worldviews

The Confused Leading The Ignorant

2008-03-22T08:37:00.000-07:00

I'm on a list-serv of Christian newspaper editors run by the Evangelical Press Association, and the posts there are by turns interesting and frustrating -- and sometimes both at the same time.

One editor there, for example, is a Barack Obama supporter. She acknowledges that abortion is an important issue; she claims to be pro-life. And she acknowledges that Obama, while in the Senate and on the campaign trail, has an unabashedly pro-choice view. Nonetheless, she claims that Obama is "inspiring." It's the first time I've ever heard the promotion of baby-killing called inspirational. Her views, though, seem to be a sign of the disarray of evangelicalism.

For example, this week I interviewed megachurch pastor Joel C. Hunter, whose new book is "A New Kind Of Conservative." He said that young people were rejecting "traditional" Christian worship and such "trappings" of an older generation as denominationalism and party labels.

I asked, "Dr. Hunter, I'm assuming that you're smarter now, at age 60, than you were at age 25."

He responded, "I hope so."

Me: "I'm also assuming that you've read the surveys from Barna, from Gallup, from the Pew Trust, and just about everyone else that says the younger generation is perhaps the most secular, least religious, most pagan, most theologically and biblically illiterate generation in American history."

Dr. Hunter: "OK, I see where you're going."

Me: "Well, I guess where I'm going is here: I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the passion and desire to 'make a difference' of young people. But shouldn't they be looking to us for wisdom, rather than the other way around?"

Dr. Hunter: "I'm not saying that. We need each other. They should be looking to us."

Here's my point: There is a great deal of theological confusion out there. I think one of the reasons that 25-year-olds don't want to pay attention to the wisdom of 60-year-olds is that we have too many 60-year-olds trying to be "hip" in ways they weren't when they were 25. And among evangelical leaders, you have the added temptation of money: the desire to sell books and get speaking gigs and be seen as the "Next Billy Graham" or (heaven forbid) the "Next Rick Warren." I mean, after all, who wouldn't want to "hang" with Bono?

Our young people bring a lot to the community, to the koinonia. But, in general, wisdom is not a part of what they bring. They need older -- and wiser -- people for that. And our older men need to be patriachs, not pals; our older women need to be matriarchs, not "cougars" and "BFFs."

Warren's Speaker Promo Video

2008-01-11T14:15:00.000-08:00

Has Alan Keyes "Jumped The Shark"?

2007-10-22T06:57:00.001-07:00

Keyes criticism of "Values Voters Summit" sounds desperate, self-serving

On the old TV show “Happy Days,” the Fonz was the coolest guy around -- until an infamous episode just before the show’s cancellation which had the Fonz literally jumping a shark while water-skiing in his trademark leather jacket.

The scene was supposed to show that the Fonz remained cool in all circumstances. But the episode was so contrived, so preposterous, that even the uber-cool Fonz looked ridiculous. Since then, "jumping the shark" has come to symbolize anyone who gets caught trying to be cool, or -- more generally -- is desperately, and unsuccessfully, even pathetically, trying to remain relevant.

Such is a description of the current chapter in the political career of Alan Keyes.Keyes was a refreshing and credible voice in the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. But he’s become a gadfly and -- worse -- a whiner. He’s failed to make a credible showing in any race he’s ever entered, and he’s started blaming others for his inability to get traction.

Witness, for example, excerpts from a press release from the Keyes campaign, coming on the Monday after the Family Research Council's Washington Briefing. After berating each of candidates for some deficiency in their conservative, pro-life positions, Keyes then blasts the FRC:

“[The] FRC gave each of these candidates the use of its platform. It gave each of them a photo-op receiving a standing ovation from a crowd identified as strongly pro-life and supportive of the God-ordained natural family. [But the FRC] repeatedly refuse to invite one particular candidate: Dr. Alan Keyes. For decades, Dr. Keyes has boldly and courageously fought for everything the FRC claims to represent.

“The contradictions get worse," Keyes' whiny press release continues. "For weeks prior to the event — in advertising, and in the radio and television pronouncements of FRC leaders — FRC claimed that all the candidates in both parties were invited. This claim was patently false, since Dr. Keyes was excluded, and yet they refused to correct it even after its untruthfulness was pointed out to them repeatedly.

“Keyes staffers, seeing the claims that 'all' the candidates had been invited, even the Democrats, thought perhaps an invitation for Ambassador Keyes had been lost in the mail. It could happen. So, they contacted FRC organizers just to be sure there was no misunderstanding. To their surprise, no such misplaced invitation had ever been offered. And none was ever forthcoming. The explanation given was that the event had been planned for months, that Keyes had entered the race too late, and that no slot in the speaking schedule could possibly be found for him. A shocking claim, considering the fact that Fred Thompson entered the race barely a week before Keyes, that Rudy Giuliani confirmed his attendance only days prior to the event, and that both were given every consideration.”

Keyes’ campaign lands a few punches, but he and his campaign ignore one important point: one of the values of a presidential campaign is that it gives the American people a chance to see how a candidate operates as a manager and a leader. Is he an effective manager, or a bumbler?

Many decry the fact that political campaigning has become so expensive, but you could also say that it gives us a good chance to see how well organized a candidate is, and what his stamina and perseverance is.

Keyes has proven time and again that he is not presidential material. He's a smart guy with a lot of good ideas. He should write books and give speeches, not run for president.

Warren Cole Smith is the editor and publisher of "The Charlotte World" and the Evangelical Press News Service. He can be reached at warren.smith@thecharlotteworld.com

Dobson "Speaks From Heart" At Values Voter Summit

2007-10-20T18:06:00.000-07:00

The capstone of the Value Voters Summit held this weekend at the Washington, D.C., Hilton Hotel was a black-tie gala honoring Dr. James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. More than 1000 people attended the dinner, most of them were among the 2300 who were at the weekend-long Summit, which featured presentations from all of the Republican presidential candidates.

Prison Fellowship's Charles Colson began the evening by outlining what values voters should be looking for in a president -- adding that he knew no one who possessed these qualities so much as Dobson himself, a comment prompting cheers from the audience.

After a concert by country artist Lee Greenwood (he ended with his anthem "God Bless The U.S.A.") former Attorney General Edwin Meese honored Dobson for his work in the public policy area. Meese acknowledged that Dobson "sometimes comes under attack, but Jim has faced these attacks with courage and fortitude, and has persevered with dignity and great determination."

The current president of Focus on the Family, Jim Daly, came next. He called Dobson "tender-hearted, compassionate" and "full of integrity." Elsa Prince, an FRC and Focus on the Family board member (and mother of Blackwater founder Erik Prince), called Dobson "warm" and "sincere" and recounted anecdotes of traveling around the world with the Dobsons, visiting Focus on the Family's international operations. He also called Dobson a man of prayer, both "human and humorous," who can't be interrupted when his beloved University of Southern California sports teams are on the televison.

Danae Dobson said the question she has been asked the most frequently is "What is it like to be the daughter of Dr. James Dobson?" She said it has been "wonderful." She said one of the qualities she admires most is that "he practices what he preaches."

When Shirley Dobson took the podium, she said, "Jim, are you sure you want me to be up here to tell the real truth about you?" The crowd responded with laughter and applause. Shirley Dobson said that even from their undergraduate college days, her husband was confident and determined. She closed her speech by looking directly at her husband of 47 years and saying, "Jim Dobson, I honor you not only as my husband, but as one of the finest men of our time."

A video tribute featured Jerry Regier, Gary Bauer, Joni Eareckson Tada, Donald Wildmon, Don Hodel, and Ryan Dobson.

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, served as master of ceremonies of the event. After the video presentation, he took the stage to present the FRC's first Vision and Leadership Award to Dobson.

After accepting the award, Dobson honored those who honored him. It was 10:15 pm when Dobson took the stage. He apologized for the lateness of the hour, but he had something he wanted to say. First, he said the media had, for months, been saying that the pro-family movement was dying. Dobson turned to the press gallery and said, "To the media who are here: Welcome to the morgue." The remark got a standing ovation.

Then Dobson got serious. "There is an ominous feeling in the air," he said. "There is a possibility that the far, far left is going to capture the 'triple crown' in the fall of '08: the White House, the House, and the Senate. If that happens, the direction of the Supreme Court will change, and if that happens, that will change the direction of this country for the next 30 years." He added, though, that profamily forces wouldn't "let that happen."

Dobson said that we "can't set aside our morals and our principles" to support a presidential candidate who may be electable but who won't advance pro-family causes. "The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil," Dobson said. He said, "We cannot be so terrified of losing that we forget who we are and what we came here to do."

He then turned his remarks toward the institution of marriage. He called for passage of a marriage protection amendment, saying that without it marriage would be thrown "on the ash heap of history."

The crowd grew quiet when Dobson explained what happened at a meeting of conservative activists in Salt Lake City in early October. He said that the group "did not" vote to form a third party. But he also said he was "frustrated with the Republican Party. The Republican Party had the Triple Crown -- the White House, the Senate, and the House -- for six years, and they did absolutely nothing."

He closed by saying there were many causes for optimism. "We are winning the hearts and minds of the people," Dobson said. He cited polls saying Americans overwhelmingly believe abortion is wrong. So, he concluded, conservatives should "stay the course. The Democrats are not a shoo-in, no matter what you are hearing in the media."

Romney Edges Huckabee In "Values Voter" Straw Poll

2007-10-20T17:06:00.000-07:00

The big loser in the straw poll at the Family Research Council's annual "Value Voters" straw poll could be the Family Research Council itself.

First the facts, Mitt Romney narrowly edged Mike Huckabee to win the poll. Romney got 1595 votes (27.62 percent) and Huckabee got 1565 (27.15 percent). Ron Paul came in third with 865 votes (14.98 percent). No one else got more than 10 percent of the vote.

Now the problem for the FRC: the people who actually came to the event in Washington and voted on-site went overwhelmingly for Huckabee. All eight Republican presidential candidates spoke at the event, and Huckabee's speech was a real stem-winder, interrupted by applause more than 20 times and by standing ovations nearly a dozen times. He was the overwhelming winner among those who were there -- outpolling Romney 488 to 99, a nearly 5-to-1 margin. When Tony Perkins announced the results of the straw poll this afternoon, the crowd was visibly stunned by how out-of-sync the results were with the sentiments of the "values voters" in attendance.

In fact, at the press conference immediately after the announcement, a non-media attendee "crashed" the Q & A session to chastise Perkins for the way the event was run. Some bloggers and secular media even led their stories with that episode.

Perkins told me, though, that he had "no second thoughts" about the process. "Everyone had the same chance to get their people out," Perkins said. "Huckabee mounted an aggressive on-line campaign, too."

The bottom line: the poll results didn't reflect the true sentiment of "values voters." That's a problem for values voters who wanted their voices heard clearly and unmistakably. What remains to be seen is whether the FRC, given its bungled management of this straw poll, can maintain its position as the point of the values voters' spear.

One of Charlotte's best-known pastors resigns

2007-06-23T07:23:00.000-07:00

Dr. Dan Burrell, who has served as senior pastor at Northside Baptist Church for the past seven years, announced his resignation from the post on June 3. His resignation is effective September 1.

Neither Burrell nor the church has issued a public statement about the resignation, though Burrell wrote on his popular blog, “For seven-and-a-half years, it has been my pleasure to lead this historic ministry that is filled with wonderful and loving people. But through a variety of circumstances, I have reached a conclusion that it is time for me to step away from the Senior Pastorate at Northside.”

Burrell added, “There have been absolutely no allegations or disputes involving ethics, morality, theology, philosophy or any such matter.”

Dan L. Burrell is a native of Moberly, Mo. Before taking over as senior pastor at Northside he served a church in West Palm Beach, Fla. He holds a doctorate in educational administration and has been active in educational endeavors as well as pastoral activities. He was instrumental in the formation and leadership of the Greater Charlotte Association of Christian Schools. He has served as an adjunct professor for Luther Rice Seminary, Atlantic Coast Baptist Bible College, Boston Baptist College and Liberty University. He has served on the Board of Directors for Piedmont Baptist College, Appalachian Bible College, Boston Baptist College and Tennessee Temple University.

CMS and Diversity: Paternalism Disguised With Good Intentions

2006-09-03T16:36:00.000-07:00

NOTE: Part of the "Observing The Observer" series.

By Warren Smith

Ed Williams’ August 27 editorial in the “Charlotte Observer” on “diversity” highlighted some critical issues for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School (CMS) system. Williams, editor of the "Observer's" editorial pages, of course wants diversity, and he laments that “[p]ublic opinion no longer considered school diversity a priority. Nor did the law. And neither did school leaders.”

I am not opposed to diversity in our schools. The world is a marvelously diverse place, and to see an accurate and true picture of the world reflected in our schools could not help but be a good thing.

But I would argue that a close look at Williams’ editorial reveals a subtle racist ideology that lovers of true diversity and equality -- not to mention freedom and democracy -- should reject just as forcefully as the overt racism of a white supremacist.

But that may not be so obvious without a closer look at Williams’ arguments.

What is Diversity?

At the center of Williams’ argument is the idea that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools are not “diverse.” But what is diversity? Approximately 11 percent of the American population is African-American. Within the past few years, Hispanics have passed African-Americans to become the largest minority group in American. They now represent about 12 percent of the population. As you might expect, in the South the percentage of African-Americans is significantly greater. Charlotte is about 33 percent African-American, about 58 percent white, and about 7 percent Hispanic.

Now, compare this to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, where African-Americans make up a majority, and every other group (except whites) are also represented in greater percentages than in the population as a whole. And let’s look at the individual schools. The “whitest” schools in the district have a black population greater than the 11 percent national average. In fact, many CMS majority white schools are majority white by only a small margin.

So it is hard to understand what Williams means when he advocates for diversity. If the standard for “healthy” diversity is that the schools reflect the racial makeup of the community, we passed that mark long ago. Is Williams arguing for the pendulum to swing back? Surely not. Surely he is not saying (is he?) that blacks now have TOO MUCH power and influence, and for their power and influence to reflect their actual racial makeup in the community, it should go DOWN and not UP.

Perhaps he is talking not about race at all, but about class? It seems that this is at least a part of his argument. He quotes a blue-ribbon committee report saying that some schools should be created that actually strive for “a target of 40 percent low-income students.” This goal is supposedly in response to the fact that some CMS schools have poverty rates in excess of 90 percent.

Since the poverty rate in Mecklenburg County is less than 12 percent, it’s hard to understand how the current and immediate-past leadership could have let this happen. And are we supposed to believe that the same leadership who let this happen could somehow be trusted to lead us out of this abyss? It is also hard to understand how taking a school with 90 percent poverty and turning it into a school with only 40 percent poverty could be accomplished without forcing students – against the will of their parents – into these schools. Williams writes that “coercion is unacceptable,” but he doesn’t say how this goal will be accomplished without coercion. Does he really mean that coercion is unacceptable unless coercion is the only way to accomplish this goal of diversity? All these are vital questions, but – given the limits of our discussion here -- questions for another day.

The as-yet-unanswered question for today remains: What, exactly, does Ed Williams mean when he talks about diversity? It is not pedantic to dwell on this question, because if the word doesn’t actually mean something, it can be re-defined by ideologues to mean whatever you want it to mean to push whatever agenda you want to push. The word has to mean something. It can’t just mean “more” or “less” or “whatever I want it to mean today, but possibly something else tomorrow.” As all previous civilizations understood, and as George Orwell prophetically wrote, if words do not have specific and agreed-upon meanings, they are nothing more than instruments of tyranny.

Identifying Priorities

Now, let’s look at Williams’ second point, that diversity (again, whatever that means) is no longer a “priority” for the public, the law, nor school leaders.

First of all, Williams ignores the obvious possibility that diversity is no longer a priority because it has been achieved – or at least that these three important constituencies believe it has been achieved. The numbers cited above strongly suggest that this is the case.

But let’s concede Williams that point and grant – despite all data to the contrary – that diversity has NOT been achieved. What does it mean, then, when a “majority minority” says they no longer think diversity should be a priority?

It could mean that they consider other things to be more important. After all, isn’t that what identifying priorities really means? When I establish my priorities, I focus on those things that are the most urgent and important, and on those things where my efforts will actually make a difference.

So could it be that these vital constituencies have looked at the data, and they’ve concluded that “diversity” is either not as important as other vital issues -- such as the health and safety of children while on school property, or their academic achievement? Or it could mean that they think diversity, while important, is something that will “show up” on its own? After all, a truly diverse community needs no bureaucracy or infrastructure to create diverse institutions that are drawn from that same community. They’ll happen anyway. As one of my mentors once said, if you throw a brick off a building, you don’t need a committee to get the brick to fall to the ground. Gravity will pretty much take care of that for you.

Should Diversity Be A Priority?

The data strongly suggest that diversity, given any reasonable definition, has been achieved. Williams himself said “public opinion no longer consider school diversity a priority.” This “public opinion” presumably either is or at least is strongly represented by the mostly African-American parents of CMS. Also, that same blue-ribbon committee I mentioned above was co-chaired by Harvey Gantt, Charlotte’s first black mayor and Clemson’s first black undergraduate. That committee, again according to Williams, “treated diversity as an option.”

But if the black parents who now make up a majority of the parents in CMS, and black leaders who now have their hands on the senior-most leadership positions, no longer consider “diversity” a priority, one wonders why Ed Williams thinks he’s so much smarter than they are. One wonders why he would make such a case, and – as we have seen -- with the thinnest of arguments at that.

I will not speculate as to motive, but I will say that – intended or not -- it would be easy to use Williams’ own words to make an argument for paternalism as the true cause of Williams’ call for greater diversity.

So, should diversity be a “priority” in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools? I remain unconvinced by Williams’ editorial. Even our city’s black leaders seem to think other matters are more important. Either that, or they are beginning to recognize calls for “diversity” from liberal, white, do-gooders is the kind of help they do better without.

And because I happen to think that I’m NOT smarter, or better, or in any other way superior to them, I’m willing to take their word for it.

Warren Smith is the publisher of “The Charlotte World.” He can be reached at warren.smith@thecharlotteworld.com This article is the latest in his ongoing “Observing The Observer” series, articles examining “The Charlotte (NC) Observer.”

Deconstructing Reality

2006-08-09T05:32:00.000-07:00

That there is a liberal bias in the mainstream media is a part of the dogma of conservatives. And even many liberal newspaper people will admit, in their private moments, that most newspaper people tend to be more liberal than the communities they serve.

But, interestingly, it is to the editorial pages that both sides resort to make their cases. It’s understandable that conservatives would point to the editorial pages, most of which contain a preponderance of liberal opinion, because it is easy to find evidence there. But many liberals point to the editorial pages. Often, they point to the token conservative columnist and say, “See, we have conservatives on our editorial pages. Or, more often, they confess the liberalism on the editorial pages, but add something like this, “Well, yes, the editorial page may skew liberal, but the rest of the paper is balanced and objective.”

That’s why I thought it would be interesting to take an article not from the editorial pages, but from the front page of “The Charlotte Observer,” and attempt to deconstruct the worldview that is dominant in the newsroom of a typical big-city daily paper. That story is “Churches find little unity on homosexuality.” It is from the June 29, 2006, issue of “The Charlotte Observer,” and it’s written by veteran religion editor Ken Garfield. You don’t have to go any farther than the headline to find problems.

Garfield’s story appears under the headline “Churches find little unity on homosexuality.” Under this head is the following sub-head: “Denominations grappling with division on issues of gay clergy, unions.”

Before proceeding with my critique, it’s important to note that somewhere between 75 and 90 percent of all readers of a newspaper will read no further than the headline. To cite just one study: The Readership Institute Impact Study reported that 85 percent of readers do not read beyond the headline. What this means is that even if Garfield’s story is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – but the headline is a lie – then 85 percent of the readers have been fed a lie.

So, is the headline the truth, or a lie? As it turns out, it is closer to a lie than the truth on two counts. First of all, the head and sub-head fail to accurately represent the story; Garfield’s story carefully sticks to the proceedings of two denominations, the Episcopal Church USA and the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA). The head and sub-head lead the reader to believe that this story is about all denominations, and not just these two.

We might be able to forgive that problem if, in fact, all churches were struggling with that problem, and these two churches were merely emblematic of the problem. But the hard reality is that most churches are not. The largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, is crystal clear in its opposition to homosexual marriage, ordination, and activity. In fact, there are at least a half-dozen Presbyterian denominations. Though the PCUSA is the largest Presbyterian denomination, the combined membership of the other denominations exceeds 1-million. And the PCUSA is the only one of the Presbyterian denominations that is struggling with this issue. Taken as a whole, of the more than 60 Protestant denominations in the country, only the United Church of Christ officially sanctions the ordination of practicing homosexuals.

So what is the factual “bottom line”? The City University of New York did a survey in 2001, called the American Religious Identification Survey. The survey found that 79.8 percent of Americans identified themselves as Christians – including Catholics and all varieties of Protestants. If you take these numbers at face value, you end up with the following situation: while the issue of homosexuality is hotly debated in the culture, and while there is no doubt that a vocal minority continues to raise the question in the ECUSA and the PCUSA, in the vast majority of other Christian churches, homosexuality is a “settled question.”

Of the more than 220-million Americans who identify themselves as Christians, only 1.4-million of them are members of a denomination that sanctions the ordination of homosexuals. This issue is not dividing the American church. It is dividing a very small number of denominations, and – by the way – these denominations are no longer the largest Protestant denominations and they are shrinking fast. To state or imply otherwise is simply not telling the truth about the state of the American Christian church.

In fairness to Garfield, he probably didn’t write that headline. On most big-city dailies, one person writes the story, and another person or other people put the paper together. Of course, that just makes the problems worse, since editors – once removed from the “streets” where facts and reality are stubborn things – become even more likely to get sucked in to the liberal ideological vortex that typifies the leadership of most newspapers.The Bible says that “For lack of knowledge my people are destroyed.” Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to our dealings with the media. Christians should arm themselves with knowledge, and read with discernment, or their faiths can easily be destroyed by the constant diet of falsehoods – large and small – in the mainstream media.

Warren Smith is the publisher of the “The Charlotte World” and the Evangelical Press News Service. He can be reached at warren.smith@thecharlotteworld.com

Media company profits exceed oil company profits

2006-07-09T17:41:00.000-07:00

Oil companies have what Forbes Magazine called "huge bulls-eyes on their backs" because of their record profits. Exxon-Mobil, for example, made $36-billion in 2005. Most of the major newspapers in the country have had at least one article that puts these huge profits in a negative light.

But there is one group of companies that made even bigger profits. You guessed it: media companies, including some of the very companies that own newspapers that -- on their editorial pages -- are calling for a windfall profits tax!

Exxon-Mobil's profit margin in 2005 was about 16 percent. (I'm defining profit here as earnings before interest, taxes, and depreciation.) That's pretty good by virtually any measure. But there were at least 10 media companies that had bigger margins. These media companies include the Washington Post (23%), the New York Times (18%), and Knight Ridder (20%), which was recently bought by McClatchy (28%).

What's interesting is that the company leading the way is Gannett (32%), owner of USA Today. People say that the newspaper business is dead, but does anyone know of a technology company that posted these kinds of numbers in 2005?

OK, there were a few, but not many.

The (pun intended) bottom line is this: If I were a reporter working for a big-city daily, and I wanted to do an expose on the robber-barons of the 21st century, I think I'd check the top floor of my own building first.

Keeping the truth alive

2006-07-04T14:48:00.000-07:00

As a Christian journalist, sometimes – in my more melancholy moments – I wonder if what I and my fellow Christian journalists are doing is having any impact. After all, the mainstream media, with its overwhelmingly liberal and, often, anti-Christian bias, seem to overwhelm our perspective and viewpoint.

But in those moments, I console myself with two thoughts. The first comes from the great poet T.S. Eliot, who once wrote that when we live in a dark age, the goal of Christians, and Christian artists and writers in particular, is not so much to win the battle, but to “keep the truth alive.”

The second thought doesn’t reduce itself so easily to a single sentence. It is, instead, a story about a time that Eliot himself lived through.

In 1940, Hitler’s Nazi troops had overrun Europe. England, which had been a free and sovereign nation for a thousand years, was all that stood against the Third Reich’s totalitarian ambitions for the entire world. Hitler knew that so long as Great Britain remained free, he would never be able to fully secure his gains on the European continent. So Hitler decided to attack.

But he knew that a water and ground assault on Britain would be a bloody and by no means a certain endeavor. So it was imperative that Hitler use his fearsome Luftwaffe to begin bombings against England, to soften the nation’s defenses so that his ground attack would be successful.

Thus began the Battle of Britain in the early fall of 1940, and extending into the spring of 1941. On some days, more than a thousand German planes would attack Britain. But on each of those days courageous though overwhelmingly outnumbered Royal Air Force pilots suited up to meet them. Winning the battle outright was impossible, because on some days the RAF fighters were outnumbered 10 or even 20 to one. So the goal of these RAF pilots was much more focused -- and desperate: If we can’t defeat Germany, we can at least keep England alive.

And so they did. The RAF fighters did not actually defeat the Luftwaffe, but they did force Hitler to change both his strategies and his tactics. The Germans had to abandon their deadly accurate daylight raids. They were forced to bomb only at night. These night time raids were terrifying to the people of London, and – to be sure – they were catastrophic in many ways. But they were much less damaging than daylight raids would have been. Hitler discovered that even though his air forces were superior, their effectiveness could be diminished just enough to allow Great Britain to maintain some semblance of defense against a ground and water assault. Hitler’s plan for a ground invasion of England had to be abandoned.

In the end, a few hundred RAF fighters – and those who supported them – turned back the most fearsome war machine that had ever been assembled. Some historians believe it was the true turning point of the war. Whether you accept that assessment or not, no one has ever quarreled with Winston Churchill’s famous summary of those days: “Never before in the annals of valor, has so much been owed by so many to so few.”

Today, we are involved in a spiritual battle. Just as World War II was in many ways a battle for the survival of freedom against tyranny, so today we are in a battle for the very survival of faith, family, and freedom. And today, as it was then, the enemy controls the air. His message is getting out on the airwaves and in print.

Finally, of course, it is important to realize that God wins the battle. Said more succinctly: The Truth wins! God doesn’t really need us to fight his battles. You may remember that during Jesus triumphal entry into Jerusalem, when the local powers tried to silence the crowds, Jesus reminded us that if the people were silent, then the rocks would cry out.

No, God doesn’t need us. But He gives us the joy of employing our talents in His service. And – of course – in any war, there are casualties. And even the winning side can suffer terribly. So a part of what we do as Christians, whether we are Christian journalists, or Christian activists of any kind, is not so much to bring a victory that is already assured, but to minimize casualties. To keep people out of the direct line of fire of the enemy.

All of this is why Christian journalism is so important. And when I get discouraged about the impact we’re having, I console myself with these thoughts. Just as a small number of RAF pilots could keep England alive until it could be victorious, so Christian journalism can keep the truth alive until, ultimately, Truth itself is victorious.

Warren Smith is the publisher of the Evangelical Press News Service. He can be reached at warren.smith@thecharlotteworld.com

Alternative media carry the day

2006-06-10T12:12:00.000-07:00

All the hoopla regarding the Marriage Protection Amendment was interesting to follow, but one aspect of the week's proceeding went virtually un-commented upon by the media, and that is the role of the gay media in helping the other side carry the day.

First, it's important to note that groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council spill a lot of ink -- and I think justiably so -- criticizing the mainstream media for their anti-Christian and anti-conservative bias.

Yet where did Focus and the FRC go when they wanted to buy ads promoting the Marriage Protection Amendment? To the mainstream media. They put ads in the Washington Post and the New York Times – two publications that had editorialized AGAINST the amendment and whose readers also generally oppose the amendment.

On the other hand, when the pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign (HRC) wanted to mobilize its base, it took out ads in 26 homosexual newspapers.

Obviously, the pro-homosexual side and their alternative media strategy won.

Focus on the Family Action, the entity that actually placed the ads, said otherwise, of course. Spokesman Christopher Norfleet, in response to my questions about this, said they "already had avenues for communicating" with those who read Christian newspapers and magazines. Presumably through their own radio program, magazine, and e-mail lists. Neither would he disclose how much money was spent on the ad campaign in the mainstream media, but the number was probably in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I would argue that Focus and the FRC, to put it bluntly, wasted their donor's money -- and provided aid and comfort to the enemy to boot. For one thing, every time people get a chance to vote at the state level on this issue, the pro-family position wins overwhelmingly. Senators are way out-of-step with their constituents, so the way to change this is to mobilize the conservative activists -- who mostly don't read the mainstream media.

Secondly, there's this fundamental principle of "situational ethics," which presumably the people at Focus on the Family would agree with: "The end does not justify the means." The fact remains that when you advertise in the mainstream media, you are providing financial "aid and comfort" to their worldview. You are enabling them to do what they do. Focus and the FRC are, to turn an old expression on its side, "feeding the mouth that bites them."

By the way, to read my "straight news" account of what happened with the MPA, hit this link:

http://www.worldnewspaperpublishing.com//News/FullStory.asp?loc=TCW&id=1485

NY Times ditches daily stock quotes

2006-05-08T09:50:00.000-07:00

The decision by the New York Times (implemented in early April 2006) to eliminate daily stock quotes is another indication of the tough space daily newspapers find themselves in these days. Coming out once a day is not often enough to break news or provide the kind of up-to-the-minute information many news junkies (and investors) now require and can get from electronic media. But coming out once a day is too frequent to give readers the kind of analysis and perspective -- and fact-checking and accuracy -- they expect from newspapers.

The NY Times is not the first to make this move. The LA Times and several other big-city dailies have already made the adjustment, because few people now read the end-of-the-day quotes delivered to their homes at a time too late to do them any good. By the time most serious investors see the morning paper, their computers have already given them closing quotes on the stocks they care about. And broadcast media are already reporting overseas market numbers -- including Dow futures contracts, which are a relatively reliable indicator for how the market will open in the coming day.

James Cramer, in the April 10, 2006 New York Magazine, said that the entire paper should go on-line. He believes that for the amount of money the Times spends to print and distribute the paper, they could build a world-class portal -- to compete with Yahoo! and Google -- and still retain their new-gathering franchise. It's an interesting idea, and that day may come, but it's also important to remember that Cramer made his money running a hedge fund, not running a media company.

For now, I think we won't see daily papers go away, but we will see their importance -- and their revenue and profit numbers -- diminish for the next decade or so.

Celebrity Journalism

2006-04-15T16:38:00.000-07:00

Thomas Kunkel is a name that most Americans do not know, but he is one of the "thought leaders" in the world of journalism. Kunkel is the president of "American Journalism Review," a bi-monthly publication read by many senior leaders of media companies, as well as by thousands of reporters and editors and journalism school professors. It is published by the University of Maryland's Philip Merrill College of Journalism, where he is also dean. And for those not familiar with j-schools, Maryland's school of journalism is often rated one of the top schools in the nation, in part because it is one of the few major j-schools within commuting distance of Washington, D.C. There's a virtual "moving sidewalk" between College Park, Maryland, and Washington's L Street, where many press outfits have their offices.

Because of all this, I usually take a few minutes to read Kunkel's "Above The Fold" column in AJR, in part because he's become the "designated whiner" for the Washington media establishment. You can usually count on Kunkel to write about what the editors and celebrity reporters are talking about -- but don't dare write themselves for fear of blowing their now increasingly threadbare cover as "honest brokers" of information.

This month's column was no exception. Kunkel wrote about what he called "The Bush administration's penchant for secrecy," calling it a veritable "culture of secrecy." Kunkel offered as exhibit A the example of Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident. He took the vice president and the administration to task for not immediately disclosing the details of the accident. "Basically," Kunkel wrote, "the vice president's people sat on the story because they thought they could."

This is pure ideology, a logical "straw man" who collapses under his own weight. The truth is that it wasn't suppressed. It's true that the story wasn't spoonfed to the pool reporters in front of an evening-news-friendly backdrop. And it's true that the story wasn't accompanied with Administration-generated press releases and backgrounders, which allow the media darlings who cover the White House both file their stories and make their cocktail parties. (Or in the case of this story, make their "star turns" on the weekend talk shows.) But consider how the story did eventually come to light: a local reporter, not a part of the celebrity-ridden Capitol press gaggle, ended up breaking the story the way most good reporters break stories: by asking questions and being curious and having good sources.

In other words, this story was not suppressed, but neither was it spoon fed to the Washington illuminati in a way that gave them their normal, unfair competitive advantage. I believe the real source of the howls from the Washington media was the fact that in this particular case a local reporter scooped them. They were embarrassed, and instead of admit their shortcomings, they lashed out, became defensive, tried to re-direct.

The bottom line is that the media can't have it both ways: If they want to represent the American people in their role as watchdogs, they have to be truly independent. They have to leave both their personal ideologies and their personal ambitions at the door.

Kunkel's comments, defending these bad behaviors and toppling the straw man of "secrecy" and "suppression," suggests that he's worried about his cocktail party invitations drying up, too.

Decline of the Daily

2005-12-15T18:52:00.000-08:00

It’s only a sign, but it is also a sign of the times.

Workmen were dangling from the side of the big white “Charlotte Observer” building on South Tryon Street May 13 adjusting the words “charlotte.com” next to the familiar gothic script of “The Charlotte Observer.”

Elevating the Web site to the same position as the paper was a significant step, according to Philip Meyer, a University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill professor and the author of the recently published “The Vanishing Newspaper.”“Daily newspapers are dying,” said Meyer. “They’re still making lots of money, but that won’t last,” he said. “According to my calculations, based on trends I’ve been studying from the National Opinion Research Center, the last everyday reader of a daily newspaper will completely disappear in October 2044.”

So the “Observer’s” elevation of “charlotte.com” to a place beside what was once one of journalism’s proudest names is a graphic indication of changes that have been taking place, and are to come. Changes that now even leaders at the major daily newspapers across America – including the “Charlotte Observer” – openly acknowledge. These questions, however, remain: What, exactly, are these changes? What caused them? And what will they mean for the cities – including Charlotte – that these newspapers serve?

What’s Going On?

John Morton is arguably the most influential and most often quoted analyst of newspapers in the country. And he says that 1987 was a defining year for the daily newspaper industry. “As a percentage of the adult population, newspaper readership had been going down since the early 1960s, but the actual number of readers had held steady because of population growth and demographic shifts to major cities,” he said. “But 1987 was the first year that the actual number of readers declined.”

Morton said that for many years, newspaper publishers viewed the trend as “troubling, but not critical,” in part because during the 1970s and 1980s the afternoon daily newspaper was disappearing in most markets, including Charlotte, and the remaining daily paper could exercise more control over advertising pricing. And cable television and FM radio were creating chaos in the electronic media. In Charlotte, in 1970, there were only three major commercial television stations, and almost everyone listened to AM radio only. WBT-AM had more than 40 percent of the radio listener market. Today, it is still the leading station in the market (total listenership), but the latest Arbitron rating showed it with less than a 7 percent market share.

“Newspapers can still claim to be a mass medium,” Morton said. He acknowledged that only about 40 percent of households in most major markets take the daily paper – down from 80 percent in the 1960s. However, he said, “they tend to be the most attractive 40 percent.”

But Philip Meyer says that daily papers are reaching a “tipping point.” Meyer admitted that it was easy to claim to be a mass medium when you penetrate 80 percent of households. It was possible in that environment for newspapers to offer “one stop shopping” for advertisers. “You can buy an ad with us and reach the entire market,” Meyer said. And both Meyer and Morton say that this claim of being a mass medium – especially the claim to be the only mass medium – is critical for daily newspapers, because it allows them to set the price of advertising.

“This is the reason,” according to Morton, “that newspapers have been able to maintain 20 percent profit margins with declining readership.” And he said that Knight-Ridder, the “Observer’s” owner, usually beats the newspaper industry average. But that era is over, virtually everyone now says.

Mark Ethridge, who was managing editor of the “Observer” from 1979 to 1988 and now publishes “Charlotte Parent,” said Knight-Ridder, the publicly traded company that owns the “Observer,” “still believes the ‘Observer’ is a mass medium, but it can’t be described as a mass medium if the masses don’t read it.”

Desperate Times, Desperate Measures

Of course, the “Observer” isn’t the only paper feeling these pressures. According to the “American Journalism Review,” the “Observer” was part of the two-thirds of daily newspapers that lost circulation during the six months ending Sept. 30, 2004. And even the numbers that get reported are becoming increasingly suspect. The “Dallas Morning News” is embroiled in a scandal in which it has allegedly padded its circulation numbers. In the aftermath of the scandal, the paper fired 150 employees, including 65 in the newsroom.

The “Observer” has been responding with less draconian measures, but no less desperate measures. Stories are often labeled “Exclusive” in bright red letters, though often these stories are originated by local public relations firms and are leaked to the “Observer” before the rest of the local media so the “Observer” will give them bigger play (see related editorial on page 29).

“I certainly wouldn’t call them ‘exclusives,’” said UNC-Chapel Hill’s Philip Meyer. “Scoops, maybe.” Meyer calls the labels a “sign of something generally wrong with the newspaper. They’re trying to get something for nothing.”

But perhaps the most desperate measure of all is what the papers themselves think of as a kind of salvation: the development of younger readers. According to John Morton: “The fundamental problem is that young people have never been avid newspaper readers. But historically they reach an age when they take it up. That’s not happening now.”

Meyer says that today, when young people reach an age that they want to be more informed, they’re already comfortable with alternative media, especially the Web.“But traditional papers have been reluctant to develop new web products that will intentionally cannibalize their current products,” Meyer said. “That’s an emotionally difficult thing to do. Even those who are doing it are sort of half-hearted about it.”

That’s why the “charlotte.com” sign going up on the “Observer” building was so significant. But it’s also why the media market – both locally and nationally – will continue to fragment. “Advertising on the web is different than advertising in print,” Meyer said. The daily newspaper model is built upon aggregating the largest possible audience and then selling it to advertisers. Advertisers knew that there were lots of people who wouldn’t be interested in their ad on any given day. In fact, there’s an old joke: “I know I’m wasting half my advertising dollars, I just don’t know which half.” But that joke is no longer funny, because the audience is no longer large enough to support that kind of inefficiency.The Web has the ability to aggregate audiences temporarily around a particular story, and the advertising can relate to the story or the user profile. And advertising on the web is “pay for performance,” not pay for market position, which is the daily newspaper model.

John Morton sees the problem slightly differently. He thinks print has a bright future, but it will be a future that looks different from the past. He notes that weekly, alternative newspaper readership has been going up since the 1970s. He points to the “DC Examiner,” a new daily paper in Washington, which delivers 200,000 copies of a free 64-page tabloid newspaper each day, and is being bankrolled by billionaire Philip F. Anshutz, who has bought the “Examiner” name in 62 other markets, including Charlotte.

“The problem is not print, per se,” Morton said. “There’s been talk for decades about a paperless society, but there’s more paper than ever. The issue is fragmentation. Print is not dead. Mass media are dead, or at least dying.”

That thinking was partly behind Mark Ethridge’s decision to leave the “Observer” and ultimately become publisher of “Charlotte Parent,” which now owns sister publications in the Triad and in Raleigh. “The market is moving our way,” he said. “It’s a niched world. Knight-Ridder clearly understands that, and they periodically mimic niche publications. But they have a huge investment in the 'Observer' as a mass medium. And the 'Observer' still is the biggest thing around, but things are changing fast.”

Observing The Observer

Some are concerned about what effect that will have on journalism, both locally and nationally. An indication of that change took place on May 2, 2005, when Managing Editor Frank Barrows announced he would be leaving. It was a significant event, said Mark Ethridge, because Barrows was one of the few remaining staff members with active, hands-on involvement in the stories that won Pulitzer Prizes for the “Observer” back in the 1980s. He was, Ethridge said, a major link to the high-quality journalistic tradition of the paper.

For years, John Morton said, the “Observer” and other dailies have been cutting the “news hole,” that part of the paper dedicated to news and analysis. The “Observer” cut the size of the page nearly a decade ago to reduce paper costs. It has increased the size of the print, an acknowledgement that its readership is aging, which also reduced the length of most stories. There are fewer pages dedicated to news. Over the years, Barrows had been troubled by these changes, changes that all papers were making, but which Knight-Ridder makes more quickly because it is more sensitive to Wall Street than most other media companies. Because it has only one class of stock, the company is potentially vulnerable to takeover, said media analyst John Morton. He said that Knight-Ridder papers have not hesitated to cut newsroom costs to keep margins high. Morton said most publicly traded newspaper companies have net margins of about 20 percent. But Knight-Ridder papers are pressured by senior management to bring much more than that to the bottom line. Former “Observer” employees and other who have had access to “Observer” financial information, say the paper is used to margins in the “high 20s.” Morton said he did not know specifically about the “Observer” situation, but he said that managing editors are often advocates for the newsroom staff with the rest of senior management. “Managing editors [often] get canned for resisting cost cutting measures with good grace,” Morton said.

Barrows himself would not say whether business pressures played a role in his leaving. “I don’t want to say anything about my experiences on that point,” Barrows said. When asked whether his leaving was his decision or the “Observer’s,” he was likewise circumspect: “I’m not going to comment on that.”

Peter Ridder, “Observer” publisher, downplayed the departure, even saying that the managing editor position was not a “top management position.” That comment, when it appeared in the “Charlotte World,” outraged current and former “Observer” staffers, some of whom e-mailed and called the “Charlotte World,” though few wanted to be quoted on the record.

Ridder denied that stock price and profit margins are driving decisions in the newsroom. He bristled at the suggestion that the fact that his name is “Ridder” and that his family owns significant stock is a factor. “I own less than one percent of the stock,” he said. John Morton is unconvinced by that denial. “Tony Ridder [the chairman and CEO of Knight-Ridder and Peter Ridder’s brother] has been very clear that they want to keep profit margins higher than the industry average. That means cutting costs in the newsroom.”

Liberal Bias?

One of the ironies in the decline in readership at the “Observer” and in dailies in general is that most of them are spending millions of dollars on focus groups and market research, but are somehow “tone deaf” to what their markets are saying.

This disconnect was no more evident than in 2002 when Peter Ridder met with representatives from the national Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and Equality North Carolina PAC, a political action committee representing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. The groups wanted the “Observer” to run ads for gay and lesbian couples, and Ridder ultimately decided to do so, though since 2002 only one such advertisement has ever been run, so it is difficult to make a case that the market was asking for it. To conservatives and Christians in the community, it seemed a clear case of promoting an ideology at the suggestion of a few gay activists.

At the time, Northside Baptist Church Pastor Dan Burrell organized a meeting with Ridder that included pastors from some of the area’s largest churches. Burrell called the conversation “very cordial, but very pointed.”Burrell said that the purpose of the meeting was to “express our collective concern” about the “Observer’s” decision and to communicate to the “Observer” that the “leadership of the faith community won’t sit passively by while we see traditional family orientations dismantled by extremists.”Many conservatives cancelled their subscription to the “Observer” over the issue. Though the “Observer” would not say how many, since that meeting, the paper’s daily circulation has fallen by nearly 10,000.

Today, Ridder denies that a slide to the left has been responsible for any of the “Observer’s” woes, though he does not deny a liberal bias. “Everyone is biased,” he said. “I would say we are moderate to left of moderate.” He said that “Observer” endorsements of Ruth Samuelson and Pat McCrory, both Republicans, indicate that they are balanced.

So is there any validity to the idea that the “Observer” and other dailies, because of their long-standing monopoly position, have gotten liberal and arrogant and are simply not good matches for the communities they serve? Ridder: “Well, ‘any’ is a big word. I would perhaps put some credence in that theory. But we do not have a liberal agenda.”

John Morton agrees with Ridder on this question. “Liberal bias could have some impact,” Morton said. “But the overriding factors for the decline of the daily newspaper are technology and demographics.”

The Future

No one the “Charlotte World” talked with for this story believes that the daily newspaper will disappear soon. But almost all of them acknowledged that the daily newspaper is now a niche medium, just like all other media, and that this reality is irrevocable, and will change both journalism and the American culture.

But UNC-Chapel Hill’s Philip Meyer says it’s a change that will be to the good. “The downward slide in readership of the dailies will get steeper,” Meyer said. In fact, he said he believes that the “last everyday reader” of a daily paper will disappear long before October of 2044, which is where the current trend line points. “But that’s not a bad thing,” Meyer said. “The market will work its will, and the dailies will have to decide if they want to harvest their current market position until it erodes completely, or if they want to invest in the future.”

(Originally published in "The Charlotte World": 6/2/2005)

Trouble at Knight-Ridder?

2005-11-28T07:58:00.000-08:00

Regular readers of "The Charlotte World" know that we've written a good bit about the tenure of Peter Ridder as publisher of "The Charlotte Observer," including a notice of his upcoming retirement.

However, now comes word that he is postponing his planned retirement amid what the Associated Press calls "uncertainty about the future of corporate parent Knight Ridder Inc."

Ridder announced in September that he would step down Jan. 1. At that time Knight Ridder named Ann Caulkins, publisher of The (Columbia, S.C.) State as his replacement. But in a letter to Observer employees Nov. 21, Ridder said he is putting off his retirement until the future of the parent company is resolved.

Knight Ridder's largest shareholder, Private Capital Management LP of Naples, Fla., has been agitating for a sale of the company, a call that has been seconded by another large institutional shareholder. Knight Ridder's board said last week it would consider a sale among the “strategic alternatives” aimed at boosting shareholder value. In the letter, Ridder, the brother of Knight Ridder CEO Tony Ridder, said the company asked him to postpone his retirement “until a resolution of the Knight Ridder issue has been finalized.”

More evidence of trouble on South College Street, some insiders are telling me.

Time, not "Time" Magazine, is on Mark Sanford's side

2005-11-20T19:53:00.000-08:00

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is a leader unlike any in America today, and that has liberals and their spokespeople worried.

So worried, in fact, that one of the most prominent liberal outlets, “Time” magazine, recently named him one of the nation’s worst governors. It’s easy to see why. Sanford is everything folks like the liberal editors of “Time” love to hate.

For one thing, he is what in an earlier age would often be called “a man of many parts,” someone whose accomplishments suggest both native ability, and hard work. He excelled in athletics and academics as a young man, made a fortune as an investment banker, and was elected to Congress in the pivotal “Republican Revolution” year of 1994, a year made famous by the “Contract With America,” which promised a smaller, more accountable federal government.

Sanford showed his own fiscal restraint – and a shrewd understanding of the power of symbolic action -- by sleeping in his Washington office and showering in the congressional members’ locker room. But the most significant symbol of his tenure in Congress was the fact that he left after only six years. When he ran for Congress the first time, he said he would serve only three terms. Nobody much believed him. But Sanford stunned everyone by honoring his word, and not just to run for something else, but to return home to his 3,000-acre farm near Beaufort and enjoy his growing family – which now included four young boys.

Then Sanford did something that doesn’t get mentioned much in his official biographies. He joined the military. At age 44, a time when many career military personnel are retiring, he joined the Air Force Reserves. I sat with him in his office in the Columbia Statehouse in 2003 and asked him, as respectfully as I could, “What in the world were you thinking?” He laughed and said, “My wife asked me that, too.” But then he got serious. As a member of the International Relations Committee, he often traveled with military escorts. “Often,” Sanford said, “I would end up on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, or with troops in Germany, and I just became profoundly impressed with the United States military as a leadership organization.” Sanford also said he came to believe that we had “disconnected the rights that go with being an American from [the] responsibilities that go with being an American.” He said he wanted his four boys to know they had a responsibility to serve, and he wanted to lead his boys with actions, not just words.

Sanford's penchant for striking just the right chord with words, image, and action is a hallmark of his leadership style: One of his first official acts as governor was to go to Orangeburg, S.C., and apologize to a mostly black audience for the infamous Orangeburg Massacre, a nasty incident of racial hatred that had long been a blight on the state’s history.

When he wanted to cut state spending, he exercised the line-item veto more than 100 times on the state budget. But the legislature, controlled by his own party, overrode most of his vetoes, so Sanford brought two pigs into the Rotunda of the Capitol to make the point that there was too much pork in the budget. House Speaker David Wilkins called the pig stunt “childish” and “insulting,” and the state’s media said it proved that Sanford couldn’t even get along with his own party.

Ultimately, though, Sanford had the last squeal. He managed to keep spending growth to 1 percent, cut the state’s budget deficit by more than 90 percent, and got most of his revolutionary 16-point reform package passed. Sanford was named “most conservative” governor in American by the American Conservative Union. The Wilkins-led House of Representatives, on the other hand, was named “Porker of the Month” in June 2004 by Citizens Against Government Waste.

Now, there is an informal campaign to draft Sanford to run for president in 2008. Lots of conservative bloggers are calling him a “dream candidate,” someone who has the support of pro-lifers, the NRA, and libertarians. He told me as recently as this month that he’s going to run for governor again, not president. And, as we have already established, Sanford has a record of being as good as his word. So for now I believe him.

What I also believe is that he would make a great president. I hope he runs, and I hope he wins. For Mark Sanford, not yet 50 years of age and with tenures as Congressman and governor already under his belt, may not have “Time” on his side. But there are many of us who believe that he certainly has time on his side.

And for a guy this good, we’re willing to wait.

Warren Smith is the publisher of The Charlotte World. He can be reached at warren.smith@thecharlotteworld.com

Welcome to Warren Smith's Blog

2005-11-18T14:46:00.000-08:00

Welcome to my blog.

This blog will be devoted -- more or less -- to a critique of the mainstream media, with a particular emphasis on "The Charlotte Observer," my hometown daily paper.

I have another blog that is devoted to my thoughts about the evangelical Christian sub-culture in America. That blog, which I call the Christian Industrial Complex, is at this address:

www.blogspot.christianindustrialcomplex.com

For a more robust picture of what I do, you can go to the web-site of our newspaper:
www.worldnewspaperpublishing.com At that site, I have archived literally thousands of editorials, movie reviews, and other articles.

Thanks for checking out this blog. My hope and prayer is that you find it helpful in your own thinking and in your personal spiritual journey.

Cordially,

Warren