Hey newspaper editors: Want to make sure nobody complains about “bias” ever again? There’s a simple solution! Let them eat blog. Julie M. Moos, managing editor of Poynter Online (“everything you need to know to be a better journalist”) asks “Are there people of a particular faith (Jewish, Baptist, Catholic, other) who feel ignored [by your paper]?”

Sure there are. But there’s no need to alienate anybody, so Poynter thinks “outside the box”: “What if media organizations gave them blogs and let them reflect religious life in the community, under your banner?” Neat idea. Let’s call it the “internets.”

I read The NYTimes. I’ve noticed there’s not a lot of coverage of the widespread, anti-charismatic belief that the “gift of tongues” is, in fact, demonically-inspired. Can I have a blog to preach that? I’ve also been frustrated by The New York Post‘s failure to fairly cover the popular Satmar anti-Zionist perspective. And while we’re on that subject, may I suggest that The Wall Street Journal give a blog to Jews for Jesus? There’s an impressive castle on Connecticut Ave. in Washington operated by the Scientologists — maybe WaPo could sponsor a blog dedicated to Dianetics?

Ok, enough. It was an earnest idea, floated in good faith (so to speak). But it points to a common assumption about religion: That “belief” is really a set of demographic niches. And that most of these niches are peopled by folks whose full range of views could be “under [the] banner” of a secular newspaper without, um, rightfully alarming a lot of readers upset, for instance, by clicking onto their local rag only to find a blog denouncing Islam as a religion of terror, or Christianity as a deathcult of infidels.

There are reasons, good and bad, why some people work for newspapers and some do not. Moos titles her milquetoast manifesto “Journalism & Blogging: It’s About Diversity.” Well, not really. It ought to be about journalism. We can go to the websites linked above to get insider views. When we open our paper — in print or online — we’re counting on a little distance. When a paper gets too close, we question not so much its “objectivity” (a fetish of journalistic literalists) as its perspective. What can a journalist see with his or head shoved up a source’s — you get the idea.

Of course, we’re accustomed to “opinion” on the op-ed pages. But politics — especially when interpreted solely through current events — is not the same as religion, most of which relies to greater or lesser extent on an ultimate disavowal, real or feigned, of current events. And almost all op-ed politics are evangelical, in the sense that pundits write to persuade, whereas very few religious traditions are — in which case, interpretation for outsiders who aren’t about to join comes in handy.

I love religious blogs. To me, they’re one of the best things about the web. They let me church-hop — and shul-hop, and mosque-hop, and cult-hop — when I’m stuck in my office. Religious bloggers, when they’re good, dip into kairos, meaning-making time, referential to much more than the present circumstances. Newspapers, when they’re good, get the chronos correct: what just happened. In religious blogs, I look for clarity of expression, of course, but also an exhibitionist intimacy — I want religious bloggers to show me what they believe. Newspapers? Not so much. I don’t need an intimate experience from my paper, I need an accurate one.

— Jeff Sharlet