God, Media and More

Music makes China and Vatican new friends

Music is the universal language of mankind, American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow once said.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the historic concert held by the China Philharmonic Orchestra at the Vatican as an attempt at reconciliation between the Catholic church and communist China.

Both Reuters and the Associated Press covered the event, the first covering it from the viewpoint of the Pope, and the later from China. Each country, however, claimed they came up with the idea for reconciliation in these two articles.

Reuters depicted the incident as an act of reconciliation on the behalf of the papacy, and as one of Pope Benedict's goals of his papacy.

Pope Benedict reached out to communist China on Wednesday at an unprecedented concert by its national orchestra in the Vatican that the Church hopes can help end decades of icy relations with Beijing...Benedict has made improving relations with Beijing a major goal of his pontificate.

Reuters' continues to demonstrate favor towards the Vatican by quoting Pope Benedict almost exclusively throughout the entire article, particularly on the power of music and the Olympics. With all eyes on China due to hosting the Olympics this summer, this act of reconciliation could not have come at a better time to boost the country's image after it received damaging media coverage for its handling of the events in Tibet as well as other human rights issues. The article notes that this something the papacy clearly took into account before deciding to host the event.

He sent his regards to all Chinese people "as they prepare for the Olympic games, an event of great importance for the entire human family....

Church sources said before the concert that the Chinese were clearly "shopping for good will" in an effort to improve China's international image, tarnished by recent unrest in Tibet and disruptions of the international leg of the Olympic torch relay.

The Associated Press, on the other hand, decided to write their story from China's viewpoint, but this time the Chinese government is given the credit for trying to rebuild ties between the two countries.

China is ready to improve relations with the Holy See and music is the "bridge of communication," Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said at a news conference Thursday.

Ties between the Vatican and China's communist government have been strained for decades, but Qin said Beijing would like to see that change.

Papal Coverage in Lean Times

The Pew Forum, in cooperation with the Project for Excellence in Journalism, recently released a content analysis of how the media reported Pope Benedict XVI's first trip to the United States. It was a follow up to the fine analysis the Pew Forum provided before the April 2008 visit.

The study meticulously measured and categorized the pope's visit to Washington, D.C. and New York.

But Impossible to measure are some of the variables affecting the amount and topics for coverage.

One variable is logistics. While papal tours are notoriously difficult—in my experience much worse than covering a presidential appearance—this visit was more trying than most.

In New York, journalists griped about being detained for hours by the Secret Service in hot buses. Reporters covering the event alone had to chose one event over another, because the media had to be in place many hours before the Pope's arrival, to allow for thorough checking of equipment and people. And a press pass didn't guarantee a spot at events. Reserved media seating was extremely limited for photographers and videographers, especially.

This was the first papal visit to the U.S. since 9/11. So security was ramped up from the visits of Pope John Paul II—although even in the 1980s security checked media equipment and took other precautions. Pope Benedict XVI's visit to high profile cities may also have added to security concerns.

Unfortunately, no study of Pope John Paul II's U.S. visits, with the same parameters as the Pew Forum content study, exists. My own content audit of religion news over 45 years showed that past coverage of U.S. papal tours was massive enough to cause a spike in U.S. Catholic news for the whole year.

One other factor had a huge impact on this coverage: the fiscal fears of corporate media owners, who have slashed thousands of newsroom jobs in the past two years. While the number of religion reporters has remained fairly constant despite the cuts, travel budgets and the ability to spare a reporter for road trip reporting has disappeared. Large papers such as the Chicago Tribune and The Cleveland Plain Dealer, both of which are in cities with large Roman Catholic populations, sent no reporters to cover the pope.

The absence of these newspapers from papal trips was unheard of even 10 years ago. It's a clear sign that the economic worries of media corporations is affecting today's important religion news.

Fear and (self-) loathing on the faith beat

Forgive my choice of words but faith reporting can be both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, you have the opportunity to write about a subject that can be both personal and powerful, intersects with nearly all walks/aspects of life and allows you to meet fascinating people with inspiring and/or moving stories. On the other hand, you have to handle these issues with sensitivity while working within the constraints of your various medium.

In my case, the medium is print...and, with print comes issues of space. Sometimes, pieces of the story you write end up being snatched from the final version. At other times, the narrative that develops over the course of writing a story forces you to leave out certain sources or pieces of information because there is not room to say every single thing you know about the subject.

The latter of those dilemmas has surfaced in my own reporting of late. Today, the Missourian ran a story I wrote on how papal visits can shape the spiritual journeys of young Catholics. In reporting this story, I met several people whose stories of encountering the pope were very interesting and who, personally, were very likeable. Unfortunately, not every source made a significant appearance (or an appearance at all) in my final draft. The title of this post refers first to my fear of offending them or making them feel their contributions were insignificant. This couldn't be further from the truth. It also refers to the anxiety I've put myself through knowing I couldn't include the details of their experiences. So, if you'll indulge me...I want to write for just a moment about some great people I met in the course of reporting this piece (which I hope you'll read).

• Ron and Rachel Vessell are a father and daughter from Jefferson City, Missouri who are, I assume, in Washington D.C. now, having a second opportunity to hear a pope speak. The Vessell family attended a papal mass in 1999. Personally, Ron and Rachel were a delight to engage in conversation. Their affinity for each other and for their faith was evident. I found Ron and Rachel intelligent, articulate and engaging. Rachel, currently studying theology at Franciscan University in Ohio, spoke about learning the doctrines of her faith with a pure joy that was immediately evident. While the Vessell's didn't make it into the piece, interviewing them was one of the highlights of writing this story.
• Father Jeremy Secrist is one of the pastors at Our Lady of Lourdes in Columbia. Father Secrist had the opportunity to meet Pope John Paul II in 2003 when a choral group he was part of sang for the pope at a very intimate gathering. When Secrist attempted to describe what it was like to meet John Paul II, his inability to find the right words illustrated just how much the experience had meant. I wanted to capture that moment in my story but instead, because of the direction it took, Secrist's role was diluted to a single sentence. Father Secrist's story was, however, very consistent with those profiled and my inability to fuse the two is unfortunate.

I look forward to the people and situations I will encounter in future faith reporting. I do not, however, look forward to the continued challenges that will come in making a product out of the personal stories of others without omitting some very special moments.

Shakti, the Hindu goddess of power, reborn?

Near New Dehli, India, a baby girl was born with two faces. According to Newsweek, it's her double visage that makes her parents believe that she is a reincarnation of Shakti, the Hindu goddess of power.

Lali, the baby, suffers from "what appears to be craniofacial duplication, an extremely rare congenital disorder in which part of the face is duplicated on the head."

According to her grandfather, the child is able to function much like a normal child would. She has eaten with both her mouths and blinks all four of her eyes.

“The birth is a miracle and a good sign for the village,” said Daulat Ram, the village chief.

Newsweek didn't address why an image of two faces would lead the family to believe Lali is a reincarnation of Shakti. Perhaps a little more research and information about Hindu beliefs would have made this a more informative story. However, the article is conscientious of the family's beliefs and stays unbiased.

A bitter pill the media refuses to swallow

By now many have read the dustup that followed Huffington Post's report that Obama had referred to small-town citizens as being angry, bitter, and clinging to things like faith and guns in these tough times. In case you missed it, here is what he said, accoring to HuffPost (full text of the remarks at the link above):

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I use the term "dustup" because this has mostly been a media-centric firestorm; it's not exactly clear if he offended anyone, but the mere fact that his remarks might have been offensive was enough to dominate the ratings-hungry cable news kingmakers all weekend. It is true that this flap has been news, in a sense, but the mainstream media in large part spent their precious resources missing the boat on this one.

It's absurd to think somebody like Obama, who champions his faith and has fought for votes in Red States that Hillary has by and large ignored, somehow thinks religion and guns are merely things worth clinging to. But this sense of context was stripped out of much of the reporting, as the press dissolved into the usual he-said-she-said version of events. What has resulted is a back-and-forth war of wards that has dragged the Democratic race into the gutter and does little to help democracy.

What Obama (admittedly) phrased poorly was the sense that religion has been used as a wedge for people in small towns where the economy has left them behind. With job prospects on the wane, he was trying to note that politics usually turns to side issues such as gay marriage to give people a reason to vote. Because let's face it, every politician no matter the party goes into towns like that and promises to bring back jobs even when they know they aren't going to deliver. As a guy who has been wedged a time or two due to my faith, Obama's words resonate.

Still, Obama is not the first to note this phenomenon. The fact that CNN hosted a forum on faith and politics this past weekend - a forum attended by both Dem hopefuls - is a nod to the fact that the Democrats have been outflanked on this issue for years. The event, and the candidates' attendance, is an acknowledgment that Dems are tired of being wedged out on these issues. By participating, Hillary Clinton was pretty much conceding Obama's much-maligned point.

The MSM pretty well missed on this entire story. Rhetorical wars are good for ratings, perhaps, but it's hard to see how it's good for democracy. Clinton's own surrogates were admitting that what Obama was saying was essentially true, but worried that the GOP would use the remarks as, you guessed it, a wedge in the fall. And of course they have good reason to think that; if Clinton can co-opt the media into a war of words with a member of her own party, how much juicier would it be when it's Democrat vs. Republican?

So how could the media have done better?

• First, ignore the war of words and dissect what was being said. Report the quote, but get to the essential point Obama was trying to make.
• Go through the record and see if Obama's statement is a) in line with his past statements, b) in line with anything Clinton has said in the past, and c) reflects the reality on the ground in the Pennsylvania towns he was describing.

The first two were easy. The MSM would have found that Obama and Clinton agree on the issue that religion has been used as a wedge. Also, had it used Obama's own statements about his faith as a lens to understand the offending quote, they could have added context to Clinton's charges ("He doesn't understand people of faith") and shown how laughable the charges of elitism were. The last of the three tasks, though, is tough. It requires that reporters get off the campaign bus and talk to real small-town folk, people the elite press often have trouble understanding. It takes conversations longer than five minutes. In short, it takes a little bit of effort.

The he-said-she-said thing is much easier, but it's not the high road. I personally have some doubts about Obama's readiness to be president, but I do believe he has tried to run a more positive campaign. When Hillary was drowning in the sniper story or the Mark Penn fiasco, Obama didn't say a word on the trail; all along, his campaign has been about big ideas, not petty politics. When a few remarks of his create controversy here and there, Clinton has gone into attack mode and the MSM have fallen for it hook, line, sinker.

In the end, we might remember this election as the one where the media were co-opted into blowing up the flaws of a good man and making him out to be a monster. And it's too bad, because there are a lot of issues (i.e. health care, the economy, Iraq) that deserve the front-burner status instead occupied by these petty arguments. We in the academy have been arguing forever that issues like these are why we need journalism, and here in what could be our finest hour we are failing the public. I don't think it's entirely based on laziness, but also because the media generally just don't know how to cover religion as something more than a topic. Is it any wonder that when it comes to news, Americans are increasingly turning off the TV and canceling their subscriptions?

We media types have been justifying our existence for the past few years by noting how "democracy depends on journalism" and other catchy phrases; it's time now to earn our keep.

DNC gives TLC to Faith beat reporters

Religion reporters often have a hard time getting the attention of the presidential candidates. Despite journalists wooing them to speak at Religion Newswriters' annual conferences in 2004 and 2007, no presidential candidate has ever agreed to address the annual meeting of the Religion Newswriters Association. Instead, the regular political campaign reporting team ends up trying to interpret instances in which the candidates speak about or act upon their religious beliefs. Religious publications are even rarer at the presidential conventions.

But Democrats, tired of Republicans identified as God's Own Party, are grasping for attention from people of faith. Earlier this week the DNC Convention Committee held a press briefing for religious media about credentialing information to the August event. They decided to include mainstream religion reporters in the mix, too.

To my knowledge, this is the first time mainstream religion writers were ever asked to get information about credentials for either party's presidential campaigns.

The DNC Convention planners expect some 15,000 media to cover the Aug. 25-28, 2008, event.  What difference will the addition of religion reporters or religious journalists make? How will they cover that meeting differently? It remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, former journalist Stephen Heffner has come up with another candidate: Jesus.  On Heffner's site, the public can say what they think Jesus' positions would be on political issues from abortion to Iraq. Heffner says, "This is a serious project that aims to foster debate and, I hope, positive change regarding the way we view ourselves, our country, and the many important issues that we face."

Is Heffner witty? Blasphemous? Both?

Religion in the Workplace? What does Ms. Manners have to say?

The arguments over whether or not religion belongs in schools or at the workplace are as old as the argument of church vs. state. Whether it's openly arguing in the supply closet or silently simmering after the clerical assistant asked you to come with him to his church on Sunday to be saved, workplace decorum has reached an all-time high in confusion over what's appropriate or not, religious-wise. Fortunatly, CNN has the answer... or at least the arguments.

Religion, like sex and politics, once was considered inappropriate watercooler talk. Not anymore. Prayer sessions, religious diversity groups and chaplains like Reece, along with rabbis and imams, have become more common across corporate America in the past decade.

Fifty percent of those questioned in a 2002 Gallup poll said religious expression should be tolerated in the work place while another 28 percent thought it should be encouraged. That's compared to 21percent who didn't see a place for religious expression on the job.

Some seem to think that open displays of religion are fine, as long as conversion techniques are not employed. But even an employee of a nonprofit Catholic organization thinks there's a time and a place for everything... and the workplace isn't it.

"Ironically, I think it is better to leave it out of the workplace, if it is a non-faith-based job," says Willits. "I think religion is a very personal and emotional thing for many people. Bringing religion into the workplace can cause trouble."

All in all, CNN does a great job of looking at most conceivable sides of the argument, from the possible downsides to some of the benefits employees get from having religious help. It even has quotes from several self-proclaimed agnostics and atheists.

It was also interesting that CNN reporters made a point of including references to the Muslim ritual of praying five times a day, some of which obviously occur during working hours.

Texas Instruments in Dallas, for example, provides serenity rooms for prayer and mediation. "Our company gives us a place to go say our prayers easily and then we can get back to work," says Siraj Akhtar, 33, an RFID design manager whose Muslim faith requires him to pray five times a day. "In the past we would go to a stairwell, which was not the best thing to do."

However the majority of the reporting talks about the usual Christian religions. What do you think? Is religion appropriate in the workplace? What about religions like Islam, which require daily prayer during working hours? Should the company provide spaces for their Muslim workers?

Intelligent conversation about intelligent design film? You be the judge.

In a "Media Talk" column in Monday's New York Times, John Metcalfe outlines a conflict between a film critic and the makers of a new movie about intelligent design/evolution. The article, "Disinvited to a Screening, a Critic Ends Up in a Faith-Based Crossfire", details how Orlando Sentinel critic Roger Moore, after having his invitation to a screening of the upcoming documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," revoked, attended anyway and wrote what Metcalfe calls "perhaps the harshest review “Expelled” has received thus far."

The film, according to the Times article, features "actor/economist" Ben Stein (the "Bueller...Bueller?" guy) interviewing "scientists and teachers who say that Darwinism gets too much emphasis in the classroom and that proponents of the theory of intelligent design are treated unfairly." The article states the film was being shown to religious leaders, not critics, because the film was "not polished enough for professional scrutiny."

Of Moore's reaction to the film, Metcalfe writes:

"Mr. Moore deplored what he perceived as “loaded images, loaded rhetoric, few if any facts” and accused Mr. Stein of using a “Holocaust denier’s” tactics. Which, of course, was exactly the reaction the moviemakers were hoping to avoid by keeping mainstream critics out."

Metcalfe goes on to talk about the back-and-forth that's resulted between Moore and those associated with the film, including Stein. On Monday, Moore posted a blog entry on the Sentinel's website regarding the controversy. He references a "firestorm" surrounding the film and says his role has been "magnified." He also takes issue with the angle/approach used by Metcalfe. Referencing the filmmakers' intent and some inherent religious implications, Moore writes:

"Too much is being made of who should or should not be "invited" to a public showing of a movie that will be released to the public. If I'm invited, I go. Trying to disinvite me will work if I'm convinced the film is unfinished. I wasn't convinced of that, in this case. And the reason Motive et.al. didn't want non-Christian opinion-makers at the movie is pretty obvious.

My position on this is that I am not going to let Lauer and company sneak another movie out with lots of like-minded preachers and lay-people "reviewing" it before I do, aka The Passion of the Christ. A whole lot of conservative Christians endorsed that movie prior to its release and apparently didn't recognize its anti-Semitism. They praised Mel Gibson to the high heavens (sorry) until he was outed as the raving anti-Semite that he actually is. Real critics, even non-Jews (like myself) spotted the film's hateful caricatures of Jews right off. "

You can read Moore's original comments on the film here.

Regardless of the film's content, is Moore, by his actions and continued reactions, guilty of making himself part of the story? Based on what he and others have said, should he have gone to the screening? Or, is this perhaps an example of extreme but necessary behavior journalists should take in pointing our perceived hypocrisies? Does it matter that Moore is a film critic and not a religion or science reporter?

Where are civil unions in Sermon on the Mount?

Sorry to post on Obama twice in a row, but presidential elections (especially this one) are rich with material for those seeking to examine the media's coverage of religion. Apparently in the same Ohio appearance I referenced in a previous post, the Democratic presidential hopeful cited Jesus' Sermon on the Mount as part of his justification for civil unions for homosexual couples. I first read Obama's statements in a blog post by Christianity Today's Sarah Pulliam.

Having grown up in a church that studied this passage fairly frequently, I was curious to know which verses Obama was specifically referencing (you can read the passage---Matthew Ch. 5-7---in the New International Version translation by clicking on the hyperlink. If you prefer other translations, the BibleGateway site will allow you to select one). Apparently, Mollie Ziegler of the blog GetReligion was curious about the reference as well. In a post entitled "Blessed are the question askers," Ziegler wonders why more mainstream news outlets didn't probe Obama further. She lists several media attempts to "speculate" about what Obama meant, then states: 

"I have an idea. Rather than speculating, how about one of these fancy reporters ask Obama which specific portion of the Sermon on the Mount he was referencing! I didn’t go to journalism school, though, so maybe I’m wrong."

Ziegler gives "the partisan and religious press" a better grade before concluding:

"If Obama is going to use the Bible to justify his policy positions, we’re bound to see more coverage. Let’s hope future coverage does a better job of explaining things."

My ever-developing thoughts on religion reporting have been profoundly influenced by the writings of Boston University's Stephen Prothero who I believe would, in this case, agree with Ziegler. Prothero argues that Americans need a better understanding of religious terminology and beliefs to completely engage as citizens and that journalists should be more discerning in their coverage, not allowing public figures to use religious speech without context and definition.

Is Ziegler right? Does Obama's use of Scripture in this instance hold water? How far should the media go in questioning the use of spiritual language by politicians?

Is media complicit in Obama religion flap?

Today while campaigning in the final run-up to tomorrow's Ohio Democratic primary, Illinois Senator Barack Obama again addressed Internet rumors related to his religious beliefs and practices. As early as January 2007, news outlets published stories about falsehoods circulating that the candidate was truly a Muslim in disguise, not the committed United Church of Christ member he has affirmed himself to be time and again. The account of today's rally included the following passage:

"'I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years. I pray to Jesus every night,'" he declared at an earlier appearance in the rural southern Ohio town of Nelsonville. He said he wanted to halt "confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated."

That Obama is forced to continually address these rumors brings up at least a few questions about media coverage of this story:

1. If the mainstream press has published stories debunking these claims since last year, have these stories been involved/in-depth enough to assuage any public concerns? Could the media be doing more or is this a case where a segment of the public continues to believe what they want to believe in the face of factual presentation?
2. Has there been sufficient coverage of the factors motivating these fears? Even if Obama were a Muslim (and let's make it clear again that he is not), should that at all be cause for public concern? Naomi Klein of The Nation, in a recent op-ed piece, said worries over Obama's religion point to a bigger issue:

"What is disturbing about the campaign's response is that it leaves unchallenged the disgraceful and racist premise behind the entire "Muslim smear": that being Muslim is de facto a source of shame. "

Is Klein right? If she is, should the media be doing more to show these unfounded attacks for what they truly are? As voters, how has this coverage affected your view of the presidential race?