Andrew's post on religion coverage
Vinti made a great point during class. She said journalists are uncomfortable discussing/covering religion, because the subject of faith doesn’t lend itself to the concrete and ‘objective’ nature of journalism.
Journalists thrive on the will to understand; they embrace topics that have definite conflicts and/or resolutions. And obviously, religion isn’t a cut-and-dry matter that lends itself to easy answers. Journalists like simplicity. They like consistency. They like knowing, at the end of the day, their stories will have some semblance of structure, some reflection of fact.
However, religion isn’t based on absolute truths. It never will be. Its “touchy subject” mantra prevents it from being this way. For journalists, religion will never be as accessible to cover as, say, a town hall meeting or a political rally, because such events have indisputable, basic elements that are necessary to craft a story. Emotion isn’t involved in either case; personal beliefs aren’t put under the spotlight.
Therefore, most of the time, journalists take the easy way out. Religion becomes most prominent in the news when it’s tied to pop culture. The Da Vinci Code and “Passion of the Christ” gave the media an excuse to address religion in a secular way. But even then, most outlets chose to avoid potential “controversy” by sticking to the boundaries of pop culture. The media, generally speaking, didn’t delve into a scholarly debate about the Bible. They strayed from any discussion that the religious right might have deemed “offensive.”
It’s obvious journalists don’t cover religion the way they should, because they are uncomfortable doing so. Religion isn’t accessible to mainstream journalism, because religion’s potential for controversy is a turnoff to most editors and producers who don’t want to risk losing audiences or advertising dollars. They’re afraid of offending someone. Therefore, in the end, the “touchy subject” tag given to religion prevents the very coverage of it. Only if religion is tied to pop culture somehow, therefore making it more secular, will journalists begin to pay attention. j
Journalists thrive on the will to understand; they embrace topics that have definite conflicts and/or resolutions. And obviously, religion isn’t a cut-and-dry matter that lends itself to easy answers. Journalists like simplicity. They like consistency. They like knowing, at the end of the day, their stories will have some semblance of structure, some reflection of fact.
However, religion isn’t based on absolute truths. It never will be. Its “touchy subject” mantra prevents it from being this way. For journalists, religion will never be as accessible to cover as, say, a town hall meeting or a political rally, because such events have indisputable, basic elements that are necessary to craft a story. Emotion isn’t involved in either case; personal beliefs aren’t put under the spotlight.
Therefore, most of the time, journalists take the easy way out. Religion becomes most prominent in the news when it’s tied to pop culture. The Da Vinci Code and “Passion of the Christ” gave the media an excuse to address religion in a secular way. But even then, most outlets chose to avoid potential “controversy” by sticking to the boundaries of pop culture. The media, generally speaking, didn’t delve into a scholarly debate about the Bible. They strayed from any discussion that the religious right might have deemed “offensive.”
It’s obvious journalists don’t cover religion the way they should, because they are uncomfortable doing so. Religion isn’t accessible to mainstream journalism, because religion’s potential for controversy is a turnoff to most editors and producers who don’t want to risk losing audiences or advertising dollars. They’re afraid of offending someone. Therefore, in the end, the “touchy subject” tag given to religion prevents the very coverage of it. Only if religion is tied to pop culture somehow, therefore making it more secular, will journalists begin to pay attention. j
posted by Andrew Astleford at
8:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home