Terry Mattingly publishes a letter he received from someone he identifies as a "person in a public-radio newsroom." Terry had earlier blogged about public radio's tin ear for religious sensitivities, referencing a tasteless radio skit about the Eucharist and Mike Huckabee. At the time, Terry said that "it's way too simplistic to say that NPR people are all liberals and who are out to mock people like Mike Huckabee and the people who are voting for him.” But Terry's correspondent begged to differ:
Speaking as somebody who’s been a public-radio producer for decades, it’s actually NOT too simplistic to say this. NPR is easily the most monolithically liberal institution I know of in the media. Unless they’ve hired somebody recently I don’t know about, they have zero conservatives or religious traditionalists. . . .They talk a good game about all views being represented, but the fact is that NPR really has no room for any worldview except that of liberals. To say that they don’t understand believers is a huge understatement. And they have no interest in changing. ...If your religion strikes an NPR reporter as a harmless idiosyncratic hobby along the lines of doing macrame or collecting tin-can labels, you’re safe. It’s the serious Christians who make their hackles rise.
You should read the whole e-mail. Terry goes on to ask what mainstream journalistic institutions should do to bring in reporters, producers and editors who can provide a more diverse perspective on the communities they cover:
Conservatives can complain and complain, but do they really want to see some kind of affirmative action program for journalists who hold ancient, traditional, beliefs (Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Muslim, you name it) when it comes to matters of doctrine and moral theology? Does anyone really think that is what editors should do?
As someone who complains and complains all the time about this sort of thing, I absolutely do not think we should have affirmative action for religious conservatives. Let me be clear: I'm strongly against quota hiring in principle, but I do believe it's important that newsrooms strive to have a culturally diverse staff, not out of some abstract principle of racial or gender justice, but simply so print and broadcast outlets can better understand what's going on in the communities they cover.
That said, I depart from newsroom orthodoxy on this point chiefly in where I draw the line at diversity. Most in the MSM consider diversity to be simply a matter of race and gender, and possibly sexual orientation. I think it should be expanded to include political and religious diversity. If we do not have religious and political conservatives working in newsrooms, we are going to miss a lot of what's actually happening in the real world.
How to achieve that without asking potential hires about their religious and political beliefs? Well, why not start by doing more recruiting at religious colleges with good journalism programs, and among the staff of conservative campus publications? It's true, I believe, that most of the students who study journalism come from a liberal background. But it's also true that minorities are relatively underrepresented in journalism studies -- yet most mainstream media outlets go the extra mile and then some to develop and recruit minority talent. It's all a question of whether or not media managers believe it's important to do so. Do media managers believe it's important to have cultural diversity on their staffs? Or do they really believe that some diversity is important, but not other kinds?
Because I have spent most of my career as an opinion journalist, I've always been open about my political and religious convictions. As far as I'm aware, I've not paid any significant price for them. But I tell you, there's nothing quite like talking to producers, copy editors and beat reporters who work in MSM newsrooms who literally fear for their jobs if their conservative religious convictions were known. I remember one conversation with a young woman who was almost trembling with fear when she was outed as a conservative Evangelical. I remember another conversation with a woman who works in the national media, and who sits in silence at news meetings while her colleagues mock and deride traditional Christians. She lives in the religious closet at work because she's absolutely convinced that if her colleagues, who respect her and her work, knew she was a conservative Evangelical, she would suffer professional repercussions.
The fear is real, and based in reality. If I were a media manager, I wouldn't want my station, magazine or newspaper to be a place where anybody -- straight, gay, male, female, liberal, conservative, atheist, religious, whatever -- felt afraid for their job because of who they were and what they believed. I do wonder, though, how many journalists wonder about whether their newsrooms are as open to political conservatives and traditional Christians as they ought to be -- and how that lack might affect the quality of their institution's journalism.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Let me try this again. I have observed a common meme among liberals, especially liberal journalists, that holds that conservative Christians are unique in their villainy. Probably the ultimate (but by no means the only) example that comes to mind is the assistant city editor who once, in my presence, shot down a story proposal to look into one aspect of Islamic radicalism on the theory that journalists don't pay enough attention to the threat from the Christian Right. I mean, it's simply deranged.
Now, knowing what we do about human nature, would it really be all that surprising that any workplace that was filled with people who shared a particular worldview -- and as Victor points out, survey after independent survey proves that newsrooms are overwhelmingly liberal -- would be hostile, or at least indifferent, to the worldview of a small minority of people who fundamentally dissent from the dominant ideology in that setting? If you were a gay liberal working at, say, CBN, do you really think people around you would be respectful of your point of view, or sensitive to any insights you might bring to the collective work effort? I don't think so, and not because the CBN newsroom (which I've never visited; I'm just using this as an example) is particularly wicked. It's simply group dynamics.
Given CBN's mission to its niche audience, it wouldn't be such a bad thing if it were indifferent to the insights of a gay liberal employee. I'm not talking about the employee's personal experience of the culture in such an office; I'm talking about the impact on the product of his exclusion. Similarly, a conservative Evangelical whose views were effectively marginalized in the production of Air America's programming, or Pacifica radio's, wouldn't be such a big deal regarding their product. But the MSM doesn't aim to serve a niche right-wing or left-wing audience. It aims to reach the general public. You see the problem, then.
I think we should make a distinction between businesses in which religious and political ideas are intrinsic to the business itself and those in which they are not.
Discrimination on the basis of religious or political ideas is wrong in businesses in which religious and political ideas are not intrinsic to the business itself, but it is *especially* wrong in businesses in which those ideas *are* intrinsic to the business itself -- whether the business be journalism, academia, or the arts, all of which are supposed to be concerned with *ideas,* and with critical thinking about them.
It is in the very nature of journalism and of academia and of the arts that diversity of ideas ought to have its highest premium there, given that all three endeavors are attempts to help participants to answer their fundamental questions about the world, questions which inevitably have religious and political aspects.
But clearly diversity of ideas is something that isn't valued as much as it ought to be in any of these three fields. The fixation on diversity of gender and race in these fields is in part a sign of guilty conscience on the part of those involved. Everyone values diversity but not everyone want to have diversity of religious and political ideas, so *some* kind of diversity must be found to maintain the pretext that these fields are open-minded and inclusive and therefore that those who participate in them are not engaged in hypocrisy.
Discrimination on the basis of religious and political ideas is clear to anyone involved in journalism, in academia, or in the arts, and the extent to which it is clear is in proportion to the extent to which one departs from orthodoxy in the field. The religious and political "closets" are absolutely real and their existence is in no way mitigated by the presence of other kinds of closets in other walks of life. Let's do away with them *all.*
Group dynamic - yes. The way we treat people who are different being part of the problem - yes. If I were snarky, I'd be writing "oh boo hoo".
In a better world, gays/lesbians and Evangelicals would relate to each other for their common experiences of being misunderstood, being attacked ad hominem, having to work tricky balancing acts in their work -- and, sometimes, their families -- over the extent to which they are visible. Alas we do not live in that better world. Those who have been whipped often delight in having the whip hand over those who once whipped them.
Amen Rod.
The stories I could tell. . . .
Never seen anything quite like the open bigotry at the local public radio station.
Complete with mocking [doctored?] photos of Cardinal Bernard Law on the staff bulletin board - posted for months!
My eyes were opened.
Rod:
You know I'm far, far to the left of you on the political spectrum.
You also know I'm an ex-journalist.
And the affirmative action culture in newsrooms makes my blood run cold.
Honestly, I'm surprised anyone who's a white male can survive at a newspaper which is not an openly conservative publication. (Unless it's the chief editor in the backroom carrying out the orders of the corporate bean counters, of course.)
People say the Internet is why newspapers are bleeding red ink these days. Believe it or not, I agree with Rod -- the very LACK of diversity that "diversity" causes is a factor, too.
And a big one, IMHO.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.