That's the opinion of Michael Paulson, ace religion reporter for The Boston Globe. That is, when they have a complaint about coverage they've received, they handle it better. I look forward to what the maharishis of media, the bhagwans of bias-spotting, my friends at Get Religion have to say about this. I will say from my own experience that the best rule of thumb for religious folks re: the media is never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance. That is, it is really difficult to underestimate how little your average MSM journalist knows about religion (I except professional God-beat scribes, obviously). Most examples of bias and bad reporting I've seen can be chalked up to not knowing any better.
Whatever your religion, you'd be smart to build a relationship with your local religion beat reporters, or reporters who write about things that are important to you and members of your faith, or your church/synagogue/mosque/whatever. Don't assume hostility on the part of the reporter. It's probably not there. Honestly. We often simply don't know what we don't know, and are eager to learn. But putting a journalist immediately on the defensive is no way to get more fair coverage. Neither is assuming that any coverage critical of your religion is automatically the result of bias.
Anybody in this blog's readership have any experiences with the media and religion, positive or negative, that you'd like to share?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
DeeAnn,
The press releases claimed support for civil unions. That's just not the case.
Anonymous -- No. 1, I know that Mormons prefer to be called "LDS," but I doubt that most people outside areas with a lot of people in the religion would know what "LDS" means. In a story, I might use LDS, since we call people what they prefer to be called, but I might add a tag line: "commonly referred to as Mormons." I had a college roommate who decided to join the LDS church and she discussed some of the terminology with me. Before I went away to school I'd never met anyone who was a member of the religion.
I also know that there are missionaries all over the place. There's an LDS/Mormon church in this town and that's where they're working out of. There just aren't a lot of members compared with the Catholic or the Lutheran churches here. The two boys who came to my door looked pretty darn young. They were still teenagers and they stand out walking around in white dress shirts and ties when every other college kid in the neighborhood is wearing a sweatshirt and jeans or sweatpants. When they showed up, I knew they were either Mormons. They could have been Jehovah's Witnesses, since they show up as well, but the Jehovah's Witnesses tend to be older.
And 58 percent or even 40 percent of Utah's population is still a large majority, particularly compared to a state where they're probably less than 2 percent, if that.
BobN,
No -- the LDS Church's press releases claimed that the Church would not oppose civil unions in California, which is true. Your misreading of the press releases (you misstate a lack of political opposition as "support for civil unions") is the problem.
Mr. Dreher, would that all reporters were as kind to Mormons and conservatives as you. I follow your writing, and I still recall about two years ago your attending a Mitt Romney speech and writing about his depth of understanding on the issue of Israel and the terrorist threat to the Jewish state. While I agree that none of the reporters with whom I have dealt over the years (re: church or college or business) were hostile, they did seem uninformed -- and most seemed not to be willing to give me the benefit of the doubt as I attempted to explain my position. You extend the benefit of the doubt, and it shows in your open-mindedness. I wouldn't mind if all reporters were hard-hitting and skeptical, but that professionalism seems to vanish when the speaker or subject is liberal and/or agnostic.
Keep up the good work -- we need our national treasures!
No, Dropping By, that's not what they said, nor is it their position.
Here's snip of a key press release:
Many news agencies read that as support for civil unions. Many Mormons did. Goodness knows, a lot of posters on threads like this did. But if you examine statements of Mormon elders, you find that the rights must not be in a "package" that in anyway resembles marriage because that would infringe on the integrity of the traditional family.
I once gave an interview to a local newspaper who called to ask me whether or not I thought Easter was important. I found that a bit strange. A Christian priest being asked if Easter is an important holiday is a bit like a doctor being asked if the heart is an important organ. Nevertheless, I wanted to make a good impression, so I answered the question.
"Yes," I said. "It's very important. It is the pinnacle of the Christian year."
The next day when I read the paper I was shocked to discover that I'd been quoted as saying that Easter is the "pentacle of the Christian year." My bishop didn't stop teasing me on that one for months.
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.