Affirmative action for conservative journalists?
Thursday January 24, 2008
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...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
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 . . .
I agree, Rod. I would only add that "affirmative action" doesn't have to mean quotas -- it can mean precisely the kind of efforts you're describing. You realize that business-as-usual will exclude entire classes of people and perspectives from your institution and so you endeavor to look in different places and for different kinds of people.
Re: religion and the media. My biggest complaint isn't that the media is or is not liberal regarding religious matters -- it's that the they don't know what the h**l they're talking (or writing) about. It's one to be criticized. It's another to be insulted. Worst of all is being insulted by someone who can't even bother to get his facts straight! The skit Terry mentioned is a case in point: it was obviously written by a person who doesn't know the first thing about what Baptists or Catholics believe about, well, anything. It's like the standard religious-fanatic-as-murderer trope in the movies where the guy will talk like a caricature of a Baptist or Pentecostal preacher but will have a house full of crucifixes and rosaries. I've never met a Baptist who used the word "Eucharist."
I've often thought about starting a consulting firm that would advise media companies -- movies, television and news -- how to avoid needlessly p***ing religious folk off. Some offense is inevitable, even desirable but getting lambasted because you were too stupid or lazy to do some basic homework is really stupid.
Here's what's funny about NPR's liberal bent; if you take a month and read the Wall Street Journal everyday and listen to NPR's Morning Edition and All Things Considered everyday, you will be amazed at how closely NPR follows the WSJ's reporting. I actually stopped subscribing to the WSJ in part because it was easier just to wait a day and get the same news stories from NPR.
I'm not sure what it means, but I think it's extremely odd. My husband and I have a theory that since stereotypically conservatives won't listen to NPR and liberals won't read the WSJ, they can get away with it and their listeners won't realize what they are doing.
Within journalism circles, it's widely understood that the editorial page of the Journal is conservative, and the newsroom is not.
Roberto Rivera: "I've often thought about starting a consulting firm that would advise media companies -- movies, television and news -- how to avoid needlessly p***ing religious folk off. Some offense is inevitable, even desirable but getting lambasted because you were too stupid or lazy to do some basic homework is really stupid."
I'd even be glad to help you grub stake this if you would help media learn:
1) Wiccans are not Satanists
2) Buddhists are not Taoists
3) Humanists are not (necessarily) Atheists
I cannot count the number of times that mainstream media outlets become confused regarding these points. Sloppy journalism is no excuse, and it pervades liberal and conservative newsrooms these days.
Maybe if we were to buy out and close AP, UPI and Reuters and leave the media outlets to do their own reporting instead of parroting what comes on the wire services we might see some diversity, and perhaps even some intelligent reporting.
I'd even be glad to help you grub stake this if you would help media learn:
1) Wiccans are not Satanists
2) Buddhists are not Taoists
3) Humanists are not (necessarily) Atheists
I cannot count the number of times that mainstream media outlets become confused regarding these points. Sloppy journalism is no excuse, and it pervades liberal and conservative newsrooms these days.
Sounds fair.
it pervades liberal and conservative newsrooms these days.
what, what, what, what ...
Care to number and list the conservative newsroomS? (I note your plural. I work in what is probably the country's only one.)
>>Affirmative action for conservative journalists?
Isn't that what Richard Scaife does?
Victor: "Care to number and list the conservative newsroomS? (I note your plural. I work in what is probably the country's only one.)"
I've posted links to several that I check fairly regularly. We'll see if the robot that runs these boards clears the links. If not, here is what I found over the last couple of years.
FOX News
Sinclair Broadcasting News
OneNews (formerly Agape Press)
Christian Broadcasting Network
New York Sun
Cybercast News (internet only)
World Net Daily (internet only, I believe)
Washington Times
Newsmax.com (internet only)
As I said in my other post, it may be that these share news resources. It does not appear to be the case. These are just the ones I read on a semi-regular basis. I am certain that there are others.
Of those two, only Fox and the Washington Times count as MSM, at least in my view. But even if we allowed for everything on your list ... that's still a pretty paltry list compared to, like, *everybody else*.
"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 suspect a lot of this is just paranoia and whining, given the desire of religious conservatives to paint themselves as forever the victims, and never the victimizers.
But even if such situations are true and the people in question have good reason to be concerned, I've known of more than a few instances in which agnostics/non-Christians/otherwise non-traditional types have been uncomfortable in letting their Evangelical/conservative Christian bosses know their beliefs, for fear of repercussions, and of workplaces in which prayer meetings or talk about what church you went to were important parts of worklife which one avoided at their peril. I suspect in the regular business world (where most people work, not the media), the sort of discrimination, or at the very least, serious discomfort on the part of the non-traditionals, is more common than the type mentioned above.
Sinclair should be counted as MSM; they've got a slew of network TV stations in big markets on which they run their news.
I suspect a lot of this is just paranoia and whining, given the desire of religious conservatives to paint themselves as forever the victims, and never the victimizers.
Yes, you suspect, but you don't know because you've never been there. And it apparently suits your ideology to believe that traditional Christians are always and everywhere the victimizers, and even if they're not, well, hey, they had it coming.
Rod: "Of those two, only Fox and the Washington Times count as MSM, at least in my view. But even if we allowed for everything on your list ... that's still a pretty paltry list compared to, like, *everybody else*."
- As has been mentioned, Sinclair has a large number of TV stations in large markets across the middle of the country (and I believe the east as well).
- OneNews is carried on many conservative, evangelical websites as "THE Christian news source" and is quoted often on national shows such as Focus on the Family, 700 Club, and numerous shows on Trinity Broadcasting, and are picked up on GOPMobile, which has a fairly wide syndication through RSS and Avantgo. The were formally known as Agape Press. Within evangelical circles they are well known.
- Christian Broadcasting Network - Mainstream? Maybe not, but their news programming has the capability to make a pretty big splash in the world. It was on one of their shows that the infamous Robertson/Falwell discussion blaming gays, lesbians, ACLU, and other groups for 9/11 took place. It was also on these shows that the numerous statements of Pat Robertson (moving the hurricane away from Virginia Beach, bombing the state department, etc.) make their way into the larger media. What it lacks for in size it makes up for in impact. Any newsroom that can gin up that kind of reaction as often as CBN cannot be overlooked. Mainstream, perhaps not. Conservative newsroom with national impact, definitely.
- New York Sun. This newspaper has small circulation, so it may not be mainstream in number of readers. It is definitely conservative (suggesting that war protesters should be prosecuted for treason seems conservative to me), and draws some name commentators to its editorial pages. It's conservative, and it definitely has a news operation. Point conceded on the mainstream designation.
- World Net Daily - The conservative's answer to the Onion, and you don't accept that it is mainstream? Stories posted here end up ALL OVER conservative blogs, and are even quoted on FOX News from time to time. I mean, how much of a reach does a media organization have to have before it is considered wide enough to be mainstream? Yes it is sensationalist. Yes it is quite often wrong. Yes it is blatantly biased. That's why it fits here in this grouping SO WELL.
- Cybercast News and Newsmax...again, the stories carried here show up in a large number of online news aggregator sites, credited to these two organizations. For sake of argument I'll accept that they may not be mainstream, but give them time.
I left off one in my original list, and I will add it here.
- Drudge Report - Yes, his main page is mostly an aggregator. However, he has enough original content to be considered a news provider (arguably as much original content as the main section of a number good sized dailies) and he is conservative. And if you don't think he is mainstream then we have a true definition problem
Now, if you want to move to the local level and start talking about the number of smaller newspapers that are conservative in their bias, I'll be happy to go there.
I will also note, that knowledge of a variety of religious traditions does not necessarily solely come in a conservative package. Any more than all traditional Christians are necessarily politically conservative. (Didn't think we'd notice that one?)
Indeed, many very devout conservative religious people are very well educated.. about their OWN religious tradition. And very ill informed about others. And some who aren't religious at all are very well versed in the basic vocabulary and concepts (the level needed for reporting, unless you are suggesting that only theologians can do so) of a wide variety of religions.
Rod,
There's no doubt that newsrooms run liberal, but do your friends have any actual reason for the fear of "outing"? Any evidence that it would actually cause any harm to their careers?
My newsroom has one outspoken political conservative who is also a young-Earth creationist and gripes about how our stories about paleontology are unbalanced. He's also a great reporter who's well-regarded for his work (though we roll our eyes about the evolution thing).
In his attempts to answer my challenge, ds0490 is clearly indicating that he has absolutely no conception of how the news industry is structured and constructed. Drudge as a news outlet??? WorldNetDaily as part of the MainStream Media???? Because it gets picked up on conservative blogs??? You are simply off your rocker.
CBN and OneNews are niche or "special interest" news sources that cater to a small, self-selected clienteles (as your second note realizes), not broad general-interest publications. There are plenty of similar outlets among liberals -- Logo channel and PlanetOut/Gay.com, just to mention one niche -- not that there's anything wrong with ... niche news services.
I mean ... the only time CBN ever "makes a splash" outside its tiny self-selected audience, as your cited examples actually prove, is when *other* media outlets pick up something they do to construct CBN and/or evangelicals in a bad light. "Conservative newsroom with national impact" ... hardly.
Sinclair Broadcasting is really more of a holding-company and partnership with Fox than a serious news producer. Almost all its stations are affiliated with other networks and Sinclair produces very little programming. Even AS an ownership group, it isn't terribly large -- 57 stations in 35 markets, mostly small- and medium-sized.
And most importantly, as has already been pointed out to you ... everything you cite, added together, is just chickencrap compared to ... CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, the Associated Press, Knight-Ridder, Gannett/USA Today, Reuters, Bloomberg, Time, Newsweek, US News, the NY Times, Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal news pages, the Tribune/Times and its wire service. Both because of (1) E N O R M O U S gaps in size and (2) that liberal list's being constructed and accepted as objective nonideological sources, something Fox News and the Washington Times never are.
The surveys are overwhelming ... most journalists are liberal and the news coverage reflects that fact.
I listen to NPR over an hour a day, I call bullsh!t
"And it apparently suits your ideology to believe that traditional Christians are always and everywhere the victimizers, and even if they're not, well, hey, they had it coming."
Where did I say that in my comment? I merely pointed out that religious conservatives often play the victim, and never seem to want to acknowledge they are often the victimizers, and I never said that such people had it (if the "it" you are talking about is some form of discrimination) coming. If they are being discriminated against in their workplace due to their religious beliefs, then that is reprehensible and they should seek recompense via the EEOC or the other panoply of civil rights protections that liberals have created for everyone's benefit. Actually, it would be interesting to see stats on this sort of thing. It wouldn't surprise me to see that discrimination against religious conservatives is a lot less prevalent than discrimination by religious conservatives against agnostics, non-Christians, gay people, etc.
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.