Left Behind: The Skewed Representation of Religion in Major News Media
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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.[i] 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.
That darn liberal media!
Yet another textbook distortion by Media Matters. What MM fails to account for is the fact that the "progressive" view is so often presented not by religious clergy, but by "progressive" scholars, liberal "religious studies" professors, and secular media personalities.
People like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, and even Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens have gotten boatloads of airtime and press bashing conventional religious beliefs and conservative religious leaders. But they aren't counted in MM's study because they aren't considered "religious" leaders. (By the same token, although Gary Bauer has been affiliated with evangelical groups, he is not a member of the clergy; yet he is tabulated in MM's study. See the deception, folks?)
In addition, MM's claim that "22 percent [of Americans] belong to traditionalist sects" comes from a dubious study by the People for the American Way, a far-left outfit who has partnered with guys like Rev. Jim Wallis. The "22 percent" figure just seems to pop out of nowhere. Read the study.
I won't even get started on "progressive religious views," which often run contrary to almost 2,000 years of conventional Christian teaching.
My 2 cents: This is just a bogus, rigged "study."
"I won't even get started on "progressive religious views," which often run contrary to almost 2,000 years of conventional Christian teaching."
Well actually you did start by simply stating that absurd comment. Christian fundamentalism of the American persuasion (i.e. Falwell, Phelps, etc.) is actually pretty new in the history of the church and it is what is contrary to almost 2,000 years of conventional Christian teaching. I'm very religious and relatively orthodox in my beliefs, but the people I see on TV don't represent me they represent this new breed of evangelicals who scream about how they have the best interpretation of the bible, ignoring the fact that the Christianity is much older than the new Test.
1. "screaming about how they have the best interpretation of the Bible."
That debate has been going on since the Reformation, dude. It has nothing to do with the issue here of traditionalist vs. progressive.
2. "Progressive" religious leaders often hold wacked-out views of Jesus and Christianity, such as the Resurrection was "spiritual" rather than bodily; that the story of the loaves was about "sharing" (not the miracle that it was); and so on. Rev. Jim Wallis actually has the gall to call himself "pro-life"; but he defines pro-life as simply reducing the number of abortions, not eliminating them. That's the same view as Bill and Hillary Clinton, and that's NOT "pro-life."
Of course it has everything to do with progressive vs. traditionalist, my point is that those who are called traditionalist, aren't traditionalist at all. And being progressive isn't at odds with 2000 years of Christian tradition. Progressives, and I'm going off Webster on this, means you believe in social improvement by the government. Social justice, which is produced through improvement of social conditions is key part of Jesus' teaching and the Church's beliefs. But you would never know this from those who only want to talk about gays and abortion.
And furthermore being Pro-life isn't just about being against abortions.
1. "And furthermore being Pro-life isn't just about being against abortions."
I essentially agree with you on this (!), but you've sidestepped the issue. With regards to abortion, "pro-life" has a specific meaning: that is, it means being in favor of eliminating all elective abortions, not "reducing the number," as Wallis says.
2. "social justice teaching"
I agree again (!), but the real debate is about how to best bring about social justice in manners that are dignified for everybody and best for society. Does "social justice" include allowing unrestricted abortions, gay "marriage," unfettered immigration, and universal government-funded healthcare? There are two sides to these issues (and sometimes 3 or more sides), and these are issues to be debated.
3. "But you would never know this from those who only want to talk about gays and abortion."
I would disagree with your characterization that traditionalists "only" talk about "gays and abortion." But let's face some facts. There are elements in society who push very strongly for unrestricted abortion. Gay "marriage" is also a hot issue in many states. These are big issues for traditionalists. They can't just sit by and say nothing, although many progressives wish they would.
Cheers, Petenoc!
You are correct that there is a debate about to enforce social justice. However, saying that progressives are "in contrast to 2,000 years of christian teaching" is way off the mark, especially when defending conservatives love affair with fighting "gay marriage" and the "culture war." Jesus NEVER spoke of homosexuality. Yet he spoke more than 900 times about helping the poor and downtrodden. There are plenty of places the bible speaks bout homosexuality, but Jesus never did. Therefore, I'm taking it that he cares more than 900 times as much about helping the poor than he does about gay marriage. It's funny that people who believe in the literal interpation of scripture fail to do the calculations on those numbers.
Amazing Point!
I love how the far right like to prop up Gay Marriage and Abortion as the most important issues facing this country, and yet they ignore the true problems. It is really quite sad.
Criticizing religion in general doesn't count as far as how religion is interpreted politically by its proponents. And which progressive teachings do you most dislike? The give unto the poor part, the love your enemies part, or the love the sinner part?
Wookie: "And which progressive teachings do you most dislike? The give unto the poor part, the love your enemies part, or the love the sinner part?"
"Progressive teachings"? Are you kidding? All three of those are traditional, orthodox Christian teachings. And if you think that conservatives don't live up to the 'giving to the poor' part, you might want to take a look at the book Who Really Cares by Arthur Brooks. Brooks, who is not some right-wing Republican ("I have no comfortable political home," he says), studied charitable giving and proved that conservatives are consistently more charitable than liberals. (See also this and this.)
I dont find these TWO not three examples compelling. First and third are the same book and author. The point is that giving to charities is NOT the only way people give. The fact conservatives might give more to organized charaties doesnt take into account how much is given to the community. I rarely give to organized charaties but give often to people on the street, to those in need directly to the community itself. I assume many liberals feel the same way. For instance the United way comes to our job and solicits money I NEVER give them any as they give money to anti labor groups. I simply dont see it as charitable to give money to an organization that works AGAINST my best interest. Your second example is one you rightwingers love to toss about but it is CLEARLY flawed. We are talking about a group the VERY PUBLICLY announced they discriminate against Gay people and fought for the right to do so and STILL get public funds and this group did thier study by setting up a donation center by THIS group in SAN FRANSISCO????? THAT means absolutly NOTHING. Jeremiah 5: 27 says
27 Their houses are as full of treachery as a bird-cage is of birds; Therefore they grow powerful and rich, 28 fat and sleek. They go their wicked way; justice they do not defend By advancing the claim of the fatherless or judging the cause of the poor. 29 Shall I not punish these things? says the LORD; on a nation such as this shall I not take vengeance?Notice this last part where the whole NATION is taken to task for what amounts to a conservative agenda
on a nation such as this shall I not take vengeance?
You make decent points however not that convincing.
By the time they average out donations and count it on a state level the statistics are meaningless. Especially since a red state is maybe 55% red.
Your missing the point shoes...
Clergy is not ALWAYS potently conservative; you have no proof to back your assertion. You cannot white wash religion and say that it only represents CONSERVATIVE values. Helping the poor, and respecting each other are certainly staples of the liberal viewpoint; they are also beliefs apparently held by Jesus as well. In other words just being pro-life and denouncing gay marriage doesn't make you a decent Christian; it is your character and integrity.
1. "In other words just being pro-life and denouncing gay marriage doesn't make you a decent Christian; it is your character and integrity."
I pretty much agree with that. But we're addressing a different issue. For the most part people are not going on Hardball to debate character and integrity; they're debating issues such as abortion, gay marriage, helping the poor, healthcare, etc.
2. "Clergy is not ALWAYS potently conservative."
I agree again. I never said that.
3. "Helping the poor, and respecting each other are certainly staples of the liberal viewpoint; they are also beliefs apparently held by Jesus as well."
I responded to this already, right above your comment. It's the one citing the book Who Really Cares.
Cheers.
Have you gone insane? I dont know about all those people but Mahar, Dawkins and Hitchens are all self aknowledged agnostics or athiests. Trying to pass them off as lefty religious people is completely dishonest or shows how little you know what you are talking about one or the other.
Which progressive religious views run counter to two thousand years of Christianity?
Treat your neighbor as you would would like to be treated?
Help the widow and orphan?
Tend to the log in your own eye before tending to the mote in your brother's eye?
You right wingers are in fact antichrist in your hate of gays and denying them their rights.
When you preach anything but love, remember God is love, your not Christian.
Perhaps this is because Pat Robertson speaks for all christians. Just like Jerry Falwell spoke for all christians. And Fred Phelps speaks for all christians. I know this because I don't hear any non-fundamentalists denouncing these people or saying these people don't speak for us or even saying we believe something different.
Xtopher,
You say you're not hearing anyone denounce Pat Robertson, Falwell and the rest of the right-wing religious gasbags?
Maybe you're not hearing them because they're not allowed on the air--as Media Matters is pointing out.
It ain't real till its on tv. The printed word gives a differant cast, ther've been maybe a half dozen books recently that give a differant take on current religeous thought. They want their religion back from these obnxious voices. Good luck to them and us too.
Part of the problem is intimidation...the Troglodytes are loud and organized; liberal to moderate Christians are not. If a news program offends the evangelicals, it's torch and pitchforks time.
Of course, this isn't always the case. I've noticed that the new Creation "Science" Museum has gotten mixed treatment in the press. Interestingly, there was a guest host on O'Reilly's show last night, and this museum was the topic of one segment. The most telling moment came when the museum's spokesman admitted that it wasn't really about reconciling the concept of God with scientific evidence, but promoting a literal interpretation of Genesis. 'Nuff said.
As is almost always the case, liberals are not organized. It's like trying to herd cats.
On the other hand, conservatives are like lemmings.
Denominational leadership
It would be nice to know about denominational leaders who can authoritatively speak on behalf of their denominations. I am thinking of leaders who are responsible for more than a single congregation. For example, as a Lutheran, I would like to see how the Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson of the ELCA stacks up in media coverage.
My concern is that denominational leaders are substantially under-represented in the media contributing to the perception that denominations are irrelevant or "dead". This is no accident.
Organizations such as the Institute for Religion and Democracy, a quasi-religious neo-concervative think tank, have been waging a media war to undermine mainline denominations and their leadership. They frequently launch smear campaigns against denominational leaders and coordinate "traditionalist" activist to attack denominations from within.
The IRD uses political warfare techniques that the CIA has used for decades to undermine popular political leadership in Latin America. They frequently launch smear campaigns against denominational leaders and coordinate "traditionalist" action groups to attack denominations from within. Their basic strategy is to disrupt church bodies so as to neutralize any kind of socially responsible "prophetic voice." They intimidate church leaders to keep them silent on critical moral issues facing humanity such as war and militarism, hunger and health care, poverty and economic justice, exploitation and fair labor practices, oppression and human rights, care for all creation and environmental justice, and so on.
I would suggest that the media bias MMFA reports here is a result of sophisticated strategies and tactics deployed by the IRD and related organizations.
Genuine Christianity is under attack covertly and overtly by neo-con political operatives, truly wolves in sheep's clothing.
Thank you.
As a strict agnostic, I can see exactly what you are talking about. Truly, the Falwells, Dobsons etc are using Christianity to fulfill their own ginormous egos. I rarely hear a pastor or minister of any denomination speak out against these loud mouthed "national" religious leaders.
My old minister used to do that. We're still looking for a pastor with a similar aim here in my new hometown.
Calling out the hypocrites was one of the things that Jesus excelled at. It's at the root of all Christianity. If the Jews hadn't been such hypocrites in some ways, much of Jesus' message would have been diluted.
Liberals don't all have the same outlook on spirituality. It's one of the wondrous things about progressives that they allow such diversity, but it's also one of the curses! Without a single-minded intent, it's hard to direct everyone's attention to the same sharp focus!
Just what did you mean when you stated, "If the Jews hadn't been such hypocrites in some ways..."?
You're not really postulating anything save for some veiled anti-Semitism.
You make a good point Pit,
The blowback has to be much more aggressive to counteract these noxious fundamentalists. You've got to get in their face, and stuff a load of dog dung right square on their heads.
This only way you can get through to "these people".
If the rest of the religious crowd feels differently, why dont they say so? If they dont feel Ted Haggerd acurately represents them, why dont they speak for themselves. Apparently they dont care that much, or their opinions arent that different.
Perhaps we could also include the cable networks such as the History Channel and the Discovery Channel, with their various subchannels. It seems that there's been a preponderence of religious-based documentaries that tend to feature the right-wing religious views over more progressive religious commentators. (One doc about the Ten Commandments--and the recent controversies over public postings--featured comments from one of the Alliance Defense Fund's spokesmen, but no one from the ACLU or People for the American Way. Needless to say, the ADF's shill spouted nothing but religious propaganda about the Ten Commandments' purpose. There were traditional scholars--religious history professors, legal historians, etc--who spoke on both sides, but of the actual groups which deal with Ten Commandments-in-the-public-forum matter, only the ADF was represented.)
I am an ardent fan and financial supporter of Media Matters for America. That said I have to question the 90% figure of Americans selfidentifying as religious. Surely, that is too high. What this country needs is many more atheists who are willing to speak up and eventually put religion out of business, or certainly out of politics as a factor to be considered. Religion is divisive and has the entire world on the brink of self annihilation. We must be secular and forget about whose god is bigger/better/stronger/etc.
Mike
I would be inclined to believe in means 90% believe in "a higher power of some sort"
Surely you jest about completely ridding the world of religion. While there is much "my god is bigger, better, etc than yours.", there are still plenty of goods works being done by religious organizations (and at a reasonable cost), i.e. Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, the local "Union Gospel Mission (to use an example), Islamic Charities, etc. Most of these do not go about bragging of their "good works", but just go about doing the job you and I would rather not do, unless compelled by a government entity. I would rather contribute $100 to a legitimate religious charitable organization than send $28 (tax on the $100) to the government and see what they would send back for relative works (maybe $14?)
A bumber sticker might help here....
"Keep Your God out of My God's Face"
These numbers don't seem all that remarkable, given that roughly twice as many people identify themselves as conservative than they do liberal, and have done so consistently for the last 30 years. Not too remarkable, considering that most of the time gay marriage measures fail, even in so-called liberal states.
However, it would seem that all one has to do is stand up and proclaim: "I am a liberal who is also religious", and the media pretty much rolls out the red carpet for you. Down the carpet walks Jim Wallis, who has made more appearances these last few years than all other liberal preachers combined, or so it would seem to this casual observer.
Problem is, like most religious liberals, he simply employs his bible interpretation to push for big government socialism, which is not very appealing to the public at large.
WOW the illogical jump there is amazing. What does how people identify POLITICALLY have to do with how they identify religiously? Since the numbers are given in the article and MANY more people self identify as moderate and progressive religiously than conservative THAT is the relevant point. The rightwing has done a good job of marketing the word liberal as being a perjorative. However when polls are done on issues gay marriage is one of the FEW where conservatives have a majority. Visit the pew polling website someday and see how Americans poll on most issues. Pretty much like Finnland and Norway fairly progressive. Your post has no point.
However, it would seem that all one has to do is stand up and proclaim: "I am a liberal who is also religious", and the media pretty much rolls out the red carpet for you.
Except this study provides evidence that reality is the exact opposite of what you just pulled from your stinky place!
What part of "you make no sense" do you not understand?
There are at least two powerful influences behind the data.
First is the inherent conceptual religious view between the evangelacal and the, dare I say it, the mainstream Christian. The former emphasize the spread the word side and the latter believe "Hold your candle under a basket". The former get into the face of anybody they can get to stop for a moment. The later let them do it, because they believe everybody has a right to believe what they want.
Some years ago, when the RNC held its convention in San Diego, the evangelicals (read Rex Reid, et al) formed a group to take over the party levers, apparently because that would provide them with a bully pulpet and force their views into the main stream as a matter of law. Fully consistent with the "take the news to everybody" position.
It worked,
The other force is the media which do not even profess they are fair and balanced. They, in the search for ratings, put on talking heads that are controversial. That means religious views that cut across the grain. The spokesmen for the main stream are mostly Pablum.
I, for one, will be very surprised if there is any push back that will last long on this issue, because what got us here is akin to forces of nature.
You will see some effective push back. Republicans have way overplayed their hand, and even with massive cheating, will loose big time next election. The only hope they have for the future is for moderates to retake the party. Sooner or later, that will happen, because the Republicans will not willingly be the loyal opposition forever. Maybe not in my lifetime though.
Television is becoming largely irrelevant, and more people are moving to the internet for their information. That probably means the TV will get even more outrageous, in an attempt to hold their ratings. There is a whole generation of media management that thinks in those terms. Radio did that long ago, and TV seem sure to follow. So you will not get TV to change. It will just get worse. But the good news is that it won't matter any more, They will attract their ditto heads, but that is all.
It is always easier to see a problem when it is someone else's.
For the media to present a picture to people where they must choose sides between secular atheism or religious fundamentalism, where one will prevail and the other will fail entirely, may just be seen as good journalistic drama with little consequences until one looks at the Middle East.
I think that even the most confirmed atheist can comprehend why AA does not recommend that people give up smoking or coffee while they in the process of giving up liquor.
I am a religious progressive who has led others at times away from fundamentalism as have others like me. It was not done by insisting that no god exists, but by living and showing a greater faith in God than that of the fundamentalists, a faith that is not afraid of science or statistics but embraces them as tools to use for greater understanding of what God is.
The secret to breaking the iron grip of fundamentalism does not lie in destroying spiritual beliefs, but in destroying belief in the infallibility of man including those who wrote the ancient texts of every religion, that God can stand up to every test or investigation and if errors are found in texts then they were the errors of man.
It is very important in all civilizations how spiritual beliefs are presented in the media, critically important, if those civilizations are to evolve and prosper and not become stagnant or regressive.
Why in America would a twisted and perverted gospel, that is in fact not gospel but a repudiation of what Jesus is, prevail?
Jesus, while fitting in very well with the democratic society, is not a very good fit for capitalism. Jesus taught that we should "do unto others" and "you can not serve two masters God and money". Further he preached that "woe to you who are rich already, for you have had your reward in full already."
These things are a hard sell in a country where you are judged by the things you own. So Jerry and Pat and people like Bruce Wilkenson, preach prosperity. Jesus and by extension God, wants you to be rich in money, not spirit. Oh okay, if folks insist you can be rich in spirit too. It's all good with Jesus. You can have it all money and God.
All this in the face of Jesus' teachings, this is a denial of Jesus and an anti-Christ message.
Jesus taught love. Love and Honor God and love your neighbor as yourself. Christ taught that God is love. [for further teachings of Jesus crack a New Testament for yourself.] Any other message than love would be an Antichrist teaching from Satan.
In a material world greed sells. That's why the real message of Jesus is choked off in the market place. It goes against the capitalist system. Sorry folks.
"The pride of the dying rich raises the loudest laugh in hell." John Forster
Choosing the title "Progressive religious leaders" has no connection to being progressive.Hate mongers are winning by getting the populous to hate rather than reason. When leaders fail to get the understanding they want, they choose the secondary goal to hate the opposition. They are also winning by getting news programs to replace half of the news time with repeated "stay tuned for........ " baits for wasting your listening times.This is true for local as well as national news. I'm appalled by local leaders taking pride in ignoring any form of news. The pressures to meet all the bells and whistles of running a community or small business uses up all available RAM. The lack of incentives to simplify rules and regulations is equivalent to incentives to complexify. This results in small business failures and big box stores thriving.When new ideas come along, the holder of 23 patents can't do the bells and whistles of starting a small business, and patentable ideas are exported to other nations more friendly to new business startups. I presented a 30% cost saving set of ideas at an international technical conference in 2004. The only receptive ears were Europeans while American contractors "hated" new ideas as if they are "risk". Reasoning has been defeated by hate mongers and other terrorists.
1. While I appreciate your study, you've made the same error as The Media. You only include Judeo-Christian sects as religion. You've ignored Hinduism, Bhudism, Shintoism, Native American religions, etc.
The Media gives too much deference to the hateful message of universiality delivered by western religions. Where's the coverage of the tolerance taught by eastern faiths?
2. The incredible media attention given to the Kentucky creation museum is a great example of the positive and deferential treatment the media gives to religious fundamentalism. Not one news presenter questioned the sanity of building this $27 million shrine to fantasy.
What about the voice of non-religion?
How about those of us who recognize that god is a figment created by man, exploited by individuals and institutions to control weak-minded, insecure people?
There are a dozen channels on every cable network dedicated towards propagating these goofball mythologies. Where's the secular network? Where's the network of critical thinkers who don't believe in invisible sky people, ghosts, and unicorns?
If you really want to be progressive, you'll drop this whole notion of religion in the first place.
How about a Left Behind sequelconcerning media treatment of Atheists? Have you EVER seen a moral issue discussed in the media by a panel including an atheist? Some professors of ethicsare atheists. (even at Princeton).
Progressive "religious LEADERS"?
Let's see, there's the guy who screwed around on his wife (I assume he promised her and GOD he wouldn't do that), made a bastard child, who he did not raise and even paided off to deny she HAD a father, and kept her mom quite, with money he STOLE from a charity (abusing his fiduciary responsibility and committing moral and LEGAL CRIMES); YOU refer to him as "Reverend" Jackson.
And the other one who "bore false witness" to help Twana Brawley "deny the Civil Rights" of someone (but he was WHITE, so he's supposed to just suck it up). He was even found LIABLE by the COURT; but last I knew refused to PAY, and WILL NOT even apologize. YOU refer to him as "Reverend" Sharpton.
These people SHOULDN'T be quoted. They are miserable, dishonest, PIMPS. Nasty, lyiing, thieving human beings, not "religious LEADERS".
And "Media" matters less and less. Media Matters? the voice of propaganda and deceit. I'm so glad you are meaningless.