Replies

And from Carl Olson at Insight Scoop ....

A little bit more on that...thing...in Newsweek

Really, what do you call it—that thing featured on the cover of the December 15, 2008, issue of Newsweek? It's not journalism. It's not news. It's not coherent, logical, well-argued, or well-written.

Honestly, it reads like an essay tossed off by a partially-drunk, angry, sexually-confused sixteen-year-old who thinks Oprah is an intellectual giant and traditional Christianity is responsible for every ill in the world. Yet, the Newsweek blog claims that Miller "lays out the religious case for gay marriage"—in which case it appears there is no religious case for "gay marriage" other than "it's on its way, so you religious bigots need to accept it."

I've already addressed some of this, as you likely know, in a previous post. What I missed was Newsweek editor Jon Meacham's appalling and insulting editorial about Miller's article, which nearly accomplished the nigh impossible task of making Miller's piece sound reasoned and mature:

In this light it would seem to make sense for Americans to look anew at the underlying issues on the question of gay marriage. One can decide to oppose it in good faith, but such opposition should at least be forged by those in full possession of the relevant cultural and religious history and context. The reaction to this cover is not difficult to predict. Religious conservatives will say that the liberal media are once again seeking to impose their values (or their "agenda," a favorite term to describe the views of those who disagree with you) on a God-fearing nation. Let the letters and e-mails come. History and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion. (As it has been with reform in America from the Founding forward.) The NEWSWEEK Poll confirms what other surveys have also found: that there is a decided generational difference on the issue, with younger people supporting gay marriage at a higher rate than older Americans. One era's accepted reality often becomes the next era's clear wrong. So it was with segregation, and so it will be, I suspect, with the sacrament of marriage.

Meacham would do well to remove the 50,000 acres old-growth timber from his eye before complaining about splinters in the eyes of those wretched, mentally-challenged religious conservatives. Miller's article not only fails to demonstrate a "full possession of the relevant cultural and religious history and context," it demonstrates a complete failure to even try to achieve such a possession. And of course religious conservatives are going to be upset with the piece; the fact that Meacham snidely and proudly says so indicates that it was written and printed to accomplish one thing and one thing only: anger those who are opposed to "gay marriage." Miller's piece, boiled down to its farcical essence, makes this "argument": Gays are wonderful and gay sex is beautiful, so gay marriage must be accepted.

Brought to you by the same people who think that the Constitution is a living document:

Freedom of religion turned into freedom from religion.

Al Cresta points out the fallacy in the first few sentence. She speaks of the biblical definition of marriage and then proceeds not to say what that definition is but to describe how biblical characters have departed from it in practice. But nowhere does she deal with Paul's exalted conception of marriage in Ephesians 5, which we Christians would take as a “definition.”

Honestly, it reads like an essay tossed off by a partially-drunk, angry, sexually-confused sixteen-year-old who thinks Oprah is an intellectual giant and traditional Christianity is responsible for every ill in the world.

LOL, well said, good one. Oprah's working on it, with her new spirituality that her fans are sapping up and the media does what it can to make Christianity seem a horror worse than Hitler or other like him. Sigh. And it definitely appeals to some of the audience, who approach issues like angry teens.

“Honestly, it reads like an essay tossed off by a partially-drunk, angry, sexually-confused sixteen-year-old who thinks Oprah is an intellectual giant and traditional Christianity is responsible for every ill in the world.”

The fact that her editors defend her article might signify that they want someone at her intellectual level to continue preach this pablum to the masses, despite the piece’s abject lack of intellectual sustainability. It was clear from her performance on the Laura Ingraham Show today that Miller truly is not up to the task from an intellectual perspective. I think an intellect with true firepower would be too ashamed to even get on the radio to defend the piece.

Simultaneously, Newsweek is looking into the idea of becoming a “thought leader” as opposed to a large-circulation news periodical, when all they need to do to regain readership is stay honest regardless of where it leads them on the ideological scale.

Who can still say that the mainstream media is still a for-profit industry when a (former) mainstay like Newsweek would rather follow its ideological underpinnings down to its logical conclusion in terms of declining readership

What besides our consumer choices should be our response?

Anyone?