Spend a few minutes at http://hirr.hartsem.edu/megachurch/database.html, see which one deserves the use of the word "some". Why couldn't the author determine which was more representative and thus accurately portray what most churches are doing? If I'm right and most churches have closed, wouldn't it be more persuasive to read an article that says "everyone who believes what you do is doing this, you should too"?
I agree, it would have been good to do a proper study, but surely you agree that the fact that these three are open is newsworthy, no? It's not science, it's journalism.
Did you similarly complain about the rigor of all the articles last weekend written about people being irresponsibly crowded in parks and on beaches?
The first 15 unique churches on this list that had active links are all meeting online. But the first 15 coin flips could be heads, I suppose.
It's newsworthy, but I'd much rather it be reported in a responsible way.
However if the two "sides" are unequal, it gives the illusion of evenness when there is no actual equivalence.
You don't see this misrepresentation when it leaves an impression of an even split between churches that follow public health standards and those that don't. You do see this misrepresentation when it leaves the impression that there is a scientific debate about global warming. But the problem is the same in both cases - the format itself leads to systemic misrepresentations of the world.
With an opening line of, "Most churches have responded to COVID-19 with measures like live streaming their services. But a few holdouts disregard the dangers..."
This makes it clear that we are now talking about how the crazies view the world. Which slants everything else that people will respond to.
It transforms "those crazy Christians" into "the crazies among the Christians". Which draws a more accurate picture of most Christians.
To be fair though, and getting to the point I was teasing: it's very odd to find us having this argument about "implications" about groups in media coverage in defense a a community that is itself rife with equivalently unrepresentative coverage of immigrants, progressives, feminists, etc... All of these groups are constantly made to answer for the crimes of their most extreme members in the right wing press. It just seems a little... off that all of a sudden HN seems to care so much about this kind of journalistic integrity.
My opinions are reasonably consistent. However if you try to draw a consistent picture out of a mix of what I say and what others say, you will fail horribly. Sure, I'm happy to point you to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE or https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulato... to give other viewpoints on how laying everything out as a debate between two sides poisons our society. But I wouldn't expect most of HN to be on board with the strength of my views.
I also don't agree with your characterization of the "HN community". This site usually doesn't report on the coverage of the right wing press. When it does, most commentators seem to lean towards the outlook described in https://www.wired.com/story/political-education-silicon-vall.... Admittedly with outspoken exceptions.
As for me personally, I am a libertarian atheist whose explicit goal is to be right..eventually. In that end I care deeply that my impressions reflect reality, particularly for people that I disagree with. I am painfully aware that natural cognitive biases will lead it to be comfortable for me to accept an echo chamber. I care about the misrepresentation not because I respect Christianity - I don't - but because I care that my thinking correctly represents Christians.
When Christians kill other people or themselves, they go to hell (if you take their believes at face value). They should be THANKFUL to the people who are "attacking" them so they don't kill other people, kill themselves, then go to hell.
However, these types of articles are often used to cast aspersions on all Christians. That was essential the point of the parent comment. Why single out megachurches? You could find plenty of similar examples in the business, social and government realm of large groups continuing to meet.
Though going to church might be the worst of all options since church goers tend to skew more to the older side of the population.
Actually, probably not, which is why "megachurches" is an important qualifier here. From my observations, megachurches tend heavily to be independent and evangelical, and tend to have much younger members. They also tend to have a lot of (Christian) rock music as part of the services. The old people don't join those churches; those people are still in the mainline Protestant churches they've been going to for many decades, which have traditional service, and don't preach to you that God loves rich people more.
The media's dislike for anything Christian makes this a two quadrant story.. possible three if the mega churches are in a red state.
Wait, what?
Why not? From my observations, megachurches tend to be very different from many other Christian churches, including in theology. Christians aren't all the same, but there are some definite things that many, if not most, megachurches have in common, that they don't share with other denominations. (Starting with "denominations", in fact: megachurches usually don't belong to one.)