God, Media and More

The closure of this blog

Greetings to those who have found their way to our blog, "God, Media & More," a place to discuss the role of religion in media, and media in religion. Our blog, linked to the Web site of the Center on Religion & the Professions at University of Missouri, was discontinued in December 2008. We launched a new Web site for the Center, www.religionandprofessions.org, and have discontinued the blog at this time. However, we appreciate your interest in the intersection of religion and media and encourage you to check out our resources available on the Center's Web site.

Media coverage of religion in the election

Religion played a larger role in media coverage of Barack Obama than coverage of John McCain in the recent presidential election, according to a report released today by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Much of the coverage of Obama related to false rumors of Obama being Muslim.

The report is based on a study examining religion-focused election coverage in 48 news outlets from June 1 to Oct. 15, 2008.

Additional findings:

• Press narratives tied to religion accounted for 4% of the general election campaign’s “newshole”– the time or space available in an outlet for news content. While this was less than coverage of the Iraq war (6%) or the economic crisis (9%), it was more prominent than coverage of energy issues (2%) and the environment (less than 1%), and equal to coverage of the Republican National Convention (4%). During the general election, storylines related to religion received as much attention by the press as those that focused on race (4%).

• Far more of the religion storylines involved Obama, and most of these involved controversy or had an unfavorable cast. In all, Obama was the lead newsmaker in more than half (53%) of the religion-focused campaign stories. By contrast, McCain was the focus of just 9%. Palin (19%) was more tied to religion than her running mate, though less so than Obama. Examination of Palin’s family values, church background and related issues made up one-fourth of the newshole devoted to religion in the campaign.
  
  
• The single biggest religion storyline in the general election phase of the campaign centered on rumors that the Democratic nominee, who is a mainline Protestant Christian, is a Muslim (30%). An additional 5% of the religion-focused coverage dealt with evangelical broadcaster James Dobson’s criticism of Obama’s positions. But despite the largely negative focus of the Obama religion coverage, a Pew Forum analysis of exit polls shows nearly every religious group measured supported him in greater numbers than they supported Democratic nominee John Kerry four years ago.
  

• The notion of “pastor problems,” or candidates’ associations with controversial religious figures, was a clear narrative in campaign coverage. All four candidates faced coverage focusing on religious figures. Attention to clerics Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger and John Hagee alone made up 11% of religion coverage in the general election. A feature of much of this coverage was replaying of the inflammatory recorded words and video images of these ministers. Circulated on cable news, talk radio and the Internet, these recordings were used to scrutinize the candidates’ judgment in associating with such figures.

• The Aug. 16 Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, moderated by Warren at his California megachurch, drew brief but intense media coverage. It made up 10% of all campaign coverage the week it occurred but quickly dropped to 5% the following week. By the end of August, it was no longer a major press topic at all. Still, that was enough to have that one event account for 11% of religion-focused campaign coverage in the general election.
• Culture war issues were not a driving narrative of this election cycle. The extent to which they were present, they emerged late in the campaign and were largely tied to the nomination of Palin. Together, social issues – including abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research – composed 9% of religion-focused campaign news but less than 1% of campaign news overall. Abortion was by far the biggest of these, again, largely focused on Palin. 
  

View the full report here.

Hagan wins

A postscript to the previous post:

Democrat Kay Hagan won her North Carolina senatorial bid against incumbent Republican Elizabeth Dole.

On Election Day, with 50 of 100 counties reporting, Hagan led Dole by 52.3 to 44.6 percent. Libertarian Christopher Cole had 3.1 percent.

Support for Dole, once considered a shoe-in, began to wane as the election neared. The nail in the coffin, one voter observed, was "the Godless Americans thing," referring to the Dole ad accusing Hagan of accepting funds from an atheist advocacy group and questioning her belief in God. Hagan followed with her own ad declaring, "I believe in God."

Dole said after the election that while she did not regret fighting hard to represent constituents, she was "not happy with the tone this campaign acquired." A Dole supporter asserted that such controversial ads were necessary because "America needs to know what their candidate stands for and where they get their money from."

While it appears many voters found the Dole ad unsavory, not much has been said - as "God, Media & More" reader Paul pointed out on his own blog - about the repercussions of employing "atheist-as-slur" as a campaign strategy.

Loss of faith in atheism coverage

Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole is running a controversial ad in North Carolina this week questioning the Christian faith of her Democrat opponent Kay Hagan.

The 30-second TV spot shows clips of members of an atheist advocacy group (Godless Americans Political Action Committee) talking about their goals, such as removing "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency. It then questions why Hagan attended a fundraiser held at the home of a man who is an adviser to the atheist group.

The ad's voiceover says: "Godless Americans and Kay Hagan. She hid from cameras. Took Godless money. What did Hagan promise in return?" At the end, a woman whose voice sounds like Hagan's announces: "There is no God!"

Hagan volleyed with an ad accusing Dole of breaking the Bible's Ninth Commandment by bearing false witness. On Thursday, Hagan - a Presbyterian church elder and Sunday school teacher - filed a lawsuit accusing Dole of defamation and libel. In court documents, Hagan's attorneys wrote: "Each airing of the advertisement further injures (Hagan's) good name and reputation in the community."

On legal grounds, Hagan probably could prove libel (and slander, for the ad's spoken words) by providing evidence of her religious affiliation and commitment to demonstrate the statements were not accurate. She could assert that her profession of faith and church involvement indicate a belief in God (though the content of one's soul and mind are obviously more difficult to present as "Exhibit A").

However, the issue of "defamation" is a sticky one. The suit's assumption is that being depicted as a possible atheist assigns a negative image to Hagan and injures her reputation. The ad's implication is that if Hagan agreed with the goals of the atheist advocacy group or were an atheist herself, her character and judgment would be unsuitable for public office.

Exploring these positions was an angle the Associated Press article missed. The situation begs the questions: "What if Hagan were an atheist? Does that mean she shouldn't run for office? Couldn't represent her constituents? Can't be trusted to have her state and country's best interests in mind?"

The U.S. Constitution explicitly states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Yet Americans as a whole distrust atheists.

A 2006 national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota's department of sociology found atheists to be the least accepted social group in the United States. The survey found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other minority groups in "sharing their vision of American society." A 2007 Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey found that 63 percent say they would be less inclined to support a presidential candidate who "does not believe in God," the most negative trait tested. Americans are less likely to vote for an atheist than a "Muslim" (46 percent) or a "Mormon" (30 percent), according to the survey.

What you don't see reported much in the press are what I would describe as "atheists are people too" statements (ie. atheists are American citizens like anyone else, "atheist" is regarded as a "slur," or there's nothing on the face of atheism that makes atheists unreliable or unfit for public service). Coverage of this story begged for a quote from one of the several active secular or "non-theist" groups, such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation or Council for Secular Humanism.

The omission was similar to that committed by the press, Barack Obama and John McCain presidential campaigns, and other organizations in responding (or not responding) to repeated references to Obama being Muslim. Many Muslims privately, and some Muslim organizations publicly, questioned: "And what would be wrong with him if he were?" or pointed out that these assertions about Obama, a professed Christian, are categorized as "smears" on his campaign's "Fight the Smears" Web site.

McCain, given an opportunity to address the question at a rally earlier this month, didn't clarify the issue when he now famously responded to a woman's statement about Obama being an "Arab" by saying: "No ma'am. He's a decent family man."

Republican and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his endorsement of Obama on Oct. 19, finally gave voice to these concerns in an address that was widely reported and consumed, when he said:

I'm also troubled by ... what members of the party say, and is permitted to be said, such things as, "Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, "He's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian." But the really right answer is, "What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?" The answer's "No, that's not America."

Coverage of the Dole-Hagan controversy, and indeed the issue of atheism in politics and in America, calls for a similar grounding voice.

CBS Morning News Early Show features Center scholar

MU Health Psychologist Brick Johnstone, who directs the Center on Religion & the Profession's Spirituality and Health project, was featured on the CBS Morning News Early Show today. He discussed his research about the impact of prayer on health and healing.

Johnstone works with an interdisciplinary team at MU that seeks to better understand the effects of religion on healing and health. Here, CBS paired Brick's interview with a profile of a young man seriously injured on a motorcycle accident and whose family attributes prayer to his survival.

The media have been slow to report on research about spirituality and health—often focusing on the prayer component. Has this area of reporting grown to match the amount of work done in the field? It's hard to know, but I doubt it. What do you think?

Don't be religulous

I haven't seen the new Bill Maher film, "Religulous," in which he takes aim at organized religion, but I have a quibble with one of the quotes in a recent article about it.

The film is directed by Larry Charles, of "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" fame (so perhaps I shouldn't expect accuracy, based on critiques of that film's Kazakhstan characterizations). Regardless, Charles - who reportedly grew up Jewish and once considered becoming a rabbi - says in the article:

If I believe that Jesus is God and you believe Mohammed is God, then no matter how tolerant we are, we are never going to meet. All you have to do is push that one more step, then somebody’s like, ‘You’re in the way of people believing in Jesus,’ and ‘You’re in the way of people believing in Mohammed,’ and the only answer is to kill you.

I don't disagree with the right to differ with religious groups about their beliefs. But I believe the press has a duty, when a source presents inaccurate information, to include correct information in the story. Muslims don't believe Muhammad is God, and while some venerate him, they don't worship him or view him the way Christians view Jesus.

Here's what the Religion Stylebook says about Muhammad:

Muhammad: Islam’s most important prophet. Because Muslims believe Islam existed before Muhammad, they consider him to be the religion’s final prophet, not its founder. Non-Muslims refer to Muhammad as the founder of Islam. Capitalize the word prophet when used with Muhammad’s name – as in the Prophet Muhammad – but not when used alone. According to traditional Muslim biographers, Muhammad was born circa 570 in Mecca and died in 632 in Medina, both cities in what is now Saudi Arabia.

Since so many people learn what they know - or think they know - from consuming media, it's vital that the information they consume is as accurate as possible. Running with inaccurate information fuels misunderstanding and, potentially, stereotyping, discrimination and hostility.

I imagine the "Religulous" film will do plenty along those lines on its own, but the press missed an opportunity here to correct the information it disseminates.

Religion missing from debate

Last night Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain squared off in their second presidential debate leading up to the Nov. 4 election. The town hall format debate was held in Nashville, Tenn. While the candidates discussed a wide variety of domestic and foreign policy issues, one thing that was not discussed was religion.

In the hours following the debate many religion journalists have begun reporting this lack of religion at the debate. Below are the articles found so far:

GetReligion - Another debate without much religion

Articles of Faith - Faith at the second presidential debate

TitusOneNine - Obama, McCain lay out contrasts before undecided voters

If you find anymore post them below or send an email, come back later for more updates as more articles are  published.

More on the hijab

A few months ago there was a post on God, Media and More about a few Muslim women who sued McDonald's because they felt they were discriminated against for wearing their hijab.

altmuslim, whose founder, Shahed Amanullah spoke at the 2008 RNA Conference recently published this detailed article providing a description of the history of the hijab and its relationship with society and modern culture.

Fundamentally Speaking

Has anyone else noticed that "fundamentals" are everywhere these days?

It started with Sen. John McCain's Sept. 15 pronouncement that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." Even at the time I thought it was an odd way to phrase it. Not "the economy is strong." But essentially voicing a view that the basic principles of the economy - however you define them - are strong.

The statement seemed more of a philosophical one (about capitalism, free markets?) from the presidential candidate than an assessment of the actual experiences of Americans, not to mention present-day Wall Street.

However, not being an economist (recall that McCain said he's not an economy expert either), I don't intend to write an economic analysis. I'm just following a word.

It popped up again a few days later when U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said on Sept. 21, "I wouldn't bet against the long-term fundamentals of this country."

Speaking of his vice presidential candidate's experience to The Des Moines Register on Sept. 30, McCain got the word in twice:

Thank you, but I disagree with your fundamental principle that she doesn't have the experience. You and I just have a fundamental disagreement, and I am so happy the American people are siding with me.

The director of the University of Idaho's journalism school said through a spokeswoman on Oct. 1 that, "The fundamentals of ethical behavior are part of all our mass media courses," reacting to VP candidate Sarah Palin's comment that much had changed since she received her ethics training there.

At last night's vice presidential debate (Oct. 2), Sen. Joe Biden, responding to the first question asked, got variations of the word in twice in one sentence:

And so, as a consequence of that, it brings us back to maybe the fundamental disagreement between Gov. Palin and me and Sen. McCain and Barack Obama, and that is that the - we're going to fundamentally change the focus of the economic policy.

Between the two candidates, I counted "fundamentally" or "fundamental(s)" used 11 times during the debate. (I actually was surprised it wasn't used more). Check out these word clouds generated by the debate transcript. "Fundamental" made Biden's word cloud (look in the lower right).

Of course it's not the first time the word has been used, but in recent weeks it's taken up residence in both official and off-the-cuff speak. My concern is that it's just become the latest buzz word to roll off the tongue, fill space, sound authoritative and not mean much. For people so very interested in core principles, values and identity, we seem to use the word rather carelessly. It's often not clear what it means - which is perhaps why it's convenient - and its overuse diminishes its actual meanings.

Why is this interesting?

The media have gotten better about dissecting the intended meaning of the word's relative, the oft-used, abused and misused "fundamentalist" (which is how this post relates to religion).

Both the AP Stylebook and Religion Stylebook say to use the word cautiously:

fundamentalism, fundamentalist: A Christian religious movement that began in the U.S. in the late 19th century and early 20th century to counter liberalism and secularism. It emphasized the inerrancy of the Bible. In recent years, fundamentalist and fundamentalism have become associated with any religious reactionary movement, such as Islamic fundamentalism. The words also have been used as pejoratives. Journalists often, and erroneously, label all conservative Christians, including conservative evangelicals, as fundamentalist. It is best to avoid the words unless a group applies the terms to itself.

In recent years, we've gotten better about not using "fundamentalist" when it is not the best word to describe what we are describing. We are more sensitive to its inaccuracies and pitfalls. And when it is used, now it is often with more intention than assumption.

(Though, check out Mollie Hemingway's incisive post on GetReligion about at least one article that failed to abide by this guidance in its Palin coverage.)

That said, why not pay as close attention to "fundamental?" To not do so is, I think, fundamentally flawed.

Bless This Hut

As a former religion journalist and former home and garden writer, I appreciated this recent blend of the two subjects in Michael Tortorello's entertaining and informative NY Times piece about building a sukkah (or more than one, as it were), in his backyard.

The open-air structures are built to celebrate Sukkot, the Jewish harvest holiday and commemoration of the Israelites' 40 years of wandering in the desert. Jews are commanded to dwell in these structures for the holiday as their ancestors did after the Exodus:

You will dwell in booths for seven days; all natives of Israel shall dwell in booths. - Leviticus 23:42

Tortorello approaches it much like an informative home-and-garden piece, but rather than comparing gas grills or lawn fertilizers, he compares the merits of several brands of pre-fab sukkot - from the "Tubular Sukkah" to the "Kotel."

The results are both amusing and practical. The article is also a "trend" piece, highlighting Americans' increasing reliance on the packaged and pre-fab - even for religious purposes. It demonstrates how religion mixes with nearly every other beat - and how you can find a religion story in one way or another in nearly every section of the newspaper.