That's more like it

Having strongly criticized a recent piece in The New Yorker about Benedict XVI that was long on attitude and short on facts or decent journalism, it's only right and fair to point out that facts and decent journalism are evident throughout much of an April 8th article, "Keeping The Faith," written by Russell Shorto for The New York Times magazine. Mollie Hemingway of GetReligion.com provides some helpful background:

Anyway, I’m sure there are many legitimate quibbles or gripes with the piece, and I’m curious what readers thought about it, but color me impressed. The piece is long (8,294 words!) and covers so much. Its main focus is The Pope Formerly Known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s emphasis on the threat of secularism — but it hits New (lay) Movements, Ratzinger’s background and the worldly and church context into which Benedict speaks. I kept wishing each aspect was its own piece since Shorto took the time to read the Pope’s speeches, visit actual congregations, and consider nuance. Shorto says Benedict’s papal theme is that Europe is moving toward a dictatorship of relativism that recognizes nothing for certain. It’s nice to see such a thoughtful retrospective on the second anniversary of his election, and one that doesn’t bring out the tired old tropes.

It must be said that Shorto seems only to know how to contact liberals since they are more or less the only people quoted in the piece. That’s a deficit. He also seems to continue with his “theological conservatives are wacky” approach, but I don’t mind that so much since he is explaining them to an audience that doesn’t naturally understand them....

I loved the piece’s broad and sweeping scope, but that was also its major problem. It seemed to lack a bit of focus or enough details on each of the subsets. But there is also a sense that the stories were shoehorned into the piece. But you’ll have to go read it. All 8,300 words of it. There are fascinating tidbits about Benedict’s interest in the schism with the Orthodox, as well as a look at how the Vatican has continued to handle priestly sex scandals.

As she indicates, Shorto's piece is hardly perfect—it does quote Hans Küng and Fr. Reese far too often and would have benefited from more "conservative" commentators—but it grapples soberly and seriouslywith complex issues without offering too many simplistic answers, and it avoids the snarky, immature, "Like, I'm so offended!" approach used by Jane Kramer in her New Yorker piece. All in all, if more secular reporting about Christianity was at this level, I wouldn't have so much to complain about. Unfortunately, I think it is the exception to the rule.

Comments

[Ed Peters]

Glad for the post, but your "justification" for it is unnecessary. Would one feel the need to say, "Having criticized John Wilson for cheating on his wife, I feel it only fair to point out that Billy Jones is faitfhul to his?" anyway, persnickety me.

[Carl Olson]

Ed: I think it's more along the lines of: "Having pointed out how many of the Wilson men cheat on their wives, it's only fair to note that Bobby Wilson has always been faithful to his wife." Indeed, no justification was needed. But since I do often point out of the silliness and stupidity so rampant in the MSM, I thought it would be good to show that some decent reporting does exist.