Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Will the Christian Progressives Please Stand Up?

Posted by Guest Blogger at 10:29 AM on May 29, 2007.


Howie Klein: Jerry Falwell's death may have created an opening for more reasonable religious voices to come through.
jerryfalwell
falwell

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Howie Klein, originally appeared on Down With Tyranny!

"As this study documents, coverage of religion not only overrepresents some voices and underrepresents others, it does so in a way that is consistently advantageous to conservatives. . . .

"Despite the fact most religious Americans are moderate or progressive, in the news media it is overwhelmingly conservative leaders who are presented as the voice of religion. This represents a particularly meaningful distortion since progressive religious leaders tend to focus on different issues and offer an entirely different perspective than their conservative counterparts."

--from the Executive Summary of Media Matters' new report, "Left Behind: The Skewed Representation of Religion in Major News Media"


Whether it's a symptom or a result, one all but inevitable component of the gradual (oh-so-gradual) loosening of the ultra-loony Far Right's six-year-long death grip on the country has been a weakening of the tyranny of the so-called Christian Right--the vast network demagogic megalomaniacs and racketeers who took large segments of the country hostage with what can most charitably be called "junk" religion.

I'm sure it would be a mistake to over-estimate the weakening of this grip, but even some of its hostages seem to have begun to notice the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the right-wing Christigoons. As the surprisingly muted response to the passing of the unspeakable Rev. Jerry Falwell showed, more moderate evangelical leaders are already showing concern to distance themselves from the looniest of the Christigoon patriarchs.

And more and more we're finally hearing voices of honorable religion speaking up in counterpoint to the debased version that dominates the American "religious revival."

In these wars there hasn't been much that those of us on the sidelines--non-observant Jews, for example--could do except wait. I certainly understood that persons of sanity in the ranks of American Christianity felt under siege, especially as the ranks of their followers shrank while the deluded hosts of the junk religionists swelled. Here and there you occasionally heard a lonely voice, but the loneliness of those voices only underscored their isolation.

What I never stopped to consider was that all through this nightmare there have been sensible religionists trying to be heard, but having to fight their way through the same media blackout that voices of reason in all spheres have had to contend with. Of course, once the idea is introduced, the logic is immediately evident.

Now Media Matters has undertaken a study of the subject, and issued a report with the title LEFT BEHIND: The Skewed Representation of Religion in Major News Media, which you can either read online or download in PDF form.

I confess that I haven't read the report itself, and it may take me a while to get it. But the Executive Summary provides a pretty good idea. I would encourage you to read it while asking yourself, "Is any of this really a surprise?"

It would surprise few people, conservative or progressive, to learn that coverage of the intersection of religion and politics tends to oversimplify both. If this oversimplification occurred to the benefit or detriment of neither side of the political divide, then the weaknesses in coverage of religion would be of only academic interest. But as this study documents, coverage of religion not only overrepresents some voices and underrepresents others, it does so in a way that is consistently advantageous to conservatives.
As in many areas, the decisions journalists make when deciding which voices to include in their stories have serious consequences. What is the picture of religious opinion? Who is a religious leader? Whose views represent important groups of believers? Every time a journalist writes a story, he or she answers these questions by deciding whom to quote and how to characterize their views.
Religion is often depicted in the news media as a politically divisive force, with two sides roughly paralleling the broader political divide: On one side are cultural conservatives who ground their political values in religious beliefs; and on the other side are secular liberals, who have opted out of debates that center on religion-based values. The truth, however is far different: close to 90 percent of Americans today self-identify as religious, while only 22 percent belong to traditionalist sects. Yet in the cultural war depicted by news media as existing across religious lines, centrist and progressive voices are marginalized or absent altogether.
In order to begin to assess how the news media paint the picture of religion in America today, this study measured the extent to which religious leaders, both conservative and progressive, are quoted, mentioned, and interviewed in the news media.
Among the study's key findings:
* Combining newspapers and television, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed in news stories 2.8 times as often as were progressive religious leaders.
* On television news -- the three major television networks, the three major cable new channels, and PBS -- conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed almost 3.8 times as often as progressive leaders.
* In major newspapers, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed 2.7 times as often as progressive leaders.
Despite the fact most religious Americans are moderate or progressive, in the news media it is overwhelmingly conservative leaders who are presented as the voice of religion. This represents a particularly meaningful distortion since progressive religious leaders tend to focus on different issues and offer an entirely different perspective than their conservative counterparts.

Digg!

Tagged as: falwell, religious religious right

Howie Klein was president of his freshman class, drove to Afghanistan and Nepal, became the president of Reprise Records and started a blog called Down With Tyranny. He's always hated tyrants.


Copenhagen: Getting Past the Urgency Trap
Copenhagen is the next step forward, and we’ll accept it with greater equanimity if we understand that conventional thinkers have to work their toward deeper transformation
Post by Sara Robinson. November 28, 2009.
Hey Gov. Kaine, Restore Voting Rights for Felons
This is pretty basic, folks.
Post by Tara Lohan. November 28, 2009.
Selling Out Democracy in Honduras: The U.S. and the Honduran Election
Honduras' November 29 election has been rightfully scorned as a sham by political leaders across the hemisphere. With the exception, that is, of President Obama.
Post by Isabel Macdonald. November 28, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Religious Silence
Posted by: oregoncharles on May 29, 2007 8:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One big factor in the skewed coverage is that reporters pay attention to the loud and the new or exceptional. In this context, the rather sudden rise of the KnowNothings to political power, which they had previously avoided, was News in a way that the presence, and slow decline, of the liberal churches was not.

Another big factor, of course, was the validation of the Religious Right by the rise of "conservatism" (I don't see anything conservative about it, but that's by the way.) The right-wing churches may have actually gained in numbers as the mainstream churches declined, too. Other alternatives, like Buddhism and Wicca, certainly did.

However, there is another factor: the liberal churches maintained a deep silence about the impact of the fanatic ones. Even given the skew in coverage, I think we would have heard announcements that the Rightists were, to say the least, unchristian. For one thing, they would have been on the much-reported topic of the Religious Right. And reporters love a conflict.

I'm convinced that it took the liberal churches a long time to realize, and admit, that a large portion of the Church had turned bad. There was a strong inclination not to speak evil of "fellow" religionists - sort of like sisterhood. They finally seem to have caught on, and further to have realized that they themselves are threatened by the rise of fanaticism with a political face. Not only does it reflect badly on their own religion; but guess who would be the first target if the Falwells actually gained full power? Liberal christians, of course: traitors to the cause.

I should say that I'm personally completely unreligious, although I grew up a Presbyterian (the liberal branch - there is also a dominionist branch). Indeed, I don't consider religion a fundamentally positive force. But I do see that the ethical teachings of Jesus put good Christians firmly on the side of progressives, especially when they have also adopted the principles of the Enlightenment: secularism and tolerance. (Which were developed largely to stop the various flavors of Christians from killing each other and a lot of the bystanders. The Religious Wars were fresh history for the Founders.)

Let me clarify the term "secular": it means espousing the separation of religion and state. It does not mean "unreligious". You can be deeply religious and believe that the government has no business meddling with your church, nor vice versa. Indeed, a lot of people are and do. It does mean that the GOVERNMENT should be entirely non-religious. As it turns out, strict secularism empowers religion, which is vastly more important in the US (90%) than in Europe, where many countries have established churches - that is, paid for by the government. And less than 20% of people bother to go to church or pay attention to religious values. It's enough to make me support the establishment of religion. Almost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]