Thursday, December 16, 2004

220 Vox Blogoli condemns another legacy media

Shades of Dan Rather. Newsweek’s December 13 issue was a Christmas hatchet job, one-sided and agenda driven, according to Hugh Hewitt.

“Within 10 days of Meacham's [Newsweek article on Christ], his credentials had been reviewed for all to see by Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The article itself had been painstakingly--and fairly--sliced and diced by accomplished theologian, pastor, scholar, and author, Dr. Mark D. Roberts, whose double Harvard degrees, including a Ph.D. from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, make his careful and complete criticisms of Meacham's reporting hard to dismiss.

After interviewing both Mohler and Roberts for two hours on the air, I then posted links to the Newsweek piece and their criticisms, and invited bloggers from around the internet to weigh in via a virtual symposium I term a "Vox Blogoli." Dozens of bloggers accepted the invite, and an astonishing array of piercing reviews of Meacham followed. Among many favorites are the Evangelical Outpost and Tapscott's Copy Desk, but all of them are well worth the read. (The complete list of symposium posts can be read here.)”

Mohler's evaluation of Meacham: "Newsweek should be embarrassed by this one-sided article presented as a serious investigation of the Christmas story. The magazine's editor may brag about Meacham's extensive study as a college student, but there can be no justification for the lack of balance and the absence of credible conservative scholarship in this article. This is not a serious and balanced consideration of the Christian truth claim, but a broadside attack packaged as a condescending essay of advice from Newsweek's very savvy, very sophisticated, very Episcopalian, and very ambitious managing editor."

Roberts, Crosswalk and Evangelical Outpost are included in my "Faithful Bloggers" links, here and at Collecting My Thoughts.


Blinn said...

Why did Meacham not include any conservative viewpoints in his article? Is he unaware that serious conservative scholarship exists? Or did he just want to exclude any viewpoint that contradicts his own?

Norma said...

I'm guessing yes, and yes, to both questions. The term "conservative" just doesn't compute with liberal scholars since they begin with the premise that God can't or won't intervene in his own creation. So if you close off all alternate views at the pass, they can't get through. Some open mind, huh? Elevates man's scholarship above God's plan.