Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • The Bible and Theistic Evolution

    Previously I’ve discussed young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and ruin and restoration creationism.  That brings us to theistic evolution, or I could say theistic evolutionary creationism.

    Though theistic evolutionists may have varying beliefs regard to the nature of God, in general, they see God as the source of all existence in one way or another.  Evolution is simply a process which diversifies life in the universe, as much a product of God’s activity as any other natural process such as gravity or a chemical reaction.  In Christianity, theistic evolutionists can be found in most of the major theological streams.  There are people who believe in Biblical inerrancy and nonetheless are theistic evolutionists.

    Also, there is generally no difference between the scientific understanding of theistic and non-theistic evolutionists.  They will generally see very different philosophical frameworks for the events that they study, but the events themselves, and the properly scientific framework for them are the same.  In terms of science, all three of the other views I have discussed involved some debate over what may be regarded as natural processes, and some expectation of an identifiable intervention by God in the natural world.  While a theistic evolutionist can believe that God can intervene (I do, for example), in general he or she will not regard such intervention as a proper subject for scientific study, because it will not be repeatable.

    To the Biblical literalist, there is nothing about theistic evolution that would commend itself.  It is not compatible with a literal reading of the first 11 chapters of Genesis.  This is one area of debate that can become unnecessarily heated.  When a literalist tells a non-literalist that he is “abandoning the Bible” in accepting evolution, what he really means is that the evolutionist is abandoning a literal reading of the Bible.  For many Biblical literalists, the literal reading is the only possible one, and thus the two are equivalent, but it is important to note that for many, many Biblical scholars, there is no such bias.

    Old earth creationists read Genesis less literally than do young earth creationists.  In particular, they interpret the days of Genesis 1 as symbolic of substantially longer time periods, and take the descriptions of the individual days as much more general looks at what happened over that period of time.  While this approach does not take the passages literally, it does take them as historical in some sense.  The old earth creationist does not take the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11 as complete literal history, but they do take the individuals as historical people, and simply assume that there are significant gaps in the lists.

    For the theistic evolutionist, Genesis 1-11 is not to be taken literally at all.  There may be historical events behind some of the stories, but the purpose of those chapters is not to convey literal history.  What they do is present God’s activity and his relationship to the universe in terms that would have been comprehensible to the people who first heard and then read them.  It may be possible that people described in the genealogies were historical people, but that is not the primary question.  The line of connections drawn between the first human being and Abraham, and then from Abraham to the chosen people is the key factor, irrespective of historical details.

    This understanding is anathema to Biblical literalists, and makes many Biblical moderates uncomfortable, but it is really an application of a very sound Biblical principle:  Take what is intended literally as literal and what is intended figuratively as figurative.  In this case, one needs to look at the principles, i.e. the message that was encapsulated in these stories that goes beyond the common background material.  If one studies the cosmology of the ancient near east and the literature written about it, one will find that it is very compatible with the language of the Bible.  The stories and the events are substantially different, because the Bible is teaching monotheism, and the one God it teaches is very different from the pagan gods.  But the Bible does not try to change the basic idea of the earth that is round like a dinner plate, floating on the sea beneath with the vault of heaven stretched above it.  (See my articles Genesis Creation Stories – Form, Structure, and Relationship, The Two Genesis Flood Stories, and Psalm 104:  God, Creator and Sustainer.

    Understanding the part of the message that is timeless is really quite simple.  Remove the common elements, and what is newly introduced is the important part, or more precisely they constitute the message that God intends to convey.  This is why one can truly believe in Biblical inerrancy (I don’t, read my statement), and yet accept this figurative view, because according to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, what must be understood to be inerrant is the message that the Bible intends to convey, and also allows that the message can be presented through the cultural background of those who write.

    A Christian theistic evolutionist (and theistic evolutionists are by no means all Christians) does not seek scientific knowledge in the Bible.  He will seek God’s message and an understanding of how God works with people and interacts with the created universe in a spiritual sense.

    This rather extreme difference in the way the camps understand the scriptures is one of the elements that makes creation-evolution debates so very heated.  To a convinced young earth creationist, even an old earth creationist has stepped outside of the scriptural foundations of the faith.  It is not just a matter of disagreement on a minor point of doctrine.  It is a fundamental difference in the foundation of the faith.

    But if the various members of the camps would recognize just where the disagreement lies, that it is in how they understand scripture, it might be easier at least to debate the same thing.  For those who regard the Bible as authoritative, the difference between the camps can be as simple as the answer to the two questions:  1)  Must I always take the Bible literally, and 2) How can I tell?

     

  • Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter

    As many of you know, besides my work in writing and publishing, I’m president of Pacesetters Bible School, Inc., an organization dedicated to religious education, and particularly in bringing sound Biblical scholarship to local churches. Pacesetters is a totally volunteer organization (I’m not compensated as president), and is a non-profit. I’ve been pretty lax about getting Pacesetters news out, and hopefully this newsletter in blog form will help correct that. Most entries will probably be made by other people involved in Pacesetters Bible School activities.

    You’ll find a link to Pacesetters Bible School under the Religious Education heading on by sidebar. I think it is very important for Christians to get serious about providing a sound basis in their faith to all church members, especially young people. This should not be indoctrination. Members should be aware of what other people believe, and have adequate knowledge to make an informed choice for themselves.

    Keep an eye on Pacesetters! The newsletter url is: http:///news.

  • In a very interesting article, Newsweek discusses the European reaction to Muslim violence over the cartoon issue (see Cartoons: The End of Europe’s Tolerance? – Newsweek: International Editions – MSNBC.com).

    This story brought to mind a question I am frequently asked: If you believe in tolerance, why don’t you tolerate the intolerant? Shouldn’t you have to tolerate everyone?

    And my answer is a resounding “No!” This is the kind of black and white thinking that tends to get us into trouble. Tolerance is a value, and it has a certain priority. It is not an absolute that can never be questioned. I do not, for example, tolerate the person who is trying to rob me. I choose a strategy to defeat him, if one can be found. That’s an easy situation. It’s much more difficult to find a balance in the case of someone like Fred Phelps and his followers. In that case, while I believe in freedom of speech, and would not advocate his arrest unless he breaks some appropriate law, I certainly have no problem expressing my absolute revulsion at his ideas and his actions.

    In the case of Islam, I make distinctions. Why? Because I believe the distinctions are valid. Those Muslims (and I choose not to try to decide if they are real Muslims or not) who want to kill me or even who will allow any form of force to make me conform to their views I readily condemn. Again, note that value I place on freedom of speech is very high. I do not want them silenced by force, but I will in no way pretend that what they say is alright. And as soon as they move to apply force, I am ready to act.

    It’s easy for us to pretend here in America that we’re dealing with a small band of criminals, and if we can just eliminate those few, everything will turn out fine. But that is not the case. There is an ideological breeding ground right now in most of the Muslim world that is producing people who do want to destroy us, who do want to force their culture on us. It is a minority, but it also has a larger group of sympathizers. We cannot be tolerant of any actions they take in furthering those goals.

    At the same time, both for moral reasons (I believe) and for practical ones we do need to distinguish that minority group from the majority. Strategically it may look something like divide and conquer, but as advocates of tolerance and diversity, we can leave out the conquer part. What we want to do is recognize how they are divided and use that to defend ourselves. When we respond with anger at all Arabs because of the actions of some Arabs, we simply increase the number and determination of our enemies. When we treat all Muslims according to we think some Muslims deserve, we spread our resources around, create enemies, and eliminate friends.

    Looking again at Europe, the points made in the Newsweek article about religious tolerance are extremely important. Perhaps it’s time for Europe to look at a form of separation of church and state. Established Christian churches might actually find themselves growing and becoming more relevant if they weaned themselves of the protection of the state, and allowed the state to be neutral on religious issues. It’s going to be hard for Europeans to assert their culture, which does include a strong element of tolerance, while at the same time behaving inconsistently with regard to religion. In terms of religious tolerance, getting the state out of the business of religion can be extremely important.

    (As an aside, I’m frequently reminded that the words “separation of church and state” don’t occur in the U. S. constitution, generally by someone who is opposed to the concept. I would point out first that “separation of church and state” is simply a title for a constitutional doctrine, and was never intended as a quote from the constitution. It’s what courts have determined was accomplished by the establishment clause. But even further, I don’t believe in separation of church and state because it’s in the constitution. I believe in it because it’s a good idea. I believe that churches will destroy spirituality and produce lifeless congregations, much like many of the state churches of Europe, if they continue to depend more and more on state assistance.)

    When this cartoon issue first broke out, my immediate reaction was in two parts: 1) I thought the cartoons were offensive and needlessly so, and 2) I thought that the Danish newspaper that published them had every right to do so. Those elements of the Muslim world that responded with violence set back tolerance for Muslims and Muslim values; they certainly did not help. I continue to feel that way. I also see the divide deepening.

    Let’s be careful to place the right priority on our tolerance here in the west.

  • Ruin and Restoration Creationism

    In two previous entries I’ve discussed young earth creationism and old earth creationism. Continuing with this series on how various groups of Christians understand origins, I will now discuss the ruin and restoration theory.

    I have previously mentioned this theory in the pmaphlet God the Creator and in my review of the book The Invisible War by Donald Grey Barnhouse. I discuss some of the translation issues involved in my translation and notes on the creation story.

    The ruin and restoration theory holds that the current creation is one of a series. Most advocates would hold that there was one creation, then a destruction, and then recreation, though some allow there may be a number that we don’t know about. The key basis for this doctrine is a translation of one word in Genesis 1:2, the Hebrew word which practically all translations render “was.” The Hebrew word here is “hayah” which is the perfect (suffix) form of the Hebrew verb “hayah” which means “happen,” “become,” or “was” in most cases. Advocates of the ruin and restoration theory argue that it should be translated “became” here rather than “was” and they point to the huge number of cases in which this verb is translated in that way throughout the Bible. The difficulty with this argument is that it ignores the syntax of the passage. The vast majority of the uses of this verb are also used with a different syntax. If one limits one’s study to those uses in which the syntax is similar to what it is in this verse, the statistics look much different.

    Advocates of this view also bring Isaiah 45:18 and Jeremiah 4:23-26 as descriptions of the destroyed world. Such interpretations ignore the use of figurative language. Advocates of this view take these particular verses very literally. Both are part of an existing prophetic oracle with a very specific application at a time that is now past, but easily identifiable. An interpreter would need to establish a strong contextual basis for applying these verses to a different time than is clearly the referrent of the passage of which they are part.

    What are the advantages of this view? Basically one can hold that the earth is old, which eliminates some of the clearest difficulties of the young earth view. Like old earth creation and theistic evolution, this view also allows for death prior to the creation story. In fact, it allows pretty complete destruction of life on the planet prior to the current creation. At the same time, advocates can take Genesis 1-3 absolutely literally, as long as the one translation change in Genesis 1:2 is allowed.

    The disadvantages include the need to explain the recent date of the flood as determined from the genealogies of Genesis 1 & 11. One either has to assume gaps in these genealogies as do old earth creationists, in which case one may be accused of not constructing the text strictly enough, or one must deal with all of the archeological problems that a late date (24th century BCE) for the flood produces. In addition, the interpretation required for the texts in Isaiah 45:18 and Jeremiah 4:23-26 are very difficult to sustain.

    This position is largely held by those who accept dispensationalism as a system of interpretation. It is a minority position, but is nonetheless held by a substantial number of Christians, and should be given considerations.

  • My Wife and the Spirit of Women

    On February 21 I was priveleged to attend the Spirit of Women awards sponsored by the Sacred Heart Health System. My wife, Jody Neufeld, was one of the nominees, 113 women who were nominated for their service to the community. Only three of those could be recognized with awards, but I was impressed that the bulk of the program was designed to honor all 113. It is kind of nice to see my wife’s picture more than life size on the screen as she is introduced to the audience and honored for her service.

    I think an event such as this is very important for two reasons. First, we very often don’t pay attention to the ordinary contributors to the public good, the volunteers who make community programs function. We pay much more attention to the folks who can contribute thousands and tens of thousands of dollars. But without the many individuals who do the little bits of work, fitting in their contribution between jobs and caring for families, all the big contributions would do very little. Second, we often don’t recognize the contribution of women nearly enough. I talk about this regularly in churches. By limiting the roles that women can play we deny the body of Christ the benefit of their gifts.

    That’s why I appreciated this recognition ceremony so much. The keynote speaker, Dr. Alexa Canady, commented that her remarks were not for the nominees, but actually for the rest of the audience, whom she challenged to get busy. She’s right, but only partially so. The challenge to get involved needs to get out of that room. Most of the folks there were there to honor a loved one or to show their support for the various community projects. The challenge to ordinary people to get involved in ordinary ways needs to be heard far and wide. If everyone put in just a few more minutes a week, we could change the world.

    I’m glad that my wife provides that example to her community.

  • Rev. Creech Rebukes Clergy Letter Signers

    Agape press (associated with the American Family Association) has now attacked the , which produce the Clergy Letter signed by more than 10,000 clergy. Starting with their news story Pro-Evolution Clergy Sign Letter Affirming Faith in Darwin’s Theory, in which the headline is inaccurate, and continuing with an opinion piece by Rev. Mark Leech entitled Rebuking the ‘Clergy Letter Project’, in which the author manages to severely misrepresent the issues involved.

    Now this attack is not at all surprising. It’s what one would expect the AFA to do. Further, I don’t have a problem with AFA advocating their own position. But these articles are much more an attack on other peoples’ positions, specifically of those Christians who do accept the theory of evolution, and it’s not a very good one.

    Let’s look briefly at the two quotes used in the article. First, Theodosius Dobzhansky is quoted talking about the inappropriate standards of evidence which creationists request in their challenges to evolution. The quote is characterized as an admission. But it is important to note that Dobzhansky is not “admitting” anything. He is simply stating the facts of the case. In a theory that involves historical data, the standards of evidence are different, and appropriately so. I have heard creationist speaker’s ask for all steps of evolution between two very distant species, i.e. a fossil for every single physical stage, which would mean many thousands of very specific fossils. This request is ridiculous, and I think those who make the request know that it is. No theory of creation could meet the request either, and no theory with an historical element could manage it.

    Dobzhansky is merely stating a fact that should be obvious to anyone with any understanding of the field at all. (As an aside, a theory is never proven; it is always subject to review and could be invalidated by any new discovery. For example, the recent find of a water mammal from the jurassic requires adjustment of portions of the history of life on our planet, but no basic restructuring of the theory of evolution as such. Creationists tend to use such finds as evidence against the theory of evolution, but they are, in fact, some of the best evidence that the scientific method is working in studying the historical aspects of the theory.

    Despite this debate over the evidence required for historical reconstruction, there are many aspects of the theory of evolution that are subject to laboratory testing. A theory by nature integrates a variety of data, and not all are necessarily subject to the same type of testing. In general, a theory would not be “proven” by any single experiment. The experimental data would be collected, and individually would either be in accord with the theory’s predictions or not. If they are not in accord with the theory’s predictions, then the theory needs to be updated.

    When creationists use this type of argument they merely use the scientific illiteracy of a substantial portion of the public to manipulate them by pretending that routine facts are surprising revelations. This is an excellent reason for improved scientific education in this country. It is also one reason why many creationists attack the public school by attempting to water down teaching of evolutionary theory. If the public understood the nature of a scientific theory and the standards of evidence involved, this type of attack would not work.

    (To look at the other quote, from L. Harrison Matthews, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html.)

    But what I find even more objectionable in this article is the attack on the faith and commitment of those Christians who accept evolution. Creech says, “Moreover, to doubt a literal interpretation of the creation account is to undermine everything taught in the Bible.” That is an incredibly stupid statement. There is no doubt introduced by believing a portion of the Bible is one type of literature or another. The question is what type of literature it actually is. In fact, someone who demands that one take a figurative passage literally is simply setting up Bible students to lose their faith when they discover that the literal interpretation makes the passage false. (See my comments in my previous entry, The Bible and Young Earth.)

    Further Creech then blames a lack of commitment to God on this failure to read Genesis 1 literally. This is a false accusation, and Creech should be deeply ashamed of this sort of tactic. He can’t argue from the literary nature of the text itself, so he resorts to this sort of ad hominem.

    Just for the record, I accept the theory of evolution. At the same time I believe that God is constantly and actively present in the universe. Not only my next breath, but every movement of every subatomic particle occurs because God sustains the universe. If God chooses to use evolution to diversify life here–and the evidence is that he has–that’s up to him. If he chooses to represent creation in the Bible with something other than a literal historical narrative, he can do that as well.

    And this doesn’t prevent me from being an active Christian. My faith comes first. That’s why I’m a Bible teacher. That’s why I lead seminars on prayer and encourage people to dedicate more time to their faith and to daily time with God. My understanding of the facts of evolution doesn’t prevent any of this. In fact, my study of nature increases my faith in God and my awe of his creative power.

  • Translations: Getting Back to Results

    Wayne Leman, on the Better Bibles blog, has posted a note about Ben Witherington’s apology for his remarks about the ESV (Ben Witherington apologizes for ESV comments). I’ve been pretty busy the latter half of this week, so I missed part of the action and had to review it through several blogs. I admire someone who is willing to apologize openly and honestly for an error in what he has written.

    Wayne goes on to make an important point when he says, “He has, in my opinion, now placed the focus where it should be for any Bible version, on its own merits, not on what one perceives to be the motives of its translators.” Ben Witherington has also moved forward to precisely this type of information with his post A Sample of More Literal Translations. These are some good examples of the types of decisions that translators must make irrespective of their approach to the final product. I’ve discussed details of the translation methods in my book What’s in a Version?, and in various notes on my Bible Version Selection Tool.

    But as a Bible teacher working primarily with lay members, I must also get involved with the question of how the individual Bible student gets an accurate idea of what the Bible means. In other words, by “results” I need to look at the final product. Once I’ve talked about Bible translations, study tools, and how to make use of them, how do laypeople test their work and study with confidence? The question I’m asked most often is just how one can be sure. Those who want to use more literal translations do so for the very good reason that they think they will get an more accurate understanding. For reasons I’ve explained elsewhere, I don’t think that is true. “More literal” is not the equivalent of “more accurate.” Both extremes on that spectrum of methodology, and everything in between, involve choices and compromises.

    The type of questions that Ben Witherington is asking in this post are a starting point in looking at the result. Too often scholars remain in a totally scholarly environment, commonly known as the ivory tower, and determine whether the meaning has been expressed in discussions between scholars. Expressing a meaning is kind of empty unless someone hears and understands the expression. In translations, that involves field testing.

    But for the average person the question again is this: How can I be certain of an interpretation? How can I be certain the meaning I get from my English text is right?

    Well, to be most certain, you need to learn the Biblical languages. Notice that I says most and not absolutely. Even when you know the Biblical languages, there remains differences in the level of skill between various readers, points on which honest disagreement is possible, and simple human error. In my own study, though I generally produce a translation of any passage of scripture I’m going to use in preaching or teaching, I also compare my own work with a selection of English translations. Why? Because I am as subject to error (and sometimes more so!) as the next guy.

    But there is still one more step. Even when I am as certain as I can be about the meaning of a particular verse, to be sure I’m understanding the full meaning and the application, I need to do two things:

    • Study the verse in context
      By this I mean to study entire passages. Sometimes “in context” becomes the equivalent of reading the verse before and the verse afterward. But if you want to understand Paul’s argument in a verse in 1 Corinthians 14, you will need to read the entire chapter at a minimum, and that will almost certainly lead you to reading chapter 12, and then surely Paul had a reason for putting chapter 13 between the two. To be confident that you understand a single admonition in chapter 14, you really need to put some work into studying all three chapters. Going beyond that, an overview of the entire first letter to the Corinthians will help you understand what Paul means about being spiritual.
    • Study the verse as it stands in relation to the canon of scripture.
      This means to look at the teaching in the light of other scriptures on the same topic. Try to do this after you have taken a serious look at the scripture you’re studying. Often people lose nuances of various portions of scripture by simply overriding them with another scripture. At the same time, a good principle, long used and tested, is to let what is plain and widespread help explain what is simple.

    These two principles can correct your understanding of an individual passage. It is especially important to do this type of study if your impression from a particular scripture seems odd or out of place. That’s the time to check especially carefully for misunderstandings.

    My final check, which I normally teach first in classes on Bible study, is the hanging principle. When Jesus said that all the law and the prophets hung on the two commands of love for God and love for one’s neighbor, I think he also gave us a check on how we read. Try to hang your interpretation from the two laws. If it doesn’t fit, reconsider it.

  • ESV Controversy and Women

    Ben Witherington seems to have started quite a stir yesterday with his post about the ESV entitled The Problem with the ESV. I like Ben Witherington’s work quite a lot, and respect him, but most of this post has to do with who translated the ESV and why, rather than with the quality of the translation itself. But more on this below.

    Wayne Leman responded in the Better Bibles blog with an entry that I think is very much on point, though I would like to nuance some of the comments just a bit more. His entry is entitled ESV translators are not misogynists.

    The ESV Blog has also responded with a post entitled The Origin of the ESV, which includes a number of examples. I do think that the presentation of examples showing the differences and similarities between the ESV and the RSV is the correct way to pursue this topic. Perhaps I’ll have to spend some time on that in a later post.

    I am in 100% agreement with Wayne that the correct way to examine and test a Bible version is by looking at the end product and not by determining the quality and morals of the translators. It is possible for someone with lesser credentials to surprise us by producing a good translation, while someone with apparently great credentials may lack the necessary skills to produce a usable translation.

    But in producing a Bible translation I think we have to ask ourselves whether we are effectively communicating the gospel message in a new environment. This is where I think we have to be very careful with the nuances of what we say. I’m no fan of the ESV, because I think it’s language is a bit awkward and wooden, and also because I prefer gender inclusive language in a translation. Why?

    Because I question both the motivations and the results of a translation policy that won’t express the message in the way that message would be expressed in the target culture. Let’s look at just one example, “brothers” or “brothers and sisters.” In this case there is a substantial portion of our modern culture that does not recognize “brothers” as addressing a mixed group of men and women. These people, when they here someone say “brothers” assume he (and generally it would be a he) is addressing just the men of the group. When we try to get beyond this level of meaning, I think we read much into the language of the New Testament that is not intended. In Greek, when addressing a mixed audience, one said “adelfoi.” That’s why Paul and James and others used that word. Not because they wanted to make some subtle point about masculinity.

    Some of you will think I’m making a big deal about something minor, but in going to churches and teaching my wife and I have repeatedly encountered women who don’t think they’re included in the work of ministry, even in areas where scripture clearly teaches that they are. The atmosphere that’s created by the attitude of “Oh, they’ll understand we mean them too” helps foster this. The result is that many gifted people–gifted women–are not used in the church because they don’t feel worthy, or they don’t feel that they can step out and lead.

    I’m not accusing the ESV translators of being misogynists. I do believe, however, that they have followed a translation philosophy that helps to foster exclusion rather than inclusion. I believe the gospel message is very inclusive, and even more I believe that the gospel commission is inclusive.

    Before I’m done, I definitely do not believe that Wayne Leman is trying to foster the attitude that I’m challenging here. What he is trying to do is get us to focus on translations not on translators. In doing that he is absolutely correct, and makes an important point.

    (Please see also my comments at Gender Neutrality and Bible Translation.)

  • More on Communicating Science

    Carl Zimmer has more on The Loom about communication and evolution, with an interview with Randy Olson, director of the movie A Flock of Dodos. I believe he has some good suggestions about communication, but I also believe we are still missing the largest issue. I don’t think that a nation that is addicted to information that is presented quickly, and requires little effort to comprehend is going to be able to understand the issues involved in science. That would be OK if people without any understanding of the issues were not trying to make decisions about it.

    PZ Meyers has already made some good notes over on Pharyngula.

    Those whose primary role is to communicate with the public should look at the suggestions here. But again, I don’t believe that those involved in scientific research and even in classroom teaching (beyond a few basic courses that are almost identical to the popular media) should have to be concerned about these types of things. They should take notice, however, of the fact that they are not well qualified to communicate with the general public. A number of scientists have gone out to debate with creationists who should have stayed in their labs.

    But that is not the primary problem with this debate. I believe that the primary problem is that we have an issue that can be expressed well by one-liners on one side, but requires serious study on the other. It is much easier to understand that “God did it and we don’t know how” than it is to deal with biological issues. Even at the gross amateur level (which is where I am), evolution is simply more complicated than creationism. Creationists will tend to win debates for this one reason alone.

    There is indeed a need for some good publicity work. There are major public misunderstandings that can be dealt with through some good publicity. Projects such as the Clergy Letter and Evolution Sunday help let people know that this is not an issue that divides between people of faith and the “infidels” (however defined), but rather that people of faith are involved in large numbers on the evolutionary side.

    I’m afraid that I sense a certain condescension from the media savvy communicators. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I’m glad that scientists are principally gifted at dealing with complex scientific information. And just to keep beating my regular drum–solid education is what we need.

  • What is Really News?

    As seems so often the case, the news on the shooting accident in which Vice-President Cheney accidentally shot a friend while hunting has become a story about the story. We’re now spending our time talking about how the news was collected, and whether reporters should pursue information vigorously. On The Daily Nightly – MSNBC.com blog, David Gregory, NBC News chief White House correspondent, does a bit of explaining, and even apologizes for an exchange with Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary. But even that is not really news.

    After all, most of us have occasionally heated moments in our relationships with people at work, at home, or wherever we go. People get annoyed, they lash out, they apologize, they go on. It’s not news.

    But at the same time, I question whether reporters, especially when reporting for TV are actually asking the hard questions, or more importantly getting the hard answers. In this case, the focus of media attention has been on how long it took to get information to the media. It’s not a suggestion of a cover-up, though I’ve seen a few posts on the internet suggesting as much. It appears to be much more a case of inefficiency and uncertainty on the part of the presidential and vice-presidential staffs. It’s of interest, but I believe it’s a secondary story.

    Further, I think it’s silly to suggest that the reason the press is upset about this is that they are left wing while the White House is right wing. It looks to me like some people must not have watched TV news during the Clinton administration. There were plenty of occasions when the press went after public officials vigorously. It certainly might have appeared to supporters of the Clinton administration that the press coverage was even unfair. (Nearly three years ago I wrote an essay entitled Media Bias, in which I claimed that the bias of the media was “stupid.” Not liberal, not conservative, just stupid. Unfortunately, I should probably have said simply that the media bias is simply in favor of popular–the stuff we’re most likely to watch.)

    What I see as the problem here is that the news is primarily being sought from the people who have the motivation to spin it. Now don’t get me wrong. David Gregory’s job needs to be done. Somebody has to ask the questions, otherwise the politicians wouldn’t have the opportunity to spin and lie. My question is why we have to repeatedly play this type of information. The reason spin works is that whatever the politicians say gets air time. Sometimes, you have to just say, “That’s not news.” Go on and find some real news to report.

    Just to be more specific, I think real news in this case asks whether the Vice-president was behaving responsibly, what are the reasons for missing game bird stamps (surely there are staffers to watch such issues), and yes, why does it take so long to report. But the last is really a fairly minor issue unless we find that there is, in fact, something to cover up.

    But I want to say a few more words about spin. My question is not why reporters were so tough, but why they aren’t tougher more of the time. Why is it possible for a campaign to set a spin and a set of issues they want to talk about, and then execute that plan successfully? Repeatedly correspondents ask candidates a question, get a response that is really unrelated, and then go on to simply ask another question. I would suggest not airing the answer to a question if it is no, in fact, an answer to the question that was asked. I think it’s in the hands of the media to make spin work much less efficiently.

    But it’s in our hands, as the consumers, to encourage the media to do so, by rewarding those who dig for the underlying information and hang on for the real answer. We do that by reading their papers or watching their shows.

    Mr. Gregory is probably right in regretting that one remark. But I hope he’ll get even more aggressive in other areas where serious questions need to be asked, and where the public needs actual answers.