[ajross]

How would you report it then? I mean, I get that you're reading this as an attack on christians, but... my atheist eyes aren't seeing that. I see a short piece with a handful of (mildly horrifying) quotes from these three churches, followed by a note explaining how others are behaving more responsibly. Isn't that how this should be done?

[btilly]

We are used to the news format of presenting some who support side A, and those who are opposed, making it look like there is a balanced case. Seeing these stories makes it feel like we are getting balanced news. This makes for good TV.

However if the two "sides" are unequal, it gives the illusion of evenness when there is no actual equivalence.

You don't see this misrepresentation when it leaves an impression of an even split between churches that follow public health standards and those that don't. You do see this misrepresentation when it leaves the impression that there is a scientific debate about global warming. But the problem is the same in both cases - the format itself leads to systemic misrepresentations of the world.

[ajross]

I get the point, but I still don't see how you would prefer to report the relatively newsworthy fact that these three churches are holding services during a pandemic. How would you have framed the article?

[btilly]

"Holdout churches still hold services"

With an opening line of, "Most churches have responded to COVID-19 with measures like live streaming their services. But a few holdouts disregard the dangers..."

This makes it clear that we are now talking about how the crazies view the world. Which slants everything else that people will respond to.

It transforms "those crazy Christians" into "the crazies among the Christians". Which draws a more accurate picture of most Christians.

[ajross]

Fair enough, I'll buy that and agree that this would have been a better headline.

To be fair though, and getting to the point I was teasing: it's very odd to find us having this argument about "implications" about groups in media coverage in defense a a community that is itself rife with equivalently unrepresentative coverage of immigrants, progressives, feminists, etc... All of these groups are constantly made to answer for the crimes of their most extreme members in the right wing press. It just seems a little... off that all of a sudden HN seems to care so much about this kind of journalistic integrity.

[btilly]

You speak of HN as if HN was a single individual with a unified mind.

My opinions are reasonably consistent. However if you try to draw a consistent picture out of a mix of what I say and what others say, you will fail horribly. Sure, I'm happy to point you to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE or https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulato... to give other viewpoints on how laying everything out as a debate between two sides poisons our society. But I wouldn't expect most of HN to be on board with the strength of my views.

I also don't agree with your characterization of the "HN community". This site usually doesn't report on the coverage of the right wing press. When it does, most commentators seem to lean towards the outlook described in https://www.wired.com/story/political-education-silicon-vall.... Admittedly with outspoken exceptions.

As for me personally, I am a libertarian atheist whose explicit goal is to be right..eventually. In that end I care deeply that my impressions reflect reality, particularly for people that I disagree with. I am painfully aware that natural cognitive biases will lead it to be comfortable for me to accept an echo chamber. I care about the misrepresentation not because I respect Christianity - I don't - but because I care that my thinking correctly represents Christians.

[bosswipe]

It's also annoying how conservatives use epithets like "snowflake" to describe liberal grievances while being extremely sensitive about their own grievances. But we live in the age of grievance politics. Politicians have figured out that a feeling of being wronged or persecuted is one of the strongest ways to cause a hatred of "the others" and to remove rational thinking.

[DonHopkins]

What's painfully ironic is that he reads it as an "attack" on Christians, when it's actually an ethical brotherly life-affirming attempt to prevent Christians from killing themselves AND other people.

When Christians kill other people or themselves, they go to hell (if you take their believes at face value). They should be THANKFUL to the people who are "attacking" them so they don't kill other people, kill themselves, then go to hell.