February 16, 2008
“Christian Ramadan”: Does the Press Get Religion Now?
(SDG)
SDG here.
For years we’ve known that The Press Doesn’t Get Religion. And, usually, when the press doesn’t get religion, Get Religion gets the press. Get Religion is a group blog of religious religion journalists covering religion journalism, and in general they do an excellent job.
I was disappointed, therefore, by a recent blog post from Get Religionista Mollie Zielger Hemingway — who says she “loves analyzing media coverage of the liturgical calendar” — offering kudos to the “reporters” who “found the story” on what she describes as “rebranding Lent as Ramadan” in the Netherlands. She even praises “most reporters” covering this alleged “rebranding” for having “put the story in context.” She also adds that this “rebranding” is “a symptom of a larger condition” that “could use some sensible reporting.”
That’s one thing Mollie and I agree on: Sensible reporting is definitely needed. That’s why God created Get Religion. So where is their “sensible reporting” when it comes to a “story” almost totally devoid of facts — a story that even by usual media standards for religion reporting seems (at least to this non-religion journalist) breathtakingly irresponsible in the disconnect between the claims of the headline and lede and whatever facts appear to lie at the bottom of the stories?
Here’s the DutchNews piece that got Mollie’s kudos for breaking the story. (Actually, this may not be the piece that broke the story, since the first sentence credits another publication; my Dutch is a little rusty, but I think Volkskrant means something like People’s News or Popular News. However, perhaps it’s all the same outfit.) Here’s the headline and lede:
Lent must be as ‘cool’ as Ramadan
The Catholic tradition of fasting at Lent needs to become as ‘cool’ as the Muslim fasting peiod of Ramadan, say Dutch Catholics in today’s Volkskrant.
This year, the church is even promoting the 40-day fast as ‘the Christian Ramadan’. ‘We use the word Ramadan because it is a term young people are more likely to understand than Lent, the organisation Vastenaktie tells the paper.
Mollie also positively cites this follow-up piece in The Telegraph that goes further. Here’s the lede:
Lent fast re-branded as ‘Christian Ramadan’
Dutch Catholics have re-branded the Lent fast as the “Christian Ramadan” in an attempt to appeal to young people who are more likely to know about Islam than Christianity.
The Catholic charity Vastenaktie, which collects for the Third World across the Netherlands during the Lent period, is concerned that the Christian festival has become less important for the Dutch over the last generation.
“The image of the Catholic Lent must be polished. The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young people than Lent,” said Vastenaktie Director, Martin Van der Kuil.
For what it’s worth, the DutchNews piece doesn’t mention “rebranding,” although it does claim that “the church” is “promoting” the Lenten fast as “the Christian Ramadan.” What, exactly, does this mean?
In a Catholic context, when you say “the church” is doing X — at least if you know what you’re talking about — you mean that bishops are doing X, or at least sanctioning it. That is who speaks for the Church: the bishops. If, say, individual Catholics are doing X, you don’t say that “the church” is doing it, you say some Catholics are doing it.
In the case of the Dutch episcopacy, the prospect of someone proposing some sort of boneheaded Lent/Ramadan equivalency might not be entirely out of the question. A ways back Bishop “Tiny” Muskins made headlines by suggesting that Christians use the name Allah to refer to God, which makes a lot of sense — for Arabic-speaking Christians. It makes no sense at all for Christians whose primary language is Dutch or English. Whether this new flap represents similar episcopal thinking, though, remains to be seen.
The Telegraph piece offers the more startling headline — “Lent fast re-branded as ‘Christian Ramadan’” — written in the passive voice with no active subject, leaving it unclear who or what is responsible for this “re-branding.” To be fair, headlines are usually written by editors, not the reporters who are at least meant to be researching facts, but still it presents the alleged “rebranding” as a fait accompli.
At the very least, it suggests that someone with some sort of significant controlling stake in the Lenten “brand” — again, presumably the Dutch bishops, or at least a diocesan PR office or something — has embarked on a concerted campaign to get “Christian Ramadan” into the vernacular while consigning “Lent” to the scrap heap. (That’s what “rebranding” implies: deprecating an old, obsolete brand in favor of the new normative one.)
Then in the opening graf we learn that “Dutch Catholics” are responsible for this “rebranding.” Does this mean the Dutch Catholic bishops? Dutch Catholics in general? Is it a popular grassroots movement? Whatever the facts, these early cues strongly suggest a broad-based Ramadanizing or Islamification of a Christian penitential season.
But wait. After telling us that “the church” was promoting Lent as “the Christian Ramadan,” DutchNews goes on to cite “the organisation Vastenaktie” as saying “We use the word Ramadan because it is a term young people are more likely to understand than Lent.”
Who or what is “the organization Vastenaktie”? DutchNews doesn’t say, possibly expecting Dutch readers to be in the know. It thus falls to the Telegraph to fill in readers outside the Netherlands that Vastenaktie is a Catholic charity. (Possibly with a special Lenten emphasis; “Vastenaktie” looks to mean something like “fasting and action.”)
So, okay, a Catholic charitable organization is concerned that the Lenten fast has lost cultural significance, and is trying to burnish its image among young people. That may be a significant story, particularly the cultural implication about young people being more familiar with Muslim cultural touchstones than Christian ones.
But it’s a far cry from the picture that you might get from the opening sentences of these stories of Lent being “rebranded” by “the church.” Even if Vastenaktie is an official arm of the Dutch church (and I have no idea whether it is or not), you still don’t say that “the church” is “rebranding” the Lenten fast because a Catholic charity has done…
Hm. Come to think of it, what exactly have they done? Exactly what form has this “rebranding” taken? What, specifically, has Vastenaktie done by way of “rebranding” the Lenten fast? Are there to be bulletins and other materials announcing the “Fourth Sunday in Christian Ramadan”? Will Catholics soon be asking each other what they’ve given up for Christian Ramadan?
Let’s see. Put together, both news stories give us a combined total of, um, zero facts in this regard. Zilch. Nada. Not a clue what “rebranding the Lenten fast” is supposed to entail. Just a quote from the organization’s director, talking about the need to “polish” the “image” of Lent and the observation that the Muslim penitential season is better known among young people. Later the Telegraph reporter vaguely mentions “linking” the Lenten fast to Ramadan, but again not a single specific as to what this means.
Perhaps at this point you’re wondering what Mollie was talking about when she praised reporters for putting “the story in context.” That was in reference to the relaxation of Lenten disciplines in the wake of Vatican II and the decline of Lenten observances among Mass-attending Catholics. I guess you could say that’s context. They just forgot to include the story. (Actually, according to comments at Get Religion, it looks like they got the context wrong too: Both stories erroneously claim that prior to Vatican II alcohol was prohibited during Lent.)
FWIW, I Googled Vastenaktie, went to their website, glanced over the homepage in Google translation, clicked on the first thing that mentioned fasting, and found a paragraph on “Christian Ramadan”. Below is an eclectic rendering in English based on a couple of online translation engines and my own ignorant judgment (my family is Dutch, but I learned almost nothing; I would welcome a more informed translation):
Christian Ramadan
A typical wordplay. In the Dutch media there is much attention for non-Christian religions and their practices. Each year Ramadan invariably pulls the front pages of newspapers in our country. By contrast, the Catholic fasting tradition is forgotten in oblivion. Young people especially know the Islamic fast, but not the Christian. The carnival obtains the news… The Catholic fasting tradition is valuable. And the interest grows.
Putting together this paragraph with every single fact from both news stories, as far as I can tell, it looks like a Catholic charity in the Netherlands may or may not be saying something like, “You know how Muslims have Ramadan? Well, Catholics have something like that too! Lent: It’s like Ramadan… except the press talks a lot about Ramadan and ignores Lent, so maybe if we point out the connection, we can get Lent some coverage as well.”
I’m not saying that is all that Vastenaktie has done. Nor am I saying that this much, as far as it goes, is necessarily a good idea in itself. I’m not arguing any of that. I’m not defending Vastenaktie in any way. I’m saying that (1) I have no idea what Vastenaktie has actually done; (2) neither, as far as I can tell, does anyone else; and (3) the way the story is being reported and perpetuated seems wildly incommensurate with the facts that have emerged to date.
Certainly if the paragraph above, and the “wordplay” it suggests, represents the extent of the “Christian Ramadan” business, I’d say we have an instance here, not merely of journalistic incompetence in religion reporting, but of sensational Islamo-controversy-mongering.
That’s the kind of thing I expect Get Religion to be all over, instead of perpetuating.
It isn’t only Get Religion. A number of Catholic and non-Catholic bloggers have blogged on the story, either not noticing the problems in reporting, or possibly figuring it sounded crazy enough to be true. And who knows, it could be. But “could be” is not a story. Maybe someday if someone does some sensible reporting, we might find out.
Mollie commented in her piece that “It’s easy to write the first story.” She might have underestimated the difficulty. Perhaps we’ll know when (or rather if) the first story emerges.
Posted by SDG in News Media | Permalink | Comments (280)
October 12, 2007
Media Bias #2: God-talk (right and left)
(SDG)
SDG here (still not Jimmy!).
Stephen L. Carter in The Culture of Disbelief let the cat out of the bag (if it weren't already) that God-talk by political conservatives is viewed far more suspiciously by media and political elites than God-talk by political liberals:
…in the 1992 campaign, the media often treated President Bush's speeches to religious organizations as pandering—but when Bill Clinton spoke, for example, to a black Baptist group, he was given credit for shrewdness.
Even "pandering" is a mild charge; when conservatives speaking in churches, grave concerns about the separation of church and state are raised, but when liberals speak in churches, they're credited with staking their own claim to faith and values.
This week, it seems, Barack Obama spoke in an Evangelical church in South Carolina.
Addressing a crowd of nearly 4000 people during a service livened by a rock band and hip-hop dancers, Obama spoke of creating "a Kingdom right here on Earth," and asked the crowd to "pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God."
Now, let me say right off the bat that this "instrument of God" business doesn't strike me as ominously messianic God-talk. Obama didn't say "I am God's instrument" or anything like that; he asked for prayers that he could be an instrument of God "in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God."
Having said that, it seems safe to say that if it were Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee who had talked about being "an instrument of God" while speaking at a church, the incident would have received front-page, top-story panic-level treatment in the MSM.
How was Obama's speech actually covered?
As far as I can tell, the only major news venue to report on Obama's "instrument of God" line was CNN.com — not in its feature article on the event (headline: "Obama: GOP doesn't own faith issue"), but in a blog entry at CNN's Political Ticker blog.
However, if you go to the blog entry today, you may be surprised to discover that the "instrument of God" line isn't there any more.
The text of the story has changed a number of times this week. Specifically, it keeps getting shorter, with less and less coverage of Obama's God-talk.
Here's how the CNN blog covered the event early this week, as reproduced on other websites and blogs:
GREENVILLE, South Carolina (CNN) — After speaking to an evangelical church on Sunday in this traditionally conservative South Carolina city, Sen. Barack Obama said that Republicans no longer have a firm grip on religion in political discourse.
"I think its important particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party to not cede values and faith to any one party," Obama told reporters outside the Redemption World Outreach Center where he attended services.
"I think that what you're seeing is a breaking down of the sharp divisions that existed maybe during the nineties, when at least in politics the perception was that the Democrats were fearful of talking about faith, and on the other hand you had the Republicans who had a particular brand of faith that often times seemed intolerant or pushed people away," he said.
Obama noted that he was pleased leaders in the evangelical community like T.D. Jakes and Rick Warren were beginning to discuss social justice issues like AIDS and poverty in ways evangelicals were not doing before.
"I think that's a healthy thing, that we're not putting people in boxes, that everybody is out there trying to figure out how do we live right and how do we create a stronger America," Obama said.
During the nearly two hour service that featured a rock band and hip-hop dancers, Obama shared the floor with the church's pastor, Ron Carpenter. The senator from Illinois asked the multiracial crowd of nearly 4,000 people to keep him and his family in their prayers, and said he hoped to be "an instrument of God."
"Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics," Obama said. "Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power's sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God."
He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."
Asked by CNN if he talks about faith more in churchgoing South Carolina than he does in the other early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, Obama said: "I don't talk about it all the time, but when I'm in church I talk about it."
Around mid-week, though, when I checked the page, the sentence about being an "instrument of God" was missing. Gone. The phrase "instrument of God" was, however, still there, only in a photo caption, not in the text of the story.
Now, though, the the story is even shorter, and even the photo caption has changed so that it no longer mentions the "instrument of God" line. Instead, the "build a Kingdom" line has been moved into the photo caption -- and out of the text of the story. (Will the caption change again?)
Here's the story as it appears at this writing:
GREENVILLE, South Carolina (CNN) — After speaking to an evangelical church on Sunday in this traditionally conservative South Carolina city, Sen. Barack Obama said that Republicans no longer have a firm grip on religion in political discourse.
"I think its important particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party to not cede values and faith to any one party," Obama told reporters outside the Redemption World Outreach Center where he attended services.
"I think that what you're seeing is a breaking down of the sharp divisions that existed maybe during the nineties, when at least in politics the perception was that the Democrats were fearful of talking about faith, and on the other hand you had the Republicans who had a particular brand of faith that often times seemed intolerant or pushed people away," he said.
That's it. That's the whole story. There's a link to "Full story," but it doesn't link to the original version of the blog entry -- only to the CNN.com feature article that never mentioned the "instrument of God" business in the first place.
Now. I don't read CNN.com's Political Ticker blog on a regular basis. For all I know, they could have some strange policy of commonly editing pieces down as the stories get old. It would seem an odd thing to do, and I can't imagine why they would, but it could be for all I know.
Barring that, though, it looks as if Obama's God-talk -- which even with this low-level coverage has raised skeptical eyebrows in the blogosphere, though not in the MSM or in Washington, DC that I can tell -- has been tacitly buried by CNN editors, who ignored it in their feature piece and now have even excised it from their blog coverage.
Now, let's see what happens if/when one of the Republican candidate darkens the door of a church.
Posted by SDG in News Media | Permalink | Comments (16)
October 11, 2007
Not News?
(Jimmy Akin)
In the above clip, two reporters explain why a drop in American casualties does not constitute news, while an increase in casualties does constitute news.
Is this a case of "If it bleeds, it leads" or a case of media bias--or both?
You decide.
MORE.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in News Media | Permalink | Comments (63)
September 27, 2007
TIME MAGAZINE: Did John Paul II Commit Suicide?
(Jimmy Akin)
In a shockingly outrageous and irresponsible story, TIME Magazine has suggested that John Paul II committed suicide, or at least attempted to do so.
Here's the basis of their story:
1) An Italian doctor who only watched news stories about John Paul on television thought that he was losing weight and having trouble swallowing due to his Parkinson's disease.
2) Two years after his death, following the Vatican's refusal to allow a Church funeral for a notorious Italian who demanded to be starved to death (and was), this doctor decides to revisit the death of John Paul II.
3) She concludes that if he was losing weight and having trouble swallowing then he should have been given a feeding tube earlier than he was.
4) She assumes that John Paul II's doctors would have explained this to him.
5) Since he wasn't given a feeding tube earlier than he was, she concludes that he must have refused it himself.
6) She also concludes that Church teaching would have required the use of a feeding tube at the earlier time she now thinks he should have had it.
7) Therefore, John Paul II was euthanized at his own request.
Which would mean it was suicide.
Kids, can you say "Cheap sensationalistic Italian press attempt to subvert Church teaching on euthanasia, tar the memory of John Paul II, and get payback for the Church's stance regarding the Italian who starved himself to death last year?"
This chain of reasoning is so full of holes that I don't see how it can be read as anything else.
And how about these gems from the TIME article:
Catholics are enjoined to pursue all means to prolong life.
Indeed her accusations are grave, questioning the Catholic Church's strictly traditional stances on medical ethics, including the dictum from John Paul's own 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae to use all modern means possible to avoid death.
Whoa!
Kids, can you say, "Partisan TIME correspondent too dangerously unqualified to keep his job?"
Yes! It seems that Ruth "I'm too dangerously unqualified to keep my job" Gledhill has some company in her unique group of reporters covering religion. She's now joined by Jeff "I'm too dangerously unqualified to keep my job" Israely.
Hey, TIME Magazine! Next time you want to do a hit-job on the Catholic Church, try running the story past someone who knows what the Catholic Church actually teaches!
Try to avoid using television to diagnose subtle things like when a feeding tube should be used, too. Not every sick man should be put on one as soon as the scale drops a few pounds.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in News Media | Permalink | Comments (98)
August 13, 2007
Confessions of a BBC Liberal
(Jimmy Akin)
EXCERPTS:
[T]he BBC’s own report on impartiality that effectively admitted to an institutional “liberal” bias among programme makers. Previously these accusations had been dismissed as a right-wing rant, but since the report was published even the BBC’s allies seem to accept it.
It is of particular interest to me because for nine years, between 1955 and 1964, I was part of this media liberal consensus.
[W]e were not just anti-Macmillan; we were antiindustry, anti-capitalism, antiadvertising, antiselling, antiprofit, antipatriotism, antimonarchy, antiempire, antipolice, antiarmed forces, antibomb, antiauthority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place – you name it, we were anti it.
Although I was a card-carrying media liberal for the best part of nine years, there was nothing in my past to predispose me towards membership. I spent my early years in a country where every citizen had to carry identification papers. All the newspapers were censored, as were all letters abroad; general elections had been abolished: it was a one-party state. Yes, that was Britain – Britain from 1939 to 1945.
I was nine when the war started, and 15 when it ended, and accepted these restrictions unquestioningly. I was astounded when identity cards were abolished. And the social system was at least as authoritarian as the political system. It was shocking for an unmarried couple to sleep together and a disgrace to have a baby out of wedlock. A homosexual act incurred a jail sentence. Procuring an abortion was a criminal offence. Violent young criminals were birched, older ones were flogged and murderers were hanged.
So how did we get from there to here?
Very good question!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in News Media | Permalink | Comments (98)
June 19, 2007
NYTwits
(Jimmy Akin)
The New York Times recently ran THIS STORY about B16's meeting with President Bush.
Here's the opening sentence:
President Bush and Pope Benedict XVI, both religious conservatives, met for the first time on Saturday in the papal palace at the Vatican, where the pontiff privately expressed his concerns to the president about “the worrying situation in Iraq,” especially the treatment of minority Christians there.
"Both religious conservatives"?
You just know that the folks at the NYT were just itching to caption the above picture (also from the story) something like "President Bush and Pope Benedict XVI, both religious conservatives, review plans for world domination."
Unfortunately they had to settle for "President Bush took a close look at his gifts, an etching and a medallion, from Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday."
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in News Media | Permalink | Comments (110)
November 02, 2006
Beisner Responds
(Jimmy Akin)
Regarding the recent controversy with Bill Moyers, Dr. E Calvin Beisner writes:
First, I didn't lie but wrote honestly from the best of my memory. Second, the conversations on which my memory were based occurred before and after the recorded interview, as I reported in the October 12 issue of the ISA newsletter (before ever hearing from Moyers about the October 9 issue) and were not taped.
Equal space will be given to any response that Mr. Moyers chooses to send me.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in News Media | Permalink | Comments (10)
October 30, 2006
Mr. Bill Moyers Responds
(Jimmy Akin)
As previously indicated, equal space would be given for any response that Bill Moyers chose to send me in response to the reply that Dr. E. Calvin Beisner made to the demands Mr. Moyers issued through his lawyer.
I recently received the following e-mail:
There have been posts on your site about the exchange between Bill
Moyers and Dr. Calvin Beisner. Attached is a PDF of the latest email
sent from Bill Moyers. As of the time I am emailing you, Dr. Beisner
has not responded to the attached email. We ask that you post it so
that your visitors can have a complete picture of their correspondence.
Thank you.Best,
Rick Byrne
Director of Communications
Public Affairs Television
I therefore excerpt a portion of Moyers' e-mail equal in length to what was excerpted from Beisner's newsletter. Following it will be a link to the original PDF:
-----Original Message-----
From: Moyers, Bill
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 3:21 PM
To: Calvin Beisner
Subject:Dear Calvin Beisner:
As this weekend passed and there was no response from you to my urgent request that you retract the lie that you have been spreading about me, my anger gave way to sorrow. There was only silence from you as your defamation raced across Cyberspace. By Sunday evening I had concluded that you were waiting for the damage to accumulate, knowing that with the Internet, a lie circles the earth instantly while truth stumbles to its feet.
And this saddened me. I had not wanted to believe that you are just as eager as your allies on the Right to practice the polemics of personal destruction. I knew that you were the designated spokesman on environmental matters for the religious wing of the political right, which is why they sent me to you. But I came to Florida in good faith, and I left believing that if you and I had such a cordial conversation, perhaps the sorely-needed dialogue among evangelical Christians in America might actually be possible. For so long the invective of the Falwells, Robertsons, and Dobsons has poisoned relations with other Christians. The transformation of Christianity into a political religion – a weapon of partisan combat – weighs heavily on the soul of democracy. I read Ann Coulter, listen to Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage – and I do not recognize the God they are talking about or the people they demonize, myself included. The great heart of Jesus seems missing from their worldview. The Golden Rule is tarnished and twisted. The Bible is turned into a partisan tract. And the Beatitudes are blasphemed. The profound themes of our historic faith – justice, mercy, love, compassion, redemption, and forgiveness – are swept away in the toxic dust of their vituperation. The propagation of the Gospel – the Good News – has been replaced by the polemics of personal destruction. As I listen and read all this, I think to myself: If this is what the world sees and hears of our faith today, no wonder Jesus weeps.
CONTINUE READING IN ORIGINAL PDF.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in News Media | Permalink | Comments (21)
October 23, 2006
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner Responds
(Jimmy Akin)
Text taken from the October 21, 2006 newsletter of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (not yet available online):
Bill Moyers
In the October 9 issue of this newsletter I reported my recollections of a conversation with Bill Moyers prior to a taping of an interview for his PBS special "Is God Green?" Mr. Moyers through his attorney challenged that report as being defamatory of Mr. Moyers. My response, through counsel, follows:
Your letter of October 18, 2006, to Interfaith Stewardship Alliance and your letter of October 19, 2006, to Dr. E. Calvin Beisner have been sent to me by my clients for reply.
I have carefully examined the language in the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance Newsletter dated October 9, 2006, that you contend in your October 18 letter is defamatory of your client, Bill Moyers. My examination of that language in the light of applicable United States Supreme Court opinions and those from other jurisdictions as well as major treatises on defamation forces me to the opinion that the language is not legally capable of a defamatory meaning. I would be pleased to review any authority you have that you believe supports your position.
Dr. Beisner is troubled by the fracturing of the relationship with your client and desires to attempt to restore that relationship outside of the civil courts as Christians are admonished to do in First Corinthians chapter six. He was preparing to do this before he received your first letter, which necessitated his seeking legal counsel. He sincerely believes that he accurately summarized in the newsletter his recollection of a private conversation with your client that was not recorded prior to the interview on camera. He also believes his recollection may have been influenced by a conversation he and your client had on the way to the airport following the interview. Finally, he stands by the opinions expressed that you challenge in your letter.
Accordingly, your demands in your letters are rejected. Should you be able to call to my attention applicable authority in support of your position which is persuasive, then your demands will be reconsidered.
While I understood from the conversation that he was a Democrat, I accept his representation that he is an independent.
In Christ,
Calvin
NOTE: Equal space will be offered for any response that Bill Moyers or his attorney care to provide to me.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in News Media | Permalink | Comments (4)
October 19, 2006
Moyers Exchange
(Jimmy Akin)
October 18, 2006
PDF SENT VIA EMAIL (JIMMYAKIN01@GMAILCOM)
Mr. Jimmy Akin
Re: Bill Moyers
Dear Mr. Akin:
This firm represents Bill Moyers. The following statement from the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance Newsletter dated October 9, 2006, by Dr. E. Calvin Beisner has been brought to our attention:
First, not earthshaking regarding climate science but of some interest to yours truly, Bill Moyers's documentary "Is God Green?" (Click here: WGBH Programs) airs on PBS Wednesday evening, October 11 (check local listings). When Moyers interviewed me for the documentary last spring, he very candidly told me that he is a liberal Democrat and intended for the documentary to influence the November elections to bring control of Congress back to the Democrats. Don't expect good science, economics, or ethics--or even journalistic balance. (Emphasis added.)
Dr. Beisner's accusation is false and defamatory as it goes to the heart of Mr. Moyers's integrity as a journalist. I am enclosing a copy of an e-mail from Mr. Moyers to Dr. Beisner dated October 17, 2006 in which he vigorously denies that any such statement was made and challenges Dr. Beisner to produce proof from his own tape recording to support his allegation. No such proof was produced.
We have demanded on behalf of Mr. Moyers a retraction from the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance stating clearly and without qualification that Dr. Beisner's statement was erroneous, that Mr. Moyers never made any such statement to Dr. Beisner or anything colorably close to it, and apologizing to Mr. Moyers for the error.
You have re-published at http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/pay_no_attentio.html,
and perhaps elsewhere as well, Dr. Beisner's statement as if it were true, and without seeking
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKLIN, WEINRIB, RUDELL & VASSALLO, P.C.
Jimmy Akin
October 18, 2006 Page 2
corroboration from Mr. Moyers or proof from Dr. Beisner. In doing so, you have also defamed Mr. Moyers.
On behalf of Mr. Moyers, we demand that you immediately publish in full Mr. Moyers's response to Dr. Beisner, as well as the retraction and apology of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, if any, all with at least equal prominence to that given the false statement of Dr. Beisner.
Nothing in this letter should be construed as a limitation of the rights and remedies of our client, all of which are expressly reserved.
Neil J. Rosini
NJR/aws
Enclosure
cc: Bill Moyers
281309/1/0471/0000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moyers, Bill
From: Moyers, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:47 PM
To: [Dr. E. Calvin Beisner]
Subject: What has come over you?
You are not telling the truth. In fact, what you wrote in the ISA newsletter is an outright lie. You claim that "When Moyers interviewed me for the documentary last spring, he very candidly told me that he is a liberal Democrat and intended for the documentary to influence the November elections to bring control of Congress back to the Democrats." I said nothing of the sort -- nothing. To the contrary, I told you that I am an independent - members of the crew remember my saying that to you specifically (there were, remember, three other people in the room.) You yourself taped the entire session with your own recorder; show me where in the transcript such a conversation occurred. I also told you, as I told everyone interviewed, that we of course could not usethe entire interview but that I would post it on our Website when the broadcast aired, as was done. If I had said anything approaching what you claim I said, if you perceived any bias on my part. you could have -- and should have refused to participate. But you did participate freely, you were treated fairly and honestly, and for you now to bear false witness is not only unChristian but astonishing. What am I to make of the many friendly emails you have sent over these months, signed: "In Christ, Cal"? Or our exchange on how much I have enjoyed your daughter's CD that you sent? Your conservative evangelical brothers who were also interviewed in the documentary – from Richard Cizik to Tri Robinson to Allan Johnson (not a liberal among them) have written in praise of how they were treated. You and you alone have chosen to bear false witness to our conversation and to defame – in your own words –the ethics and journalistic balance of the documentary. You owe me arid my team an apology and a public retraction.
Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 19, 2006
Neil J. Rosini, Esquire
Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell & Vassallo, P. C.
488 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022-5707
Re: Jimmy Akin
Dear Mr. Rosini:
This firm represents Jimmy Akin. I am in receipt of your correspondence to my client dated October 18, 2006, in which you claim—without citing any legal authority—that Mr. Akin defamed your client, Bill Moyers, by republishing certain statements from a newsletter penned by Dr. E. Calvin Beisner on behalf of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance dated October 9, 2006.
Mr. Akin categorically rejects your characterization of the blog post in question ("Pay no attention to that man behind the camera: Part Two," October 13, 2006—the only place my client republished the statements in question), and—having reviewed the relevant case law—I find it highly unlikely that you can sustain a case against my client for defamation.
That having been noted, Mr. Akin is certainly willing to "immediately publish in full Mr. Moyers's response to Dr. Beisner, as well as the retraction and apology of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance if any, all with at least equal prominence to that given the . . . statements of Dr. Beisner"; not because your client demands it, but because he believes it is only fair to allow Mr. Moyers to have his say on the matter. I will email you the text and links to such posts once they are published. A post containing Mr. Moyers's response to Dr. Beisner will be published on my client's blog today, and (as a showing of good faith) will be featured as the top post for a 24-hour time period.
It is my sincere hope that the foregoing actions will resolve this matter between our clients. If you choose, however, to proceed with a civil action against our client, notwithstanding his willingness to comply with Mr. Moyers's demands, please understand that this firm will vigorously defend Mr. Akin's rights and good name.
SLAD/cbt
Posted by Jimmy Akin in News Media | Permalink | Comments (213)
