God, Media and More

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.

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.

Some classic questions posed by a Mormon

Julie M. Smith of Times & Seasons, a Mormon blog, has published this post on good stewardship of the Earth, environmentalism and balancing male/female, father/mother roles in society. Its an interesting read as it ties together so many different ideas all stemming from the fun headline, "Paper or Plastic?"

Latest RNA Conference links

In these days of uncertainty for the religion beat and journalism in general, one thing is certain, people just can't stop talking (or writing) about last week's Religion Newswriters Annual Conference. Here are the most recent stories, if you come across any more, please send them this way.

The Seeker - Obama's family values tour

Romensko - Religion Newswriters Association announces its contest winners

Ethics Daily - Boston Globe's Michael Paulson wins top religion reporting awards

ReligionWriter - Why religion may not matter much in 2008, part 2

The Times (UK) - God's will or God swill?

The Dude Abides - Pentagon Memorial: Making beauty out of ugly things

GetReligion - Now that was easy, wasn't it?

Articles of Faith - Christian vegans and squash blossoms

Articles of Faith - A bay state bonanza on a basilica wall

This post was cross-posted from the RNA Annual Conference Blog. To see more stories on the conference click here.

Young Faith: An interesting angle on Ramadan

Mirko Petricevic of The Record in Waterloo, Canada recently wrote this article providing an interesting look into one of the many aspects of Ramadan, the holy month for those of the Islamic faith during which they fast from food during daylight.

The article looks at the added temptations placed on Islamic college students. With food at the center or at least some part of most college activities (speaking from experience here), these students are faced with additional challenges that they might not face at home.

This artlce is a part of a new weekly feature to God, Media and More looking at a story involving the younger generation and faith.

RNA Annual Conference

While in DC later this week for the Religion Newswriters Association Annual Conference I will be live blogging, recording video, doing interviews, taking pictures throughout the course of the week and uploading them to a Web site dedicated just to covering the conference. In preparation for the trip and to get some material onto the blog I have recently published some new posts.

The conference should prove to provide insight into where the religion beat is headed in these very interesting times for the world of journalism.

Be sure to check out the RNA Annual Conference 2008 blog for plenty of updates throughout the week.

Falsani videos

Below are two videos of Cathleen Falsani's entire speech at the "Religion and Politics" session of the Futures Forum at the Missouri J-School Centennial Celebration. For more on the session click here. Sorry for the delay as there was a problem with YouTube and the video had to be split in half.

Part 1:

Part 2: