Peter O'Toole as T. E. Lawrence in Lawrence of Arabia.

Peter O’Toole as T. E. Lawrence in Lawrence of Arabia. Columbia Pictures

A federal judge has declared part of a law that criminalizes polygamy unconstitutional. Why actor Peter O’Toole, who has died, once said, “No one can take Jesus away from me.” And President Obama is talking about Jesus again, this time for the Christmas season.

We’re testing new formats for the roundup, so let us know what you think of this version.

In the multi-religious world:

In the Catholic world:

In the Jewish world:

In the Mormon world:

In the Muslim world:

In the mainline Protestant world:

In the evangelical world:

In the Hindu/spirituality world:

In politics:

In international news:

In long form:

In opinion:

In Christmas wars:

In silliness:

Your next read:

Categories: Beliefs

Sarah Pulliam Bailey

Sarah Pulliam Bailey

Sarah Pulliam Bailey is a national correspondent for RNS, covering how faith intersects with politics, culture and other news. She previously served as online editor for Christianity Today where she remains an editor-at-large.

36 Comments

  1. This new format of simp lying taking tweets (with the tweeters’ sometimes whimsical abbreviations) is lazy and consumes more screen space (causing more scrolling).

  2. Charlotte Hunter

    First glance at the Twitter format . . . I didn’t like it. Second look . . . not that bad. Ultimately I come down on the negative side, however, because the Twitter format robs the RNS roundup something that has delighted me for the past couple of years: The humor of the short intros to each story. These sometimes are almost as interesting as the stories they introduce, and more than once I’ve read a story–one I might otherwise have passed over–because of the cleverness of the intro. Now if all the RNS folks can do 140 characters AND funny, go with the Twitter format. Otherwise, you become too like other news digests.

  3. I don’t care for the new format either. More than the scrolling (which is a nuisance) and the loss of the slyly clever intros (a big reason to read the report!), I mind the categorization. It’s hard to imagine that what we most need today is more division. Is the idea that I can just skip down to “my” news bits? One things I value about the daily RNS reports is the breadth of coverage. I was sorry to see the Muslim news go to a breakout format, but this is even worse. Please, please, go back to the perfectly workable format you’ve had!

  4. The previous format was scrollable, simple and easy to browse. That’s why I signed up for it. This format is not as scrollable; busy and complicated; and not as easy to browse due to its formatting. I also miss the news being in the form of a light commentary that made me smile once in awhile. It was much more personal and hospitable than this.

  5. Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    Article author

    Woo hoo! Thanks for all the feedback. Truly, very helpful. I disagree with those who say it’s lazy. It took me a long time to find the stories, tweet them out and then compile them! We’re still playing with this, so thanks for your patience.

    • You are not lazy. Your research wasn’t lazy. Putting this new format together was a lot of work, and people are always crotchety when something they were used to changes.

      That said, this new format really seems like a solution in search of a problem. It appears lazy, and that appearance won’t change just because you told us you worked hard.

      I don’t want to interpret Twitter abbreviations to get my news. I want a simple sentence describing an article. Then I would like a link to that article.

      I can understand why you wanted to shake things up. So many news websites have something like this, and social media presence is a must for success these days. This is not the way to build that presence.

      I loved the roundup. Not because I’m a crotchety old man who hates new-fangled Tweet sites (I’m 26), but because it was unpretentious, simple, and stayed true to what it was.

  6. If it’s not broken, don’t try to fix it. I’ve noticed a couple different formats in the past weeks, but prefer the “old” design you’ve used for the past year or longer. What’s wrong with that format?

  7. I don’t enjoy the twitter format. It doesn’t add information nor entertainment. It lends anaura of cheapness to your well selected articles. Next, the introduction of each new article by the “RNS” initials in a red box wastes space and, to me, is quite unattractive. I liked the articles numbered, for reference, and with bold font introducing the subject. I was able to scan for content of interest to me. The twitter format is a real no go.

  8. S. L. Frisbie, IV

    Looks like the vote so far is 15-1 negative; now it’s 16-1. As a retired journalist with 50 years experience, I say stick to a format which gives maximum information in a reasonable amount of space, with minimal reliance on having to click on a link for the rest of the story. Your content is what makes this site one of my favorites; extra bells and whistles get in the way of the message. That said, keep up your good work in putting out a lot of both serious and whiimsical content.

  9. Please go back to your previous format. Besides being disjointed, this one does not let the personalities of the individual compilers shine through — something I’ve always valued about RNS.

  10. Hate this format. Why make us work harder just because you work harder? What was broke about the simple link format that made us lazy people get the news at a glance?

  11. I’m afraid I’m with the nay-sayers on the new format. Love this daily update, but I see a lot of these tweets in other settings. I depend on RNS for the connective tissue and light-hearted interpretation. Keep tinkering.

  12. I like the number of stories and appreciate the work that has gone into it. But it robs the reader of all the delightful stuff others have mentioned. Please go back, to the last version, perhaps, or, best, to the way you had it originally – a daily delicious masterpiece. Thanks!

  13. Since everyone’s pretty much covered my response to the new format, I’ll just add my voice to those that quite liked the format that was going before the recent round of innovations (the first experiment that I remember was the numbered entries). Flow and humor, bad puns (also known as puns)–these are some of my favorite parts of the Roundup.

  14. Really DISLIKE the new format. Far too busy and distracting, and as someone (like about 90% of Americans) who is not on Twitter, the format and some of the abbreviations are not natural to me. If this format were to be kept you would lose a reader.

  15. On the last new format poll, I said I didn’t like the numbered entries as much, but I would not stop reading. This twitter format would make me stop reading. And I say that as a twitter user. If I wanted a twitter feed, I would use twitter rather than visit your website.

  16. No, no, no. Do not like this format! I agree with Nate: this format would make me stop reading. The best format for me is the one with bold headings and your great commentary.

  17. David McCullough

    I agree with all those who have enjoyed the old format and don’t care for the new one. I’m not necessarily opposed to change. A little tweek would have been fine. What’s missing here, as others have noted, is the way each curator’s personality and style was able to shine through. This just makes it sorta bleh. Take it as a complement that there have been times when I didn’t follow a single link and still enjoyed the round-up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.