Christian Newspapers

[O'GodHowGreatThouArt]

I’ve been contemplating a particular burden I’ve been having towards the journalism industry for the last few weeks. In particular, I’m looking at the Christian journalism industry. It’s something that has been completely overrun by the standard American church and has done a great deal of neglect to the things of God as well as issues worldwide with the church. The secular media isn’t much better on that regard.

Because of this neglect, we’ve got newspapers such as the Christian Post that acts more like a megachurch celebrity blog that features unbiblical material and “feel-good” theology, contrary to scripture.

One of the endgames in my life I’ve been praying over is putting together an online based newspaper and website discussing the real issues of Christianity, and it’s something I’ll be praying over for a number of years down the road in regards whether to start something like that on a ministerial scale of sorts.

What I wanted to get from you guys is your take of the journalism industry, both the Christian and the secular industry. In particular, I'd like to get your view on the three questions below, though you're welcomed to insert more info if you desire.

How confident are you in being able to trust the media to get the real issues?
Is there anyone you trust, whether mainstream or otherwise, to get this information? Feel free to name names as it could be a benefit to those around us to know these organizations exist.
Lastly, what would you want to see in a Christian newspaper if you were able to choose its focus and content?

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Yeah, the Christian Post is blah.

I cannot speak much of the journalism industry beyond my own local experience with a national news-source, Examiner.com. They are a different take, offering minimal pay for local news written by local writers. I am the Denver Christian Perspective Examiner, for instance. This group tends to push news more than commentary (I try to combine both to grab headlines). I've never personally met the editors.

As for your questions, I'll take a stab at the last one:

1. Maybe some local news (like examiner)?
2. Certainly commentaries on national issues.
3. Expose/research
4. Hot topics in Reformed world
5. Devotionals may be nice (weekly?) [Many excerpts from google books]

 

[Philip]

It's a magazine not a newspaper, but I've always liked World.

 

[The Calvinist Cop]

I would like to see Investigative Journalism on the pseudo-churches/mega-churches.
Exposing the false teachers (ie Osteen)
Listing of Reformed Conferences/Summits (we have an annual Spurgeon Conference)
Reform Prespective on national issues
A Missionary expo
And a the very top, A Quote of God's Sovereignty

 

[O'GodHowGreatThouArt]

Forgive my ignorance David, but could you elaborate on what a "missionary expo" is?

 

[Zach]

I find that Albert Mohler's "The Briefing" and also "The Aquila Report" give a great analysis of the News that is most relevant to the Church. I try to follow both but have recently slipped up in staying regular with "The Briefing".

 

[O'GodHowGreatThouArt]

That could definitely be put to use. I can do some digging and see what the people "in-the-know" think.

 

[Somerset]

Over here the British Church Newspaper is excellent. It is non denominational, but most of those linked with it is pretty sound

 

[Tim]

Over here the British Church Newspaper is excellent. It is non denominational, but most of those linked with it is pretty sound

A pretty good doctrinal statement, I see.

 

[Somerset]

Over here the British Church Newspaper is excellent. It is non denominational, but most of those linked with it is pretty sound

A pretty good doctrinal statement, I see.

It was rather limp and useless on reflection - apologies to all. The BCN represents no particular denomination. It stands for the doctrines of grace. Some of those involved take a pre mil position and some are Dispensational. There is quite a lot of news about more general issues affecting the churches over here - especially the CofE and the liberal denominations. It also covers the doings of the RCs. Every issue features the presecution of Christians around the world - in these articles they report problems experienced by a wide range of Christians.

It is not perfect - but I think it is the best source of information about political (church and national) issues of interest to reformed Christians.

 

[CuriousNdenver]

Great questions, and a great subject to consider! I am a student majoring in Convergent Journalism, and as a Christian first, I find many challenges. We are to be unbiased and somewhat detached as journalists, but I find that in certain instances that conflicts with my faith, and I am not willing to compromise. I find a constant struggle in how to work that out, and wish I knew other Christian journalists to fellowship with and learn from.

Regarding the state of the media in general, speaking of the U.S. media, I sense an unspoken bias in much of the news that is presented. However, this may not be due to the journalist on the street as much as management, editors and commercialism. I also see a growing and disturbing trend to fill the papers with fluff because in the on-line versions, these types of stories get many hits, which bring in more advertising dollars. If the industry allows advertising dollars and the fickle whims of some readers to influence content presented, we are in danger of not getting the whole story, or getting only the news that the audience collectively wants to know, rather than what we NEED to know.

On a more local and regional level, the industry professionals and educators with whom I am acquainted seem to hold to a very high standard of ethics, and most adhere to the code of ethics for journalists as laid out by the Society of Professional Journalists. I have observed some go to great lengths to get to the bottom of the story and to present both sides, though they may personally be aligned with one view. However, many of those same educators and professionals hold quite liberal political views, and I can see their personal views influence on the choice of stories covered and how the stories are covered, though they would likely disagree.

For your questions:
How confident am I that we can trust the media? Somewhat, provided that we do our homework and actively seek out multiple sources and validate those sources. In this information age, it is not that the information is not out there, but finding the pertinent information amongst the mass of unnecessary fluff that is my biggest problem.

I read The Denver Post daily, and while I believe it to be mostly truthful, I am disappointed by what it does NOT cover, or glosses over. I also read The Columbia Journalism Review, The Pearcey Report, First Things, WORLD Magazine, Herbert I. London and Jerry Johnson's Patriot Newswire, many of which are magazines or on-line magazines / journals.

I would very much enjoy a print or on-line Christian Newspaper. I find it frustrating that there is not a one-stop shop where we can get all of our information daily, but realize that it is not very feasible to put something like that together. I would prefer seeing something devoted to feature stories and hard news, particularly that with potential to affect the faith community. There is already enough fluff and PR type of stuff out there, so I would not be interested in that. I would echo Calvinist Cop's suggestion for investigative reporting to expose false teachers and those mis-using church funds, but would hope it would be presented in a godly manner, in love, with hope of turning misguided followers from false teaching towards faithful teaching.

It would need to be honoring to God and committed to the truth, even if the truth turns out to not be what was expected. This is a wonderful idea and I will be interested to see what the results are! By the way, do you have a journalism background?

 

[O'GodHowGreatThouArt]

Pursuing a degree in Convergence journalism as well, It's a concentration within their Mass Communications degree at the University of West Georgia. Spent one semester on the newspaper staff at Gainesville State College (look up "The Compass" on issuu.com and you might see some of my work from this last Spring) and plan on getting onto the newspaper staff at the school this fall.

 

[The Calvinist Cop]

Forgive my ignorance David, but could you elaborate on what a "missionary expo" is?

Sorry for the delay...expo or exposition: a systematic interpretation or explanation of a specific topic, right? or How about a Biography of different Missionaries aboard.

 

[O'GodHowGreatThouArt]

Oh. I was thinking of something entirely different there. That makes perfect sense.

And ya, I was actually thinking about putting something together involving missionaries, because that's something which is greatly neglected in the christian journalism end of the spectrum. If it's mentioned, either it's a missionary in a non-persecuted country, or because the secular media jumped all over it already and they feel like they're obligated to get involved because of that.

 

[The Calvinist Cop]

Awesome!
Our church has a family in Albania, they are amazing.

 

[Edward]

What I wanted to get from you guys is your take of the journalism industry, both the Christian and the secular industry.

Print in this country is dead. It just hasn't been interred yet. And only a few (notably the WSJ) have figured out how to be financially viable online. Christian publications are probably going to lag the secular print outlets in the downward slide, but it's going to happen to them, as well. And in the meantime, some of the better print writers will be competing for the few remaining jobs.

As noted, online is where the readers are now, but the model is generally economically non-viable.

And I'd hold up the PCA as an example on the religious side. They've tried for decades to make print, and then print plus online, viable. The current model is to see if they can lose less money giving it away than they could selling it. That might work for the online side, but I'd like to see their numbers for the print side that would support that plan.

I'd look for something that could support me and my family rather than to try to go into media today. And I've got a bachelor's from one of the top journalism schools in the country.

 

[CuriousNdenver]

Pursuing a degree in Convergence journalism as well, It's a concentration within their Mass Communications degree at the University of West Georgia. Spent one semester on the newspaper staff at Gainesville State College (look up "The Compass" on issuu.com and you might see some of my work from this last Spring) and plan on getting onto the newspaper staff at the school this fall.

Excellent! So what is your take on the state of journalism today? Have you encountered pressure to leave your faith out of your work? Do you know other Christian journalists, especially older ones who could serve as mentors?

I shoot mainly still photography and write and have been told to keep my views on politics and religion to myself. I find I struggle with this, particularly if I am on the street working and have an opening to share the gospel with someone or to connect them with resources. I do not expect that I will find a job in the mainstream media, but will end up freelancing or working for the alternative (Christian) press.

If this is where you believe the Lord is directing your path, don't give up; He will provide. I have a professor who I do not believe is a Christian who insists that true journalism is a calling and an honor.

 

[O'GodHowGreatThouArt]

At best it's deplorable. I know this will probably cause some problems, so if future editors somehow came across this, hear me out before tossing my application please.

We (being journalists and those in the business as a whole) have traded the very duties of our jobs for advertising money and political leanings. The news that is reported is very bias to one side or the other, or if its not bias, it's completely irrelevant. I'm not talking about location based items, which will seem irrelevant to some viewers if it happened on the other side of the state though. I'm speaking of times where news networks spend half an hour discussing the consequences of a major celebrity that got drunk while driving (hint: not what they deserve).

Even worse: constantly listening to news stations drilling the scandals into the ground to the point where you need a $250,000 microscope to find the particle remains of whatever was fortunate enough not to be atomized by the constant abuse. Case in point: Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. If that's not a prime example, I don't know what is.

Somewhere in between all of this, they'll distribute news they THINK is relevant to us. Let's look at something real quick. The media caught wind that the Trayvon Martin killing might have been racially motivated (no thanks to NBC...still waiting on the station to apologize and for the editor and the person that did it to be fired). They completely blow that skyhigh without any evidence whatsoever. Next thing you know, there's demonstrations all over the country and every news station under the sun is covering it and pronouncing judgments. Was there evidence? Nope. They did it to create a firestorm and boost ratings. There's more to it than that, but that's a different topic since it's of a political nature.

Meanwhile, Christians are being tortured and killed in Saudi Arabia, and Palestinians are being bullied and even killed by Israel with little if any cause (PM me if you want to discuss it further...not doing that here). We blow up over one incident that is purely supposition at best, and completely ignore the catastrophies that are in plain sight for all to see? Six months ago, a suicide bomber struck in downtown Mogadishu, Somalia. Never heard it on the mainstream news stations. The only reason I even had an idea of it is because I managed, in spite of my very poor knowledge of Arabic, to pick up enough of the words on a podcast that hit my computer that day to run a Google search that said "Mogadishu Somalia bombing (insert date here)" without quotes and got a hit on a North African news station that isn't affiliated with al-Jazeera.

Two people died that day. al-Shabaab (now part of al-Qai'da) took responsibility.

Never heard a peep. No press, no airtime, not even a two-line footnote on the websites.

Christians die every day at the hands of militant governments seeking to either wipe Christianity off the planet or restrict Christians in their country to such a degree that they have to be self-sustaining Christians.

I'll end my rant with this because I'll go all day if I don't. We need to redefine what news really is and get back to the root of our job: Finding and issuing news that matter and that people need to know, not want to know. We also need to relearn the definition of neutrality, and ensure that if we are secular media, we stay 100% neutral and deliver facts as news, not opinions and theories as news. Of course if you're not secular, then the rules change a bit.

If we did that, we'd lose a foothold in the market, but we'd get back to where we should be, and let the people decide for themselves based on the facts we deliver. Had the media done that in the Trayvon Martin case, I doubt there would've been as much chaos as we've seen the last 2-3 months.

To answer your other questions:

2) I haven't been in a position where that has been an issue yet, though I suspect it'll be a matter of time before that becomes the case (I'm not exactly one to keep my mouth shut about abortion and Christ)
3) I have not ran into anyone that fits the profile yet, but the day is still young, and I've only been at it for about 6 months or so.

 

[Edward]

have traded the very duties of our jobs for advertising money and political leanings.

Historically, journalism hasn't been about truth, it's been about advocacy. The idea of 'objective journalists' might most charitably be called a myth, or more accurately a deliberate falsehood created by the media.

Duranty got a Pulitzer at the New York Times for the Stalinist propaganda he churned out in the early 30s. And Janet Cooke at the Washington Post got one for a story that was completely fabricated to advance her (and the paper's) agenda. Journalists pushed us into the war with Spain, and dragged us into World War I. From Cronkite on Viet Nam to Rather's 'fake but accurate', the story is the same. in the 60s, Time was conservative, Newsweek liberal. McCormick at the Chicago Trib was notorious - he even wanted to simplify the rules for spelling - for decades the paper had fotografs, for example.

And in the late colonial era, a paper either supported the lawful government or advocated for revolution.

 

[Edward]

I have not ran into anyone that fits the profile yet,

And that points out the biggest problem I have with media today. If you worked for a media outlet, that would probably get into print. There aren't any copy editors any more. Only computerized spell checkers.

Of course, sometimes the editor is an idiot, like the one who changed my reference from 'Anchors Aweigh' to 'Anchors Away'. I think he went on to a career at a major metro daily. Or maybe he just wanted me to look bad.

 

[CuriousNdenver]

Historically, journalism hasn't been about truth, it's been about advocacy. The idea of 'objective journalists' might most charitably be called a myth, or more accurately a deliberate falsehood created by the media.

I can see two sides to this issue. I agree that much U.S. journalism has been slanted, often openly, with intent to sway readers' opinions. However, there are also those journalists and photojournalists on the street and in the trenches who risk their careers and sometimes their lives to expose truth, corruption and bring us stories that would otherwise go untold.

As far as "objective or neutral journalism", I agree, it seems almost an oxymoron. It is impossible to divorce ourselves from our own worldview, and that inevitably will play a part in the stories we write or photograph. To me, it seems more dishonest to hide our own worldview under the guise of neutrality than to be transparent about things like our faith or political leanings. It's not that journalists do not have opinions, just that they are asked not to divulge them (editorial writing excepted). At the same time, I believe those who wish to be ethical journalists, Christians or not, have an obligation to present the truth they uncover, even if it may not support their position or further the causes they believe in.

One thing that I do find encouraging in the field of journalism today is that many of the educators and journalists I have encountered strongly support democracy and free speech. These liberties are under attack in our society today and I find it slightly curious that many believers may find themselves on the same side of the fence on this issue as the journalists they are more frequently at odds with.

 

[CuriousNdenver]

Two people died that day. al-Shabaab (now part of al-Qai'da) took responsibility.

The link below is probably not the same bombing you referred to, but some of this news is out there, though agreed, it is not easy to locate. There is too much irrelevant information out there and it is difficult to sift through the junk food to find the worthwhile nuggets of information.

http://http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/08/us-somalia-conflict-idUSTRE8171DG20120208

We need to redefine what news really is and get back to the root of our job: Finding and issuing news that matter and that people need to know, not want to know. We also need to relearn the definition of neutrality, and ensure that if we are secular media, we stay 100% neutral and deliver facts as news, not opinions and theories as news. Of course if you're not secular, then the rules change a bit.

One of the problems the industry faces is funding. Advertising dollars pay for journalists to write and media outlets to produce content. Data mining allows on-line advertisers to evaluate the effectiveness of their ad placement. As you have noted, the general public has an insatiable appetite for junk food news. So when media outlets such as The Denver Post run fluff stories and they generate many hits, likes and reader comments, advertisers see those as profitable. It may not be so much that the news outlets are caving in to pressure from advertisers as much as that content producers are crossing the line that typically separated the advertising department from the news department. They create content with "likes" in mind. They win accolades from their editors and peers and advertisers continue to spend their dollars at the media outlet. At a conference recently I heard a professional journalist say that no one wants to know that a guy got killed at _________ (a notorious high-crime area); they want to read about ___________ (fill in your choice fluff or PR type article). One may ask if people are willing to pay for news they need to hear.

What do you think is involved in staying "100% neutral"? Is it even possible? Is it truly necessary?

 

[O'GodHowGreatThouArt]

Clarification in terms before I answer real quick Melanie.

When I speak of neutrality, I'm referring to the discussion of facts within news stories. For example, the news media should not portray President Obama as an economic holy man while completely ignoring the facts of the situation (3 year old recession, trillions poured in with little benefit, bailouts that did nothing except surrender private companies to government power, debt nearly tripling in 3 years, etc). This is more down an editorial framework, not something discussed at the top of the hour on a news network when top stories are typically discussed.

However, the media should know if/when it is proper to remain neutral. Let's say the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who say the WTC attacks were a government run false-flag operation to justify the invasion of Afghanistan were right, and a reporter discovered evidence backing those claims. The reporter and newspaper need to get on that horse and ride it like there is no tomorrow regardless of the attacks made against them. Yes this would be a bias story because they're going to say the government's statements condemning the story are ludicrous and fiction-filled, but it would be an evidence-backed exposure of a government conspiracy that killed over 3,000 people. As a result, it would be in the public's best interest to be very bias on that issue.

 

[jwithnell]

Despite all the advances in information technology, great journalism is a thing of the past.

My greatest concern is that there are so few separate news feeds. At one point, major dailies and broadcasters would have correspondents strategically placed nationally and internationally. You had three major wire services competing against each other. Now everybody is repackaging AP or a few other sources. Our leading news radio station (in Washington DC no less) mostly reports on what was reported in the previous 24 hours by the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. When you slug through the blogs, they often are drawing from WSJ, the Post, and a few others. (CNN diminished into nothing for me when I saw how they handled a mining accident story a few years ago.) And how do you go about checking the veracity or professional skills of a blogger? Recently, I heard some disturbing news regarding Christians in one of the Muslim-dominated developing nations. No known news agency reported the story, but it did appear on one blog. Was there a lack of interest? Was the information false? Can I trust the one person writing about it? Go figure.

 

[jwithnell]

Despite all the advances in information technology, great journalism is a thing of the past.

My greatest concern is that there are so few separate news feeds. At one point, major dailies and broadcasters would have correspondents strategically placed nationally and internationally. You had three major wire services competing against each other. Now everybody is repackaging AP or a few other sources. Our leading news radio station (in Washington DC no less) mostly reports on what was reported in the previous 24 hours by the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. When you slug through the blogs, they often are drawing from WSJ, the Post, and a few others. (CNN diminished into nothing for me when I saw how they handled a mining accident story a few years ago.) And how do you go about checking the veracity or professional skills of a blogger? Recently, I heard some disturbing news regarding Christians in one of the Muslim-dominated developing nations. No known news agency reported the story, but it did appear on one blog. Was there a lack of interest? Was the information false? Can I trust the one person writing about it? Go figure.

BTW, I devour the WSJ every morning.(Except Sunday. I love having a newspaper that doesn't publish on that day so I don't have to explain a million times that I only want the paper delivered the other six days.)