Saturday, August 13, 2011

Carter on Journalistic Integrity

Joe Carter at First Things administers a much-deserved spanking to Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker for a hit piece he did in that magazine on Michele Bachmann. As Carter points out, Lizza's attempts to demean Bachmann were ludicrous and reflect more poorly on the writer's professionalism and character than they do on the intended target, but defending Bachmann wasn't Carter's real purpose in writing.

In his attempt to smear Bachmann Lizza also slandered a man, the late Francis Schaeffer, who has had enormous influence among Christian evangelicals, including Carter (and including me), and this was more than Carter could abide.

Carter offers Mr. Lizza four pieces of good advice, in the course of which he pretty much holds Lizza's sloppy journalism up as an example of the sort of thing that young journalists, who wish not to embarrass themselves, should avoid.

Here's his second "Lesson":
Lesson #2: Ensure that you use reliable sources — As I mentioned, Schaeffer has been the subject of numerous studies. There are dozens of qualified and reputable scholars who would be willing to explain his thought and influence. Unfortunately, while Lizza did find a PhD to provide a quote, he chose one that is known for being an unreliable source. Lizza writes,

[Schaeffer] was a major contributor to the school of thought now known as Dominionism, which relies on Genesis 1:26, where man is urged to “have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Sara Diamond, who has written several books about evangelical movements in America, has succinctly defined the philosophy that resulted from Schaeffer’s interpretation: “Christians, and Christians alone, are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns.”
First, there is no “school of thought” known as “dominionism.” The term was coined in the 1980s by Diamond and is never used outside liberal blogs and websites. No reputable scholars use the term for it is a meaningless neologism that Diamond concocted for her dissertation.

If Lizza had done his homework he would have found that Diamond’s mid-1980s “scholarship” is neither timely nor credible. For example, Diamond bases her contention that Schaeffer is a “dominionist” on his book A Christian Manifesto. The problem is that rather than claiming that “Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns”—Schaeffer says exactly the opposite:
[W]e must make definite that we are in no way talking about any kind of theocracy. Let me say that with great emphasis. Witherspoon, Jefferson, the American Founders had no idea of a theocracy. That is made plain by the First Amendment, and we must continually emphasize the fact that we are not talking about some kind, or any kind, of a theocracy....
By the way, the first paragraph of this quote can be found on the Wikipedia page for Schaeffer. Had Lizza merely been as diligent as a college freshman plagiarizing a term paper he would have discovered his error.
Read the whole thing. It's a good dissection of the sort half-truths, innuendo, and misrepresentation that we're likely to see a lot more of as the campaign season unfolds. Thanks to Byron for the tip.

Update: Another individual strongly influenced by Schaeffer and also a victim of Mr. Lizza's journalistic shoddiness is Nancy Pearcey, the author of the book Total Truth. Pearcey responds to Lizza's New Yorker piece here.