ME Jennifer Napier-Pierce resigned a month ago over tussles over the paper's coverage of a Huntman scion's run for governor. The resignation, from what Poynter gleans around the edges, wasn't hugely bitter, but it was an issue, especially since a nonprofit paper can't do political campaign endorsements.

The bigger issue, as it notes? The Trib-News JOA expires the end of this year. And, reading between the lines on Poynter, apparently neither paper has done huge whacks to its print editions as of this time.

So, is the NYT going to give us sponsored verticals next?

A month ago I blogged about the departure of outgoing New York Times CEO Mark Thompson.

Now, via Digiday, I look at his successor, Meredith Kopit Levien.

And, no, the header is not a total joke, given that she introduced to Forbes its "controversial sponsored content unit," called Brandvoice. Given that Forbes also at this time became the first major biz magazine to expand the quantity, though not the quality, of its online "content" with biz-celebrity columns galore, Forbes has kind of sucked ass on the editorial side for some time.

The piece praises Levien for working to uphold the editorial-advertising wall during her time as ad director there. BUT ... it also notes she brought over from Forbes a penchant for native advertising. or advertorial, as I still call it here.

I've no doubt that will expand in the future.

Per the story, I'd expect a lot more of sponsored podcasting in the future, too. It also wouldn't totally surprise me if the NYT launched its own version of programmatic advertising to outsource, not so much to newspapers but to magazines.

Dear formerly daily papers: About those comics

The former daily closest to me did a head-scratcher in last Tuesday's edition of the now-triweekly.

It ran two days worth of comics.

I checked back on previous issues.

No, it hadn't.

Be consistent.

Yes, you were caught in a hole of sorts, being on an odd number of pages because of a special graphics page about the 75th anniversary of World War II officially ending with the Japanese surrender at Tokyo Bay

No matter.

At some point, corporate is going to renegotiate those comics deals anyway. Especially if they look at dropping back to semiweekly.

And otherwise, readers have been kind of futzing through skipped comics unless they bother to read the off days on your e-editions. (I still say, outside of seven-day dailies like the Arkansas Democrat looking for statewide coverage, most papers are looking for too much salvation from e-editions.) Start running a double set on rare days, and they're going to want them every day.

RIP Los Alamos Monitor

The sole paid subscription newspaper in the city of Los Alamos and Los Alamos County, New Mexico, is calling it quits.

And, I have a personal connection of sorts to the story of the cheap bastards.

I interviewed there to be managing editor there eight or so years ago, when it was still a five-day daily, usually eight pages on the weekdays and 12 or so on the weekender. I could have done the job, no doubt.

After I, and other candidates, I presume, made it past a first round of interviews? They hired internally. I think that Landmark Community Newspapers, the parent, was "salary scraping" to see what the market would bear and how much they could lowball a staff writer to run the whole thing.

No shock to see the company with 1.7 star average on Glassdoor. Cheap, tech-cheap, and conservative good old boys running the ship are among the complaints. If they really are running old Drupal, that explains why no websites are paywalled. Too damn hard. And, still trying the old "buy this online photo" schtick, to boot.

That said, the Los Alamos Daily Post (daily online, or always online, and weekly in print) may be free (I guess), but its website kicks the Monitor's ass, and going by ads there, has been kicking the Monitor's ass in other ways.

Interestingly, it started up just a year after I interviewed there. Presumably, their hire of not-me and other Landmark decisions may have started an exodus and former staff started the new paper?

Indeed. The publisher of the Post is the person I could have been replacing.

The Gainesville Register can't sell ads?

The Register, formerly the five-day Gainesville Daily Register, but now a triweekly in print that maybe shouldn't be that (and like many others trying the same idea, should ditch the idea of still doing PDF e-editions for all former daily press date), still can't sell ads.

Its three print days a week have each issue selling no more in display ads than each of the five days a week did even before coronavirus' new normal hit.

But, it's even worse on special sections.

My group of weeklies in the area published a 52-page tab for our annual football preview. Almost as many pages as in the past. Ad inches off 10-12 percent, but with more color sales, revenue almost even with last year. Good deal. Adhole was around 50 percent.

The Register? 10-page broadsheet that, once you toss out them running one ad three times and another four times (no, really) had a ONE and ONE HALF page adhole. 15 percent.

Just wow.

Their sports editor has decent to good sports coverage on the words and camera side, as he does in general. Their editor/GM is decent writer or better (other than being amazed by Texas grackles), and if she's dropping pages herself, generally good there.

But they just suck on ads.

And, I expect it to only get worse.