Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Media

  • Commending an Honest Apology

    Laura on Pursuing Holiness has now apologized for an earlier comment on Rick Warren and Saddleback Church. I share her original concerns about misreporting of numbers. I do believe that pastors are often careless with the details, thinking they are not terribly important. But especially when you’re in Rick Warren’s position, you can’t afford that.

    I generally agreed with the sentiment of Laura’s original post, though I didn’t comment at the time. But I thoroughly approve of her response to a challenge and to new information. Now why can’t more of us provide an honest apology!

    She said:

    I may disagree with their accounting methods for the Saddleback church roll, but I was way out of line for suggesting that Rick Warren was being deceitful. I have absolutely no evidence that he was. The bottom line here is that I tossed a post out there, having done no research on either the topic at hand or Warren Smith, the article’s writer. I regurgitated Smith’s opinion with a total lack of skepticism because it fit with my world view. That “fake but accurate” nonsense is something for which I have repeatedly, and justifiably, criticized the mainstream media. I’m sorry that I did it. Aside from the fact that it was hypocritical of me to do the very thing I’ve criticized others for, I failed to give the benefit of the doubt when I should have given it. There’s no excuse for it, and in the future I will be a great deal more cautious in what I write. For whatever it’s worth, I apologize.

    Wow! Bravo! I can use that as an example when I teach on Psalm 51 and true confession, which is totally unlike what politicians tend to do. Way to go! If there was an award for demonstrating what she and I both meant by “philophronos blogging” it would go to her post.

  • Arrogant Reporters

    One of the interesting things about commentary on the war is that though Laura of Pursuing Holiness and I disagree almost completely on the war in Iraq, we can agree that the press has done a miserable job of reporting it. In addition, we can agree that the press tends to combine incompetence and arrogance in pretty much the most annoying measure possible.

    Today in her post The Breathtaking Arrogance of Reporters she provides some quotes, and also some statistics:

    While 85.3% of people describe “professional journalism

  • Excellent Health Article

    Those of you who read this blog regularly know that I pretty regularly lash out at the news media. It’s not that I think they’re biassed to one end or the other of the political spectrum. I just think they’re biassed stupid.

    Well, I just want to point out an article today in Newsweek that I think exemplifies how information should be presented, especially on the internet. There should be this type of research behind every news story, and even if you present a short, idiot friendly version on the front page, it would be nice to get a well written, extended article such as this column.

    I refer to Drugs Aren’t the Only Option, a column by Dean Ornish, M.D. This article is well-written, it doesn’t prescribe what I’m supposed to want in my life, it doesn’t run anybody down, but it does provide useful information on diet and lifestyle, particularly with reference to cholesterol.

    I happen to be interested in that subject, but the only reason I’m bringing my personal interest to the blog is simply to point out the excellent style and balance of this article. I wish we would see more articles of about that length printed in the online news media. We may be subject to excessive time and space constraints on television, but the internet provides opportunities for more solid, informational content.

  • Uninformed Opinions

    Duane Smith has an excellent post over on Abnormal Interests called Evidence, Who Needs Any Evidence. I think this relates closely to my earlier post, A Poll Too Far, in which I discussed people providing opinions on topics concerning which they simply cannot be well-informed.

    The further question is why does the media buy into this, by asking people’s opinion? I would suggest that the media prints this information for the same reason they print everything else–it gets their viewers to watch or read, in this case by making them feel more important than they are. But the feeling of importance is a false one.

    One further note: Ever since I found out about Abnormal Interests, I’ve been watching Duane’s posts, and I have found that almost all of them interest me, whether I have time to comment or not, so if you think your interests coincide with mine at all, go check it out.

  • A Poll Too Far

    OK, just yesterday I wrote about the mob mentality and how technology is just technology–it’s how we use it that matters. Then today I find This article on MSNBC.com about changing the definition of a planet. The article itself is interesting, though hardly earthshattering (planetshattering?). But right next to the headline we have a live vote.

    What do you think? Yep! What do the masses, lacking any basis for making a judgment, think?

    I’m not going to start decrying the technology involved, but sensible journalists ought to start thinking about the value of polls such as this. It’s clearly a marketing idea to make people feel like their participants, but it generates no real information, and it makes people think their opinions on subjects about which they are uninformed, are more important than they really are. Actions such as this do have consequences, and responsible journalists ought to make that clear.

    Let the astronomers decide how many planets there are and what will be a workable definition. They will in any case, and the rest of us shouldn’t have a vote–including me.

    Live vote on what should be called a planet.

  • Technology is Just Technology

    Over and over I’ve heard the refrain, “The invention of the _________ is causing the deterioration of society because it _______.” The technology may be rapid transport, from the steam driven train to the airplane, or communications from radio to television to the internet, or any other form of technology.

    The internet is a favorite target these days. Child pornography, predators, bad ideas, unreliable information, crackpot theories, even though policing are blamed somehow on the internet. Now Jason Lanier, in an essay on Edge.org, calls the polling and other “mob” aspects of the internet “Digital Maoism” and refers to the result as the “hive mind.” Some of us who think Wikipedia is somewhat less than reliable are nonetheless hardly likely to equate it with the mobs of the cultural revolution in China. I discovered his essay via MSNBC.com, in an article by Steven Levy titled Poking a Stick Into the ‘Hive Mind’.

    Now my problem is not precisely with the problems that Lanier points out, nor even with some of the counterpoints quoted by Mr. Levy. In his final paragraph he makes an excellent point:

    [Author Kevin] Kelly’s point is well taken

  • Christian Violence?

    A Christian game company is producing a game based on the Left Behind series. Their own advertising quotes the New York Times saying that the game “Combines Tom Clancy-like suspense with touches of romance, high-tech flash and Biblical references.”

    The game puts players in the position of either killing or converting their opponents and includes spiritual warfare, scriptures texts and more, according to a story in the LA Times Converting Video Games Into Instruments of God.

    I’m not going to go into this in depth, but I want to ask my Christian friends this: Can a game be made Christian just because we quote some scripture and include prayer? Is there going to be a time when God will sanction this type of behavior?

    From what I can see from the advertising, I don’t think this is an improvement over the average type of violent video game. I’m particularly concerned about the “convert or die” part.

    For full disclosure I should note that I do not accept the “Left Behind” interpretation of Revelation.

    (Thanks to Dispatches from the Culture Wars for alerting me to this.)

  • My Reaction to the Da Vinci Code

    There are some things you just can’t get away from no matter how hard you try. The Da Vinci Code, book, movie, or simply passing comment, is one of these. I have a friend who is much more interested in these things than I am, and I’ve even promoted his willingness to talk about it, and his published materials (the Consider Christianity Series, by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.). Today I got an e-mail from Christianity Today, wondering if I was making the most of it. (No, I’m not personal friends with someone over at CT–it’s an e-mail notification I’ve subscribed to.) Now Christian groups in Asia are protesting the movie, and in at least one country, Thailand, have gotten it cut.

    So here comes my short response to the DaVinci Code, book, movie, or casual comment. You may wonder how I’m responding this morning, when the movie is released today. Again, I have no special friends. I haven’t gotten a preview of the movie. In fact, let me confess–no, let me proclaim–I haven’t even read the book!

    I’m not in any sense trying to say anything bad about those who have read the book or seen the movie, or want to do so. My bottom line on this book is that it is entertainment, it’s fiction (wow! whoda thunk it?), it’s supposed to be fun. If you think it’s going to be fun, go see it. If not, stay home, like me. If you think you can share your faith through discussion of the movie, go ahead and do so. That’s not my style, but I think it’s good that people do so.

    So if I think it’s fine to read the book, watch the move, to discuss it both literarily and historically (to the extent one can), what’s my problem. Let’s see. Oh yes . . . it bores me. That’s all. I’m just not interested. I’ve read dozens of books on the historical Jesus, ranging from volumes by authors who claim Jesus never existed, to fundamentalist defenses of the finest details of the story. I’m interested in that type of thing, but over time I’ve gotten to the point where I need something that challenges me intellectually. Books as wide ranging as John Dominic Crossan’s The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant and Darrell Bocks Jesus According to Scripture have great interest for me, as they both challenge my way of thinking and my understanding. But it just happens that right now I don’t want yet another theory about Jesus presented as fiction.

    I don’t know how good of fiction it will be, but the indications I’m hearing aren’t all that good. I’m absolutely not saying, “This is a bad movie, which is why I haven’t seen it.” I’m just telling you it’s OK not to find the whole thing all that interesting and to just continue to live your life. If The Da Vinci Code is your kind of movie, enjoy it guilt free. Use it in witness. Discuss it historically or literarily to your heart’s content. If, like me, you don’t plan to bother, don’t feel guilty. There really are people who just aren’t that excited about it.

  • Does Integrity make you a Wuss?

    DaveScot over on Uncommon Descent thinks that having integrity and good judgment makes one a wuss. Of course, unless he also has the guts and integrity already displayed by the folks over on Telic Thoughts, he’ll have to come up with something to say, and I suppose this is as good, or as bad as anything. Let’s just say that one lie leads to another, and DaveScot is busily digging himself in deeper and deeper.

    And note that the folks over at Telic Thoughts are not endorsing Dr. Pianka’s ecological ideas. Like many other people they are simply noting that he did not call for release of a nasty virus or desire the killing of 90% of the world’s population. His other ideas remain to be discussed. In fact, most posters on this topic have distanced themselves from some of Dr. Pianka’s ideas, while still challenging the false accusations.

    DaveScot’s reaction to the decision by the folks at Telic Thoughts? “Gag me with a spoon.”

    Keep it up DaveScot. Your credibility can’t get any lower, but perhaps this additional confirmation will keep someone, somewhere, from forgetting about your behavior.

  • Kudos to Telic Thoughts

    Telic Thoughts has issued a very forthright statement and retraction regarding certain comments they made about Dr. Eric Pianka. Since I had linked to them as one of my sources in my entry Christians and Defamation, I think it is important that I take note of this retraction and the very good intentions (and may I call it good advice?) that they offer: “The next time the media circulates an accusation that has the potential to do serious real-world harm to a person’s reputation, we promise to treat such accounts with extreme skepticism and caution” (A Promise). Good work!

    Incidentally, I agree that Dr. Pianka’s actual comments are extreme, and themselves require serious scrutiny, something I’ll leave to those more qualified than I in the field. I would be pleased to see these ideas examined and discussed dispassionately. Perhaps that can happen once the furor over the original false accusations has died down.