For those of you who may not be familiar with the concept of advocacy journalism I can explain it rather simply, there are people who believe that the illusion of objectivity in mainstream medium was an illusion, a delusion, and something best not embraced. In contrast to the appearance of being at a remove, of being "objective", advocacy journalism puts the convictions of the journalist as observer and interviewer researcher front and center. This is a form of journalism in which, at its best, we are not seeing yellow journalism in the archetypal "bad" sense but a kind of advocacy in which the journalist puts his or her convictions on the table and does research. Their bias and perspective may color how they view the truth but, if you will, their bias, if they are pursuing the truth, will not necessarily get in the way of reporting the facts.
Now obviously a person may object that any links to this publication can only be links to highly biased and unprofessional journalism. Sure, bear with me, however.
There is a certain pastor who apprenticed for a time in some capacity in this place and as Jesus once put it, it is enough for a student to be like his teacher. This pastor has distanced himself publicly from things like May Day for marriage as ineffective and being a bunch of suburban pastors and Dobson fans showing up, protesting, and basically doing nothing beneficial for the actual city (a perspective I happen to agree with, by the way). However, be that as it may, certain types of confrontational rhetoric about what constitutes a manly man may, to make this point obvious, indicate an essential continuity of both rhetoric and position. In other words, certain weaknesses regarding the use of rhetoric in the confrontation of opposing views may have a homiletic generational mark to them, a kind of DNA. The mustard plant was once a mustard seed.
Bias in this publication's coverage? Well, sure, they don't pretend otherwise. Factually inaccurate? That would have to be verified. A publication can publish a lot of stuff you don't like for ideological reasons and not necessarily wrong about the essential details of the story. As with another story, the bias inherent in the article is not really prima facie proof that it is inaccurate. At the risk of employing an outlandish example, Satan can still quote the Bible accurately and in context. Obviously I'm not suggesting The Stranger is Satan in any literal way, I evoke and allude. And since Satan is allowed by God to torment Job and Satan is not wrong to consider how Job has been protected by God the obscurity of these sayings is not really obscure.
But I do have other things to consider, like the wonderfully entertaining new Star Trek film. I plan to get to that in a bit and share a bit about what it has been like to be an ex-Trekkie who has rediscovered some of what has made Trek fun.