Religious Media
There was an article written by Colleen McCain Nelson in the Dallas Morning News yesterday (Sunday, June 5, 2005) entitled, "Christians flocking to religious media" and the sub-headline read, "Turned off by bad news, faithful find salvation in alternative stations."
I am usually delighted to see the word "alternative" in print because it usually refers to something gay and therefore serves as an alert and captures my attention, but in this article this often friendly word was used to describe Christian news outlets, and since they exist outside of the mainstream, they too become worthy of a cool adjective like that. Like most articles that use the words "the faithful" and "believers" to describe what seems like a Christian club with all the answers, I found myself feeling marginalized and dejected after reading this one, like a foreigner might feel visiting an all-Christian country. When I should have known the love, I felt the exclusion.
The article was taking notice of the ways in which many Christians seem to gather and receive news and information in this millenium. Many Christians, the article says, have grown tired of the mainstream media, and are now getting their news from Christian outlets like Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcast Network (CBN), Fort Worth-based FamilyNet, and other religious television and radio stations, Christian magazines, and faith-related websites. Why? Well, in my opinion, Christian media outlets put a unique spin on things. They of course would argue that they don't spin a thing, but I beg to differ.
One example that this newspaper aritcle cited as evidence of the main difference between Christian news stations and the mainstream media, was centered around the Terri Schiavo case. As viewers, you and I will never hear the phrase "right to die" on CBN. That is far too liberal a phrase, and something we would more likely hear on the major networks. In fact, during the most intense news coverage regarding Terri Schiavo, many mainstream journalists spoke of "allowing" Terri Schiavo to die. But Rob Allman, the news director for CBN says in the Dallas Morning News article, "To me, if you were to not give me food or water, that would be forcing me to die."
I don't bring this up in order to make some grandiose statement about who was right and who was wrong in the Terry Schiavo case, but I do think it makes a point about the thought processes of the most conservative Christians, and sheds some light upon the ways in which they view the world. That black and white view doesn't tolerate gray, and as a result there is little room for wondering what if. They find much more comfort in certainty than they do in doubt, and their ability to weed out alternative thoughts and opinions nearly always leaves us with the most narrow end result. There is little room for faith.
The thing that disappoints me the most about this newspaper article, is the way that it unknowlingly paints a picture of Christian media outlets to be the correct, ruling Christian opinion. It makes other media outlets seem not merely secular, but almost anti-Christian in some ways. It's no secret that there are Christians employed in nearly every industry in America so it is certain that there are some amazing spirits delivering the evening news on the major networks, but this article makes it seem as if any story that would be delivered via these mainstream outlets would be tainted with liberal bias. And liberal bias is deemed anti-Christian. To me, the definition of liberal is not anti-Christian at all. A liberal leaves the door open wide enough for anyone to get through, and although a liberal may disagree with the opinion that enters, he or she is not threatened by its existence. Now that is faith-based.
This article made no mention of the Christian media's coverage of the gay marriage issue, or any other stories that would have an immediate impact upon the gay community. But we hear plenty of anti-gay soundbites from them in the mainstream media as it is, and we know exactly how they feel about such things. They label us "the homosexual agenda" and approach us with the underlying assumption that we have fallen off the blessed heterosexual path into something beyond the accepted norm, and in order to be considered true Christians they require us to leave homosexuality behind. To accept us as we are, would cast doubt onto something that has always been a certainty, and this is enough to cause them to reject the idea of embracing homosexuality. That's okay. Rejection by a few is tolerable. But when that rejection is given flight and made to be the ruling opinion (that is, you should deny homosexuality is valid because conservative Christian leaders on conservative Christian news broadcasts reject it), then I think a line is crossed. And Pat Robertson has plenty to say about the wrongfulness of homosexuality. Just ask Mel White and others. And Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcast Network is one of the most popular sources for Christian-based news. The news that comes from this station will have this conservative slant.
It's great that Christian news organizations exist. They can be a wonderful source of information and they can often provide us with a different perspective. But there is danger when we begin to see the news that these sources provide as sole representation of a collective Christian viewpoint. That's the feeling I was left with after reading the Dallas Morning News article. It seemed to say that there was Christian news and there was secular news. As a Christian, I want to do the most Christian thing. And I don't think that involves subscribing to a black and white opinion, when my Christian outlook tends to be most often gray. It's still Christian.
I believe we can all benefit from gathering information from a variety of sources, Christian media included. But we should remember that the "most Christian" viewpoint does not come from one news source over another, or one Christian leader over another. The "most Christian" viewpoint comes from within, because it's our own faith that will process it all. Relying on a single source (other than God) for wisdom only hinders that development.
I am usually delighted to see the word "alternative" in print because it usually refers to something gay and therefore serves as an alert and captures my attention, but in this article this often friendly word was used to describe Christian news outlets, and since they exist outside of the mainstream, they too become worthy of a cool adjective like that. Like most articles that use the words "the faithful" and "believers" to describe what seems like a Christian club with all the answers, I found myself feeling marginalized and dejected after reading this one, like a foreigner might feel visiting an all-Christian country. When I should have known the love, I felt the exclusion.
The article was taking notice of the ways in which many Christians seem to gather and receive news and information in this millenium. Many Christians, the article says, have grown tired of the mainstream media, and are now getting their news from Christian outlets like Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcast Network (CBN), Fort Worth-based FamilyNet, and other religious television and radio stations, Christian magazines, and faith-related websites. Why? Well, in my opinion, Christian media outlets put a unique spin on things. They of course would argue that they don't spin a thing, but I beg to differ.
One example that this newspaper aritcle cited as evidence of the main difference between Christian news stations and the mainstream media, was centered around the Terri Schiavo case. As viewers, you and I will never hear the phrase "right to die" on CBN. That is far too liberal a phrase, and something we would more likely hear on the major networks. In fact, during the most intense news coverage regarding Terri Schiavo, many mainstream journalists spoke of "allowing" Terri Schiavo to die. But Rob Allman, the news director for CBN says in the Dallas Morning News article, "To me, if you were to not give me food or water, that would be forcing me to die."
I don't bring this up in order to make some grandiose statement about who was right and who was wrong in the Terry Schiavo case, but I do think it makes a point about the thought processes of the most conservative Christians, and sheds some light upon the ways in which they view the world. That black and white view doesn't tolerate gray, and as a result there is little room for wondering what if. They find much more comfort in certainty than they do in doubt, and their ability to weed out alternative thoughts and opinions nearly always leaves us with the most narrow end result. There is little room for faith.
The thing that disappoints me the most about this newspaper article, is the way that it unknowlingly paints a picture of Christian media outlets to be the correct, ruling Christian opinion. It makes other media outlets seem not merely secular, but almost anti-Christian in some ways. It's no secret that there are Christians employed in nearly every industry in America so it is certain that there are some amazing spirits delivering the evening news on the major networks, but this article makes it seem as if any story that would be delivered via these mainstream outlets would be tainted with liberal bias. And liberal bias is deemed anti-Christian. To me, the definition of liberal is not anti-Christian at all. A liberal leaves the door open wide enough for anyone to get through, and although a liberal may disagree with the opinion that enters, he or she is not threatened by its existence. Now that is faith-based.
This article made no mention of the Christian media's coverage of the gay marriage issue, or any other stories that would have an immediate impact upon the gay community. But we hear plenty of anti-gay soundbites from them in the mainstream media as it is, and we know exactly how they feel about such things. They label us "the homosexual agenda" and approach us with the underlying assumption that we have fallen off the blessed heterosexual path into something beyond the accepted norm, and in order to be considered true Christians they require us to leave homosexuality behind. To accept us as we are, would cast doubt onto something that has always been a certainty, and this is enough to cause them to reject the idea of embracing homosexuality. That's okay. Rejection by a few is tolerable. But when that rejection is given flight and made to be the ruling opinion (that is, you should deny homosexuality is valid because conservative Christian leaders on conservative Christian news broadcasts reject it), then I think a line is crossed. And Pat Robertson has plenty to say about the wrongfulness of homosexuality. Just ask Mel White and others. And Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcast Network is one of the most popular sources for Christian-based news. The news that comes from this station will have this conservative slant.
It's great that Christian news organizations exist. They can be a wonderful source of information and they can often provide us with a different perspective. But there is danger when we begin to see the news that these sources provide as sole representation of a collective Christian viewpoint. That's the feeling I was left with after reading the Dallas Morning News article. It seemed to say that there was Christian news and there was secular news. As a Christian, I want to do the most Christian thing. And I don't think that involves subscribing to a black and white opinion, when my Christian outlook tends to be most often gray. It's still Christian.
I believe we can all benefit from gathering information from a variety of sources, Christian media included. But we should remember that the "most Christian" viewpoint does not come from one news source over another, or one Christian leader over another. The "most Christian" viewpoint comes from within, because it's our own faith that will process it all. Relying on a single source (other than God) for wisdom only hinders that development.
posted by Jen Austin at 4:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home