Posts by dedalus

although these ideas are laudable and i would not want to discourage anyone, they sometimes create sympathy for the witnesses, and make us look bitter and fanatical.

Of course, I don't think Wendy intended to make the mistakes she did. My point was, even though she was trying to be balanced, she probably does have some bias -- don't we all? The larger question is, Can a journalist actually be objective and keep his/her reservations/doubts/etc. to him/herself?

I think the article has some reluctance to take the opposition at its word (which is good), but doesn't do enough to understand where the opposition is coming from (which is bad). I think the article resists making a direct connection between disfellowshipping and what this man did (which is good, since it's uncertain and speculative, and since most of us manage to go through our painful DFings without murdering our families), but mischaracterizes those who would point to DFing as a psychologically damaging thing to do to someone (which is bad, since there are many opposers who are calm and articulate and accurate).

I wonder, S4, how you feel about literary journalism, where the reporter spends way more time with the subject and then uses literary devices when writing up the story, including him/herself as an observing character in the story, deliberately including some subjective observations about the story. Many people don't think this kind of journalism is as "real" as your standard newspaper reporting, but I think it's more authentic.

You guys are criticizing this from the viewpoint of being experts on the WTS and Witness teaching and terminology. But to put yourself in a reporter's shoes, let me give you eight hours to research AND write a 1000 word article on an obscure sect of Islam or a fringe element in the Mormon Church. THEN let an expert on that group read your article. Do you think they would find some statements from you that "weren't completely true?" And maybe even a couple of real mistakes?

That's the problem -- haste. Take your Mormon example. In a recent New Yorker there was an excellent piece about Mormons in which it was clear that the author has read many books on the religion, interviewed elders high up in the religion, as well as current members, local members, and ex-members. He also read the Book of Mormon. It was a very good article, insightful, and it got at something true about the religion.

Dealing with complicated issues in a short span of time is the inherent problem with day-to-day reporting, which is different from what happens in the New Yorker. I don't think there's an easy solution -- it's a problem journalists need to embrace and live with. But it's a problem we readers should keep in mind when we see programs on local TV or read articles in the newspaper. Deadlines lead to compromises of journalistic integrity.

As for the word "attack" -- it is certainly accurate for a lot of what happens on this site, for sure. But replacing it with a word like "reason" or even a more neutral word like "say" changes the connotation. It changes the figure of the person being described. Wendy Lawton chose "attack." That choice reflects some opinion of hers. Opinions are not objective; they reflect bias. My point is really more abstract -- I'm more interested in what this particular word choice means for journalism in general, than what it means for the particular sentence in which it appears.

Wendy might better have said "conduct or beliefs that contradict the Witness interpretation of the Bible." But this hardly sounds like a Watchtower sympathizer. More like a reporter trying to get up to speed on a topic she may not be very familiar with.

This part confused me a little -- how would a more accurate statement make her sound like "a reporter trying to get up to speed on a topic she may not be very familiar with"? It sounds objective to me, and it's concise and accurate -- after all, it's a fact! If the implication for all this is that reporters can't report facts that are unpleasant for the people about whom they are reporting, journalism is in a sorry state indeed. But perhaps I just misunderstand you ...

I mean all of this with the deepest respect for you and your profession, S4. I appreciate your perspective. And I keep waiting to hear more about these novels you're getting ready to publish.

All my best,

Dedalus

16

E.T. -- A Bad Movie for Christians?

by dedalus in

i'm pretty excited about the re-release of e.t.

the extraterrestrial, because i distinctly remember not being allowed to see it when i was a child.

as i recall there were too many parallels between the life of e.t.

dedalus

I remmember not being allowed to see E.T.
Boo hoo.

The real travesty was not being allowed to see the Star War films!

Fortunately, those were re-released in the theaters too.

Dedalus

7

Tallyman & Me

by Yadirf in

jw
friends

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=24098&site=3 .

even jerry lee has a nickname.

-- yadirf.. fry day,.

dedalus

[8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>]
[8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>]
[8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>]
[8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>]
[8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>]
[8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>]
[8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>]
[8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>]
[8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>]
[8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>]
[8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>]
[8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>][8>]

16

" Fry Day " , The Sequel

by Tallyman in

jw
friends

butterfly: aaaaarrrrggghhhh!!!!!.

(setting down on finger).

...ahhhhhh!.

dedalus

[8>]

16

E.T. -- A Bad Movie for Christians?

by dedalus in

i'm pretty excited about the re-release of e.t.

the extraterrestrial, because i distinctly remember not being allowed to see it when i was a child.

as i recall there were too many parallels between the life of e.t.

dedalus

LOL! Thanks, Blondie!

E.T. may be a skillfully constructed and highly entertaining movie. But it provides no substitute for our True Friend, Jesus Christ, who saves us from this dying, wicked world. After all, E.T. is make-believe. Christ is reality.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Even if you're a Christian, this still must seem hilarious! ROTFLMAO!

Dedalus

16

E.T. -- A Bad Movie for Christians?

by dedalus in

i'm pretty excited about the re-release of e.t.

the extraterrestrial, because i distinctly remember not being allowed to see it when i was a child.

as i recall there were too many parallels between the life of e.t.

dedalus

I'm pretty excited about the re-release of E.T. The Extraterrestrial, because I distinctly remember not being allowed to see it when I was a child. As I recall there were too many parallels between the life of E.T. and the life of Jesus Christ -- both came from above, both healed and resurrected, both died are were themselves resurrected. I'm even pretty sure that something about the movie was written in an Awake! magazine -- can anyone find the quote?

And is anyone else looking forward to seeing this film, again or for the first time?

Dedalus

5

Thanks so much!

by rem in

friends,.

i just wanted to express my thanks to everyone who responded to my desperate post.

i'm not usually one to air my dirty laundry, but i just felt so low and helpless.

dedalus

I don't think anyone here viewed it as an airing of dirty laundry.

Anyway, you take care of yourself, buddy, and do what's best for you. The forum is here, I'm here (e-mail or call), and you'll be in touch in the ways that you want. Meanwhile, I'll be having a good thought for you (NYPD Blue lingo, my favorite TV show).

Dedalus

37

A suggestion for discrediting the Society

by RunningMan in

jw
friends

in this forum, we often wonder what we can do to make the society look bad.

we come up with ideas like picketing assemblies, mail campaigns, legal action, and many others.

although these ideas are laudable and i would not want to discourage anyone, they sometimes create sympathy for the witnesses, and make us look bitter and fanatical.

dedalus

Seeker4,

Then Carmel wrote: "Since yesterday I have been having an exchange with Wendy at the Oregonian in Portland. Essentially, she feels she needs to remain "neutral" and present a "balanced" story. My comment to her was in so doing, she inadvertantly was promulgating the party line of the JWs and that apparently reporting facts wasn't as important as opinions regardless of their veracity."
Sorry, Camel, but a good reporter will do exactly as Wendy has done. You're asking her to take a side in her reporting, which is journalistically unethical for her. The Code of Ethics adopted by the Soc. of Professional Journalists states: "Diligently seek out the subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing."

I agree with you, Seeker4, but when it comes to objectivity and balance, I don't think Wendy did too terrific a job. She got a couple of facts wrong, and mischaracterized people in a way that suggested she had some bias in favor of the Witnesses. For example, here are some quips from the article:

Now anti-Witness Web sites are abuzz with accusations. "Who in their right mind would ever want to stay in this horrible, horrible, hateful religion?" one posting reads.

Is that the best quote she could find from this site? This quote (Farkel's) is fine for what it does say in a certain on-line context, but as a representative of all quotes from this site, or all the perspectives former Witnesses may have, it comes off as if the person who wrote it is bitter for no reason. Especially when we then read:

But critics attack the practice as cruel and destructive.

Why the word "attack"? Why not the word "reason"? Or some other more "neutral" word? See how a simple word choice changes the way a group of people are characterized? From this article, I was left with the impression that ex-Witnesses are angry, belligerent people who can't clearly articulate their ideas.

Here's an example of an omission of fact that would help ex-Witnesses:

Protecting the congregation's purity is the point of disfellowship. Members are kicked out before they can harm, or continue to harm, others with conduct or beliefs that contradict the Bible.

Actually, Witnesses can be expelled for a lot more than that -- celebrating birthdays, for example -- and I hardly need to make a complete list here. Some very, very simple research would have cleared that up for Wendy Lawton.

There are other curious points in the article:

The shunned still can attend religious services, officials said, and conduct business with members. But Witnesses are instructed not to socialize with someone who is disfellowshipped.

If the "shunned" can still "conduct business with members, then why did Casarona, who was disfellowshipped, lose "about a fourth of his real estate clients"? The article doesn't make this connection or use it to explore what disfellowshipping is really like. Couldn't she have looked into some of the Organization's literature, which is so widely disseminated throughout the public, instead of falling back on PR statements from nameless "officials"?

And then there are just plain old mistakes:

The killings in McMinnville last month -- the worst mass murder in recent Oregon history -- cast a spotlight on Jehovah's Witnesses and their practice of "disfellowship."

Who calls it "disfellowship"? It's "disfellowshipping" -- what you do to a verb to make it a noun (a gerund). You wouldn't say, I like the practice of run. You would say, I like the practice of running. As a professional writer Wendy Lawton should have known this, and as a journalist she should have gotten the vernacular right.

Jehovah's Witnesses are a made-in-America church that boasts 6 million international members. They believe in Armaggedon: The world will end, the wicked will die, and God will create a paradise on Earth for the righteous. The name refers to members' watchful return of Jehovah, or God.

I know some people have complained about the second sentence, since Witnesses technically believe that all non-Witnesses will die. From my experience, most individual Witnesses are not emotionally invested in this belief, though their Organization mandates it, so the way this sentence is written doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is the last sentence quoted. The name "Jehovah's Witnesses" simple does not refer to members' watchful return of Jehovah.

(Also, she misspelled "Armageddon." )

Another mistake:

The Bible is their bedrock. Witnesses live their lives in strict accordance to its teachings and follow a rigid moral code. Stealing, drinking, smoking, premarital sex -- all are forbidden.

Witnesses are totally allowed to drink. Furthermore, the idea of a "moral code," much less a rigid one, is pretty alien to Witnesses, I'd argue. Mostly they "follow the direction of the faithful and discreet slave," or the Organization, a term Wendy Lawton should have been able to unearth without too much effort. Again, my problem here is that she got the vernacular wrong and wrote something that just wasn't true, giving Witnesses who might read her article an excuse to dismiss it.

Anyway, I'm not saying the whole article is inaccurate. But I hope I demonstrated that Lawton was not objective; her article favors the Organization, it seems. Of course, all of these issues are wound up in the more difficult questions of objectivity in the media, and whether it's actually an ethical possibility or not.

Dedalus

37

A suggestion for discrediting the Society

by RunningMan in

jw
friends

in this forum, we often wonder what we can do to make the society look bad.

we come up with ideas like picketing assemblies, mail campaigns, legal action, and many others.

although these ideas are laudable and i would not want to discourage anyone, they sometimes create sympathy for the witnesses, and make us look bitter and fanatical.

dedalus

People who obsess about trolls puzzle me, too. It's somewhat like complaining about a TV show you hate to watch, yet you never miss an episode.

It isn't that all people who obsess about trolls are stupid -- some of my favorite posters here occasionally go on these troll crusades, cluttering otherwise interesting threads with a lot of nonsense about who posted what and when, so that the thread of the discussion is lost in all the childish squabbling. It can be fucking annoying sometimes, hell yeah.

See -- none of what I've written has anything to do with discrediting the Society!

Dedalus