Timmy, you wrote:

“it is no secret that ABP is run and operated by the CBF,”

ABP is run and operated by Greg Warner (a former BP reporter) and Rob Marus.

Not the CBF. The CBF only supplies a percentage of the ABP’s budget. As of a few years ago, the CBF, BGCT, BGAV, and BSNC (all combined) provided only half of the ABP’s total budget. If you read the ABP’s website, you’ll see that they generate revenue by selling advertisements.

The CBF doesn’t control anything. They don’t control the seminaries either. The national CBF is really a small missions organization (compared to the SBC) that gives a small percentage to the budgets of organizations like ABP, Bread for the World, Baptists Today, Baptist Joint Committee, Baptist World Alliance and provides scholarships to students at “CBF-affiliated” seminaries, divinity schools and Baptist studies programs. Their operating budget is only 17 million dollars.

I agree. I think the Enlightenment lie was the idea that any of us could achieve blissful neutrality or total objectivity. As moral creatures with a trained conscience, we are going to respond certain ways as filtered by our own predispositions and control beliefs. However, there comes a point in one’s professional career where one practices distanciation–where you willingly distance yourself from your known control beliefs–in order that the horizon under which you write includes a picture much broader, and not limited to, oneself. In a sense, that is one mark of journalistic professionalism.

It is assumed, at least to some degree, that a journalist would understand the nature of his work in order to protect the integrity of the story from a dominating control belief or bias. Herein is where I believe Jameson has failed, as I have aforementioned in both the post and comments. Ergo, my issue is not that Jameson has personal convictions on the matter (i.e. control beliefs, presuppositions, etc.), but that he has allowed them to influence the nature and tone of his article which I find unprofessional and inaccurate.

Anyway, I hope that makes a little sense. I am not a journalist nor a professional (stuck in the “cult of the amateur” I guess), so take it with a grain of salt.

$1000 in copies is alot of money, but yeah the 2nd floor is for the hardcores!

Perhaps you are right. I want to believe you are right. As I stated earlier, I have a hard time being convinced of it. It may very well be that the title was not penned by Jameson, but it, along with the attribution to Tom, are loaded and with intent. Perhaps I do have my guard up and what is needed is a little slack. Indeed, if I didn’t feel like it wasn’t a curve ball, I would not have stepped up to the plate.

Simply stated, the title and attribution were not needed at best and served to question the author’s agenda at worst. Part of being a fair journalist is knowing not only what is appropriate in accurately presenting the story, but also having an acute sense of how it is going to be received by the audience. Due to previous engagement with Jameson, I am convinced he missed on both points, and thus, I find it hard to be convinced otherwise.

Thanks for the comment, Wade, and I appreciate your good words of caution and gentle rebuke.

As a secular journalist who is very sympathetic to Founders, and am excited that the RCM passed, let me just say that I think it’s better to give the guy some slack on this one.

The people in my newsroom, myself included, get accused of bias every day, and often-times it’s laughable. What looks like bias can be a variety of things. I’ve been accused of being biased when I was just sloppy or not as clear as I should have been because of a tight deadline. I’ve been accused of bias when I’ve racked my brain to think of the most fair and accurate way of describing someone or something. Apparently, I still failed. One of my co-workers was accused of flagrant and obvious bias against one side not long ago, when her only bias was that she thought the story was really, really boring.

There are a hundred different reasons why something is written the way it is. It’s quite possible that the writer didn’t even pen the headline; that’s often done by another editor. And the description of Dr. Ascol is accurate. I dare say if you asked 100 Southern Baptists who Tom Ascol was, the vast majority of those who know would say he’s that Calvinist Founders guy. That’s not a slam. That’s how I think of him, and I have a great deal of respect for him, and am in agreement with him most of the time. I mean, his blog is http://www.founders.org/blog. I think it’s a great thing that something as good as the RCM is being linked to Calvinists.

I don’t know this guy; I did read the opinion piece he wrote about the Building Bridges Conference, and disagreed with it very much. And I’m not saying that those examples you gave were not example of bias. I’m just saying I think you should give him the benefit of the doubt. Being objective is harder than it looks, and I think a little bit of charity for him might be in order.

No, I do not read all the state papers. I do also realize that there is a partnership there between the two; however, it is no secret that ABP is run and operated by the CBF, and the state papers are supposed to be held to a high standard of journalism (at least in my mind).

Whatever I have read from ABP now and in the past has been driven by a consistent antagonism against the stated leadership within the CR SBC. Do you contend that ABP represents journalism that is fair? I can attest that, in the few times they have referenced my blog in their reporting, it has been a cut-and-paste job of my words that were poorly handled.

So, I am speaking from my own personal perspective. I understand your perception that I am making this all up, but I am not. And for the record, I am not a big fan of Baptist Press either (as one could have easily determined from their reporting both prior and during last year’s annual meeting).

Thanks for reading the blog, and I hope that I will present my case in a fair and even-handed manner.

After reading your last comment above, I’m just not sure how much you actually read the state papers. Word & Way, Religious Herald, Baptist Standard and ABP have a partnership together called the New Media Group. If you notice, all three of those state papers (including the Recorder?) carry articles written by ABP staff members. Those state papers and ABP work together on many joint efforts including article sharing.

In the larger world of religion journalism, ABP has much much more credibility than Baptist Press. I’m rather sure award-winning religion reporters like Sam Hodges of the Dallas Morning News and Terry Mattingly of Howard-Scripps would attest to that fact.

And in what way does ABP “not pretend to be legit”?? You’re just making stuff up there.

Have you read what non-Baptist religion journalists are saying about this year’s SBC? Are they off base too? I’m sure you don’t like what they have written either.

Give Mr. Jameson a break. Not everyone has an anti-Calvinist agenda. I’ve read your blog for quite a while. It’s a rare day when you give an A+ to the writings of a non-Calvinist on the subject of Calvinism. Quit being a nit-picker.