February 27, 2003
"YOU MEAN THEY REALLY BELIEVE THIS STUFF?":
Journalists' skepticism hinders religion coverage (DAVID SHAW, February 23, 2003, LA Times)Television news programs virtually ignore religion, and even good newspapers with weekly religion pages and full-time religion writers don't consistently give religion the kind of serious attention throughout the paper that would seem warranted by the "powerful role" it plays in the lives of most Americans, says Doug Underwood, in his recent book "From Yahweh to Yahoo!: The Religious Roots of the Secular Press.""Members of the faith community are on target," Underwood writes, "when they complain about the incapacity or the unwillingness of journalists to take seriously the importance of the spiritual dimension in the lives of so many people."
Indeed, media coverage of not just religion but also of politics, science, psychology and technology, among other subjects, would be "much better if journalists better understood the role religion plays as a motivating force in so many areas of society," says Underwood, a former reporter, who's an associate professor of communications at the University of Washington.
This is especially true now, of course, when the threat of terrorism and the seemingly intractable hostilities in the Mideast have their roots, at least partially, in religion.
Although Underwood says journalists' moral and social justice values often spring from the same motivation as those 64% of Americans who say they attend weekend worship services at least once a month, most journalists tend to be less traditionally religious.
Surveys show that Americans are among the most devout people in the world, and spirituality is routinely cited as one of the most important forces in their lives. But Robert Bellah, a professor of sociology at UC Berkeley, once told me that most journalists are "simply blind to religion. They think it's ... something only ignorant and backward people really believe in.
"This is not necessarily a conscious judgment," Bellah said, just part of most journalists' "general worldview."
How can it not be detrimental to news coverage that the people doing it don't even understand their fellow Americans' beliefs? You can especially see the shortcomings when it comes to someone very much in the public eye. How long did it take for the Press to figure out that George W. Bush's faith informs his politics--about four years? Remember when the GOP candidates were asked their favoirite philosopher and he said "Jesus Christ"? Reporters said he'd obviously been stumped by the question and just grasped at a name that would win favor on his Right? Who now doubts his answer was true? Who now thinks he has a Right? Posted by Orrin Judd at February 27, 2003 2:15 PM
Yes ... I remember that well ... they were all shocked ... gasps from the crowd. I remember Keyes in particular giving W a sidelong glance that said "Jesus Christ is right ... Jesus Christ that a rube like you is running for President." (I too thought it was a poor answer, but for different reasons.)
And yes, the press does general reflect a secular viewpoint ... perhaps because of their assumption that they act as the Fourth Branch. It has to be detrimental to have no appreciation for a particular set of widely-held beliefs. The question is whether the lack of reporting we see constitutes a subjective bias in reporting, or an editorial bias in planning story budgets. I think a subjective bias in reporting is much worse, and reflects just the negative consequence you raise.
For the most part, though, I think the mainstream press has always realized that its about making a public claim toward the sectarian. For example, while a particular sport may not appeal to everyone ... football, say ... devoting lots of column inches to the sport won't necessarily alienate readers. Devoting lots of column space to Catholicism, however, might ... because sectarian interests ultimately intersect with questions of morality and normative preferences. Secular interests do not. The press believes its role is to be inherently objective (although we know this is an impossible ideal) … when devoting space to a particular religion, they are inherently promoting a particular, and morally subjective, world view.
Balderdash. When I worked at one of the most left big dailies in the country, our religion writer was an ordained United Methodist minister. He was edited by a Roman Catholic priest who had left the priesthood. While I was there, his assignment editor quit newspapering to enter a Presbyterian seminary.
And, of course, they had me, and I understood what Americans believe as well as any of them.
Harry:
You see witchfinders under your bed for cripessake.
I don't think I have ever seen a newspaper that doesn't include a Faith section that runs at least once a week. Here in Detroit, the Free Press runs probably at least one major positive faith related article (most having to do with how swimmingly Muslims, Jews & Christians can get along) outside the Faith section.
And, like any other institution, religion gets its share of scandal and controversy column inches.
To the extent there is a bias towards secularism, it is probaby because the press has an audience that includes all sects, and an institutional desire to maintain objectivity toward each of them.
Regards,
Jeff Guinn
I see 'em because they are there.
The fact of the matter is, I've been newspapering since 1966, and at papers big and small, and I am the only frank atheist in any of those newsrooms. There were plenty of skeptics and freethinkers, but they were equally skeptical of scientists, politicians etc.
Religion gets a free ride in this country and has ever since Col. Ingersoll died.