Mollie brings up a great point in comments on my earlier post on sensational, misleading headlines at the Atlantic. She notes that this kind of hype isn’t limited to The Atlantic’s Web site.
The magazine had a reprehensible headline on its December cover, which asked “Did Christianity Cause the Crash?”
Uh, no.
Not only did The Alantic (ludicrously) tar an entire religion there, it also took the blame-the-borrowers meme to new heights. Literally. Like way up in the sky.
Of course, Hannah Hanna Rosin’s story, a pretty good piece on the problematic spread of the so-called prosperity gospel, was more nuanced than the magazine’s tabloid headline, which was one of those things that causes the folks in flyover country to loathe the bigtime media.
Why? First, the “Christianity” the Atlantic refers to—the prosperity-gospel movement—is, in the eyes of most Christians, a day-is-night perversion of their 2,000 year-old religion. In other words, heresy. What was that about “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil,” and “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”?
Second, the answer to the question is obviously “no” and The Atlantic knew it.
Third, it serves to shift most of the blame for the housing crash away from lenders, brokers, and their funders on to borrowers That’s wrong. I might as well quote Audit Dean Starkman here on a past blame-the-borrowers story:
If the premise of this story is true, we need to seriously rethink the mortgage dilemma and tighten safeguards to protect lenders, Wall Street securities dealers and institutional investors against hordes of unscrupulous borrowers. And yet, the Federal Reserve has neglected to do anything of the kind in proposing new lending rules. Instead, these deal entirely with unscrupulous lending practices.
Headlines like The Atlantic’s—and let’s face it: the headline is the most memorable and important part of any piece—serve to muddy the waters of what actually happened. That may sell magazines, but it’s bad journalism.
And it’s a short-term gain. You may not destroy your credibility with a single one of those headlines (though “Did Christianity Cause the Crash?” is one that might), but it certainly doesn’t help when your readers realize they’ve been snookered by hype.
I don’t mean to pick on The Atlantic all of a sudden. I still consider it one of my favorite publications, by the way. But these kinds of things can dilute a reader elationship and a reputation very quickly.
ADDING In comments below, Mollie Wilson O’Reilly points us to an article she wrote in Commonweal back in December on Rosin’s piece. I focused on the headline here, but she took on the much more difficult task of analyzing the entire piece—and did it when the issue was actually, you know, on newsstands.
For instance, Rosin says this:
It is not all that surprising that the prosperity gospel persists despite its obvious failure to pay off. Much of popular religion these days is characterized by a vast gap between aspirations and reality. Few of Sarah Palin’s religious compatriots were shocked by her messy family life, because they’ve grown used to the paradoxes; some of the most socially conservative evangelical churches also have extremely high rates of teenage pregnancies, out-of-wedlock births, and divorce. As Garay likes to say, “What you have is nothing compared to what you will have.” The unpleasant reality—an inadequate paycheck, a pregnant daughter, a recession—is invisible. It’s your ability to see beyond such things, your willing blindness to even the most hopeless-seeming circumstances, that makes you a certain kind of modern Christian, and a 21st-century American.
Ryan -- thanks for following up! If I may take the liberty of linking to myself, I did write about this story at the time. I actually thought the headline was relatively accurate -- ludicrous, of course, but it seemed to me that was the argument Rosin tried to make, insofar as she made any argument at all. Too bad, because her reporting should have led her down much more fruitful paths of inquiry.
#1 Posted by Mollie, CJR on Thu 27 May 2010 at 10:48 AM
Nice to see the Rosin story coming in (however belatedly) for some much deserved criticism. The headline wasn't the problem; the article was, if anything, worse.
Rosin does, in fact, claim that the prosperity gospel caused the crash. For this, she offers no actual evidence beyond correlation. Poor people, particularly minorities, were attracted to the prosperity gospel; foreclosures are concentrated in poor areas, particularly those with large minority populations. I almost snarfed my coffee when I first read that. Really, Hanna? That's the best you have to offer? Needless to say, prosperity gospel isn't popular among the buyers or packages of CDOs or CDSs, where irrational optimism abounded.
Then there are her misunderstandings of theology. It's quite possible for a doctrine finding in material success evidence of salvation to produce a healthy work ethic - see (Weber, Max) for more details.
But the sin for which I simply cannot forgive her, or her editors, is the fact that of the actual examples she offers, every one of them was in significantly more dire financial straits before they embraced the prosperity gospel than after. If you're going to blame the doctrine for financial problems, can't you find at least one person you can name in the article whose financial problems stemmed from the doctrine? Instead, we get Garay, going from failed drug dealer to successful preacher and family man, and Billy Gonzales, who was snorting cocaine and getting drunk four times a week and is now productively employed with a family. Neither of them is actually rich, both struggle, but aren't they better off? And indeed, the sole expert to whom Rosin talks who has actually studied these things rigorously on the ground, makes the case that these congregations are highly effective, and that they teach congregants "not just how to survive but how to thrive; not just live paycheck to paycheck but handle money—manage complicated payrolls, invest in equipment."
But Rosin won't hear of it. Despite the fact that all the evidence in front of her suggests that the prosperity gospel, on the whole, incentivizes its adherents to work hard, manage their finances, and aspire to better things, she resolutely sticks with her original and incendiary premise, that its supposed promise of something for nothing brought on the financial crisis, and ruined its adherents.
I'm not sure whether to blame poor reporting, an inability to examine evidence, or a relentless hostility to the role of religion. But whatever its causes, the article was an outright disgrace.
#2 Posted by Cynic, CJR on Thu 27 May 2010 at 12:00 PM
Cynic - My link above didn't work (serves me for getting fancy), but I laid out some of my problems with that article here:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=5580
#3 Posted by Mollie, CJR on Thu 27 May 2010 at 04:41 PM
Did Hanna Rosin really say that? Wow. I realize that writers gotta write, but . . . Thanks for calling her out. Imagine if someone of a different view surveyed the demographics of Wall Street, the predations of Bernie Madoff, etc., and asked if Judaism caused the crash.
#4 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 27 May 2010 at 05:03 PM
It is easier for a rich man to enter heaven seated comfortably on the back of a camel than it is for a poor man to pass through the eye of a needle.
#5 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Thu 27 May 2010 at 06:36 PM
Thanks for reposting the link Mollie - that's good stuff.
I'm with you on most of it. And I'd add that the very particular circumstances of this church - a pastor who was also a broker selling to his congregants - may have made Rosin think she had a powerful metaphor, but actually serve to render it somewhat sui generis. It's not as if this such conflicts were widely found. Most pastors were not also brokers. So her examples, such as they are, have limited applicability.
The other thing I'd point out is that, odious though I find the prosperity gospel as theology, there's actually a fair amount of evidence that it works reasonably well as a self-help doctrine. Which contravenes Rosin's case. It appeals to people who haven't had much success, and encourages them to focus single-mindedly on achieving financial success (with a religious zeal). It may not make them happy. It probably will never make them rich, despite the promises they're given. But it can, and does, make them work hard, take risks, and generally strive to increase their net worth. As a Christian doctrine, it's a sham; as a moral message, it's entirely hollow; but as a self-help doctrine, it's not too shabby. There's simply no evidence that adherents of the prosperity gospel are worse off for it, in financial terms - and quite a bit in the other direction. And that's a huge, huge hole in the story.
#6 Posted by Cynic, CJR on Thu 27 May 2010 at 07:50 PM
Mollie, thanks for posting your piece. It's excellent I will update with a link above. I critiqued the headline and you did the much more difficult task of critiquing the story.
And I fixed the link in your first comment, just fyi.
Thanks again, and thanks to Cynic and Mark Richard for their comments here.
#7 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Thu 27 May 2010 at 08:14 PM