Thursday, August 20, 2020

The NYT and sheltered big media coverage of religion

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, to the degree they're exemplified by this.

"Christianity will have power"? Yes, it's a nice phrase, but ... was one line in one speech in Iowa enough to elevate the speech into Donald Trump's version of a Cornerstone Speech vis-a-vis his relationship to the Religious Right? And, if so, why?

The New York Times would have you think so. But, I don't see it making the case, and its "marketing" efforts don't sell me any more than the story itself.

First, two of those marketing Tweets and my responses:
Uhh, no. I don't "need" anyone.
There you are, Mr. NYT National Editor Marc Lacey.

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

Here you are:
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!)

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?

That said, assuming some of the lower-star ratings of a book that Dias edited are true, maybe that Princeton degree is not worth that much. A decade ago, I came across a friend of a good online friend who was in the graduate program at Harvard Divinity and who insisted that Plato's Euthyphro dilemma didn't apply to Christianity, so this isn't a "sour grapes" issue, it's a real observation. And, no, religious right idiots, claiming that good is good based on god's nature does NOT avoid the dilemma.

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.)

Whether Dias personally believes this or not, I don't know. But, this is a common trope from the MSM, and from much of national Democratic leadership, and not just about religion. Trump is indeed an outlier on the vulgarity of expression of his stances. He may be a minor to moderate outlier on the degree of severity of some of his stances. But, no, nearly complete fusion within today's Republican Party on a lot of issues was around long before Trump.

Now, onto my original Twitter thread, with this blogpost being added to the end of it after being finished.

First:
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.

This, too, was not really covered.  Nor were related issues. Looking from January 2016 to the fall general election, Dias appeared to ask none of the interviewees if they knew what Clinton's beliefs were, or even cared, which would itself be an issue. (That said, Clinton's lack of focus on Iowa allowed these folks to not even ask themselves what her beliefs and values might be.)

She does note that just 11 percent of people in Sioux Center caucused for him. But, she doesn't discuss why Trump instead of Clinton — or the option of not voting — was the choice in Novemer.

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.

The desire for bullying is far from new.

All one has to do is go back 1,800 years and read Tertullian's description of Christians in heaven rejoicing over the torments of the damned in hell. Maybe Princeton graduate divinity school grad Dias didn't want to look too much under that hood.

Anyway, again, when a lot of the most urban parts of blue America, or beyond, like Green or Socialist-red America, get a lot of religious news from sources like this, they get a skewed image.

They also get other skewed images. Even I did.

Did you know that Sioux Center isn't THAT small? More than 7,000 people and growing quite nicely since 2000, per City-Data. Did you know that, including the college students who claim residency there, it's still better-off than the Iowa average? Did you know it's less than an hour from Sioux City, Iowa, population 80,000 and metro area 180,000, and a flat hour from Sioux Falls, South Dakota, population 185,000 and metro 265K?

In other words, Sioux Center isn't the Idaho Panhandle or something.
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)