This Week in God

June 2, 2007

First up from The God Machine this week is an important report from Media Matters that didn’t get quite the attention it deserved.

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 over-represents some voices and under-represents 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.

One of my biggest frustrations when it comes to faith discussions in our political discourse is that “religious issues” are necessarily characterized as conservative issues: abortion and sex. When the media presents matters of faith to the public, and news outlets exclude centrist and progressive voices, it reinforces the notion that to be religious is to be conservative.

Media Matters’ report showed striking results: In major newspapers, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed 2.7 times as often as progressive 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.

Note to media: there are plenty of progressive religious leaders out there, anxious to appear in the news. Time to expand your Rolodexes.

Also this week, the AP noted yesterday that the “personal faith of candidates has become a very public part of the 2008 presidential campaign.” The WaPo adds today that these personal faiths are leading to the most organized religious outreach to religious voters in Democratic presidential campaign history.

Although Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is a Christian, he “embodies the basic ideals and values of most Hindus,” said Prianka S., a Hindu from Chicago.

Obama’s “love for Israel” is “evident not just in his work, but also in his heart,” said Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), an Orthodox Jew.

Obama “represents true faith,” said the Rev. Bertha Perkins, a Baptist minister in New Hampshire.

Those are among the gushing testimonials to Obama on his “People of Faith for Barack” Web site, which officially launches today.

Obama is the first of the Democratic presidential contenders to launch a religious outreach Web site, but the others won’t be far behind. Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) is set to unveil his “moral leadership” Web site tomorrow, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) campaign is working on one, staffers said.

Edwards stumbled in February when two religious bloggers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, resigned from his campaign over past writings that blasted religious conservatives as “Christofascists.” Much of his religious outreach has since been handled directly by his campaign manager, former Rep. David E. Bonior (D-Mich.), who spent a year in a Roman Catholic seminary before going into politics.

Obama’s effort is headed by Joshua DuBois, a former Senate aide who is associate pastor of a Pentecostal church in Cambridge, Mass. DuBois calls himself a “political progressive, religious evangelical” — exactly the demographic that all three Democratic candidates will be courting Monday night at a forum sponsored by Jim Wallis’s magazine, Sojourners, and carried live by CNN.

Just so long as none of the Democratic candidates identify Jesus as their favorite political philosopher, I’ll be fine.

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.

Absolutely. I am so sick of the media trying to tell Catholics and people in general who Catholics are and what they believe.

  • On a related note, I was considering writing a blog entry about the movie King Arthur, which seems to be written from a conservative slant like 300. In the movie, clergy are represented as Saddam-like torturers of pagans, and it seems to be an anti-Catholic message. But, the film being the usual 2-hour prelude to faked violence that we are accustomed to from any movie with action and adventure in it nowadays, the film-makers avoided presenting any background to why things like that happened in the dark ages, middle ages and renaissance, or how representative it really is of Catholics and clergy back then. Indeed, they could have tried to present the point that all religions have been used to oppress- that the exploitation of religion in this way is more symptomatic of a disease of power-hunger than a disease of religion per se. Sure, their were a lot of corrupt Popes. But who were they? They were just gangsters who realized the church was a great game in town, and used their power to win the papacy so they could wield the power of the church. Instead of a criticism of religiously-condoned torture or torture by religious institutions that pentrated down to the root causes- like an explanation of religious holidays or practices that penetrates to the real-world political motivations for adopting a holiday at a particular point, or adopting a political practice, the film settled for a flailing blow at Catholicism that didn’t attempt to provide a bit of context beyond showing Catholic priests imprisoning people for torture. If it was just a fantasy, it might be forgiveable, but the movie presented itself as history and based on archaeological evidence, touting itself on the cover of the DVD box as the “Untold True Story That Inspired The Legend.” If you hold out an endeaor as representing historical accuracy, you shouldn’t portray history in a slanted way.

  • On the subject on Israel, Geoge W. Bush has been the neo-con’s sock puppet. That and oil led to the invasion of Iraq. Overt, one-sided support of Israel by Obama must be considered–in the vein of undue influence by AIPAC and PNAC–a grave error. Obama has espoused a militant, unquestioning defense of Israel. This is not in the interest of the United States, because it weakens any commitment to exit Iraq and for the U.S. to broker fairly between the Arabs and Israelis. Our Middle East foreign policy must return to the Carter-Reagan-Clinton viewpoint. Obama’s explicit courting of affluence supporters of Israel creates expectations that there will be strong continuity with the Bush policies. That’s NOT acceptable.

  • The continued insistence upon religious views being included in a candidate’s profile and, more importantly, the misguided idea that religious views are part of a candidate’s “fitness to serve” underscores the backward nature of American culture.

    America is a secular nation. Our laws are secular and are in no part derived from any Christian religious text. There are many who have a vested interest in disguising or denying this fact, typically the right wing and if that’s an oversimplification, then prove otherwise; what this country needs is an outspoken secular humanist in the Oval Office. This the only way this childish reliance upon religion will be banished, at least temporarily, from the nation’s highest governing bodies.

  • What a waste of space. This may be important to some but the only time a man’s religious beliefs affect his running for office is when they are fanatical and interfere with his ability to defend and protect the constitution. To me a candidate’s spiritual beliefs should remain personal and his “religion’s” beliefs should not interfere with representing “all” of the people. I am more interested in a person’s morality, integrity, and character which few of the “religious” leaders have. Everytime you investigate a religious leader you will find these three things compromised. I expect more from our elected representatives.
    Conservatives have made religion an issue in order to garner support, funds, and a means to “condemn” their opponents. Hypocrisy at it’s greatest. Religion should have no place in government. Only morality is universal.

  • [..] they could have tried to present the point that all religions have been used to oppress — Swan, @2

    How, in God’s name, could they have done it in a historical film??? At that point in time (king Arthur) and in that place, there were just those two religions: pagans and Catholics. Who else — other than Catholics — would you have had shown as opressing the pagans?

    • Comments are closed.