Veteran GetReligion readers will remember that I grew up as a Southern Baptist preacher’s kid in Texas and then, as an undergraduate, did a double major in journalism and history at Baylor University, along with a master’s in church-state studies.
Why bring up my Baptist credentials, right now? Well, they’re relevant to the topic that “Crossroads” host Todd Wilken and I discussed during this week’s podcast. (Click here to tune that in.)
You see, I have been listening to Bible Belt folks argue about journalism for a long time. My parents backed my career choice, but trust me when I say that I can quote chapter and verse on why many people think that “Christian” and “journalist” are words that don’t go together.
The bottom line: If you ask why so many journalists struggle to do accurate, balanced coverage of religion you’ll hear lots of conservatives in pews (and pulpits) say: “Well, journalists hate religious people.”
That’s a straw-man argument and simplistic, to boot. I have seen, and heard about, some strong examples of prejudice against religious folks in newsrooms, but I have never thought that negative prejudice was the biggest problem that skews religion coverage. For starters, I’ve met some journalists who don’t care enough about religion to, well, hate it. There’s way more journalists who think that there’s good religion and then there’s bad religion and they are pretty sure which is which.
Anyway, I continue to hear from GetReligion readers who are mad about all those news stories on independent preachers who ignore coronavirus crisis “shelter in place” orders requiring them to avoid business-as-usual worship. Here’s a chunk of the GetReligion post that served as the hook for the podcast:
… (The) question looks like this: Why are the few pastors who reject “shelter in place” orders getting so much ink with their face-to-face worship services, while the vast majority of clergy who have moved their rites online — often for the first time — are getting little or no coverage? I have already written about this twice at GetReligion — look here and then here. …
Here is what people are feeling: How come some angry preacher deep in the Bible Belt is getting all this coverage and, well, online efforts by the still massive Southern Baptist Convention are ignored?
Frankly, the leap to online worship hasn’t been ignored. It has been covered over and over in local and regional news and in a few national stories that have not received all that much attention.
It’s also true — you know this if you follow Twitter — that Catholic and Eastern Orthodox people have been arguing about “shelter in place” rules, as well.
First, here me say that the “angry preachers” story is important and deserves coverage. But I do think that there are biases that play a role in this coverage.
Like what?
Well, it’s much easier — especially when you’re already thin newsroom staff has been weakened by this crisis — to cover a story about a few angry pastors, or one in your backyard, than to take on a national story about major religious groups diving into digital worship. Ditto for the obvious story about how local, regional and national religious groups are facing financial challenges. Ditto for the threats to many religious colleges and seminaries.
Also, it is true that many journalists see the world through the lens of politics and, thus, they love to link the “angry preachers” with stereotypes (Thank you, Jerry Falwell, Jr.) about Donald Trump disciples.
That political lens is a form of bias — but it’s not strictly a negative bias. It’s a bias in favor of a certain FORM of religion coverage.
This all of this in mind, let me point readers to an article that I wrote long ago — 1993, in fact — for The Quill, a national journalism magazine. The headline: “Religion and the News Media: Have our biases fatally wounded our coverage?” In it, I argued that there are four different forms of bias that affect the news media “blind spot” on religion news. I’ve done some editing to keep this as short as I can!
* The bias of space, time and resources. Simply stated: You cannot print a story if you have little space in which to print it, time to write it, or the money to hire a professional to do so. …
Many editors insist resources are too thin to support professional religion coverage. But anyone who understands newsrooms knows budgets are windows into the priorities of those who manage them. Budgets help shape news.
* The bias of knowledge. Fact: You cannot write a story if you do not know that it exists. …
Many journalists work hard to become trained political, arts or sports reporters. But editors do not consider it a high priority to hire professional religion writers. Why not?
* This leads to the bias of worldview. Simply stated: It is hard to write a good story if you don't care that it exists. The result is, at best, a blind spot on religious issues, and the people who care about them.
A now infamous case came … when The Washington Post printed a story that said evangelical Christians are ``largely poor, uneducated and easy to command.'' A Post correction bluntly said there was “no factual basis'' for this statement. …
Post ombudsman Joann Byrd made the following point: “When journalists aren't like, or don't know, the people they are writing about, they can operate with no ill will whatsoever and still not recognize that a statement doesn't ring true. It may be even harder to see how deeply offensive a common perception can be.'' …
* Finally, there is the bias of prejudice. It's hard to produce balanced, fair coverage of people you dislike, distrust, or whom you feel are irrelevant.
Yes, many on the right like to blame all poor, negative or shallow religion coverage on this fourth bias. They note surveys indicating that about nine out of 10 journalists back abortion rights and a large majority supports gay rights. Journalists insist this does not affect news, but evidence suggests that it does.
I remain convinced that the “worldview” bias is the most powerful.
Now, how do we see that bias in the tsunami of news about “angry preachers,” as opposed to the lack of national level coverage of issues linked to the vast majority of religious believers who are bravely staying home from their religious sanctuaries?