I found out via Poynter that the San Diego Union-Tribune caused a bit of a stir recently by running an article ON EASTER SUNDAY the title of which read: "The Resurrection. Did it really happen?" A lot of Christian readers found that article a bit tacky, published on Easter Sunday and all.
The reader representative for the paper (kind of like an ombudsman, I think), wrote an article today defending the article. And while I can see how folks might disagree on this one, I think the reader rep's arguments are a classic example of why the mainstream media just doesn't get it.
In a nutshell, she looks at the guts of the article, whether it was fair, whether it was accurate, and doesn't really consider the larger question, namely, is it appropriate to run this kind of article on the front page of the paper on Easter Sunday? Isn't it a bit like running a front-page story on "Santa Claus, does he really exist?" on Christmas day for all the kids to read, or, "Judaism, real religion?" on Channukah or Passover?
The question before us isn't whether the article was factually correct or fair, the question is whether it isn't a bit tacky to run a FRONT-PAGE-STORY essentially questioning the validity of Easter ON EASTER SUNDAY. And the reader rep totally misses the mark when she tries to justify the story by saying:
"Many churches use their observances of Christmas and Easter as opportunities to affirm their members' beliefs and to address the questions of non-believers," Merriman said. "At my church, the Sunday sermon title was 'Did Jesus Really Rise?' I suspect there were similar question-titles on the signs outside churches across San Diego County. Were those titles offensive? Disrespectful? I don't think so. Nor was our headline. It captured the central question of the story and of Easter."Well, first of all, that church you cited is apparently in San Diego, and they probably brought the topic up because they read it on the front page of your newspaper and people were outraged. So that hardly proves the top is okay for discussion on Easter Sunday - you CAUSED the topic to be brought up in church.
But more importantly, it's a totally different situation to have YOUR CHRISTIAN CHURCH discuss the resurrection and your local secular newspaper. On Easter Sunday, I know my church is NOT going to debunk Jesus and the resurrection, whatever the title of the sermon. But my secular paper, their allegiances are hardly in the same place, nor should they be. So it's absurd to suggest that a church discussing this topic carried the same insult, or non-insult, as a newspaper headline on the front page on Easter Sunday. (It's like using the word "fag" or talking about my momma. I/we can do it, you can't.)
I agree that it's an interesting topic for discussion, and would love to read the article (and did read it). I also think that it is tacky to run that kind of headline on the front page on Easter Sunday, regardless of what the article actually says.
But more importantly, the mainstream media's response is what I wanted to highlight here. They're like little geeky robots, looking at the facts and not the larger picture, whenever they try to justify something they've done. Comparing their story to a sermon in church - not the same thing, guys. Suggesting that their story was fair and accurate, and thus, that that is the only basis for judging whether a story was appropriately or inappropriately run - ignoring the real possibility that even fair and accurate stories can be offensive in the wrong context. And questioning the resurrection in a big fat front-page headline on Easter Sunday strikes me as sensational and poor timing.
Whether you agree or disagree, do look at the arguments the reader rep uses. It's all wonk talk and no heart, no soul. The msm has lost its soul. That is at least part of, if not much of, the problem we're all facing with them.
