The NY Times Flacks for an Extreme Religious Right Politician
by tristero
It takes some 2000 words into one of the most tedious Times articles I've ever read for reporter Jonathan Martin Elizabeth Dias to get around to quoting someone with the slightest criticism of Franklin Graham, a hate-filled far right politician whose act is so cruel and so obviously phony he makes Robert Mitchum's demented preacher in The Night of the Hunter look like St. Francis. Finally, Martin Dias reports:
When a Graham organizer asked Daniel Balcombe, the pastor of Living Way Church near Escondido, to promote Mr. Graham’s rally, he said no. “He’s too politically toxic,” Mr. Balcombe, a registered Republican, said in an interview. “I told the organizer this, and he made excuses and insisted that he would not be political in his crusade. Still, I told him no thanks.”
Mr. Balcombe cited the example of a Muslim refugee from Iran who became a Christian at his church last year, around the same time Mr. Trump banned travel from seven Muslim-majority countries — a decision Mr. Graham defended.
“I have a whole bunch of Trumpers in my church, who are supportive of the travel ban, and I’ve got this guy in my office, and we are praying and weeping, how can we get this guy’s family here,” he recalled. “I feel isolated, not by the political world but even within my own evangelical world.”
But then the article returns to breathlessly and uncritically flacking for Graham. So let's be clear:
Franklin Graham is not Christian. Not in the sense that the far more typical worshippers at the Episcopal church near me are Christians. Unlike Graham, the real Christians I know are quite tolerant people and nobody's fools. To bend over backwards and assume Graham's beliefs are sincere, he is at best the leader of a single extremist sect that escapes criticism by many American mainstream Christian churches and institutions merely because they call themselves "Christian." Sure, just like the Rajneeshees in the brilliant Wild Wild Country, Graham's religious cult performs social works. But they're obviously not doing that much compared to their income or they wouldn't have much left over for politicking for sleazy cronies like Trump. Besides, all the good they do is more than counter-balanced by the hate and fear Graham and his ilk spread.
A truly balanced article about Graham would have led with the phrase "too politically toxic" and not buried it A truly balanced article about Graham would have quoted numerous leaders from the numerous progressive Christian denominations about what real Christian charity is like. A truly balanced article would have never given Graham a virtually free pass or thought his soft, "almost sweet"voice was worth mentioning.
This is the NY Times pandering to the far right as they've done so many times. They never treat progressives this way, which are covered with nearly unrelenting negativity. Case in point: in the print edition of the Times the day before they promoted Graham, the Times ran — in exactly the same position on the front page — an article entitled, "Democrats Go All-Out to Avoid Disaster in California House Races." The impression one took away was of a political party in a state of hysterical panic. Graham, by contrast, is portrayed as methodical and focused.
It's been argued that the mainstream media learned their lesson since 2016 and are no longer giving a free ride to Trump. But even if that is so, it's time they reported realistically on Trump's exceedingly dangerous enablers.
Including Franklin Graham.
Update: The post has been updated.