Posts
Why This Journalist Got Religion Wrong
By tahlraz / January 17, 2008I can personally vouch for David F. Smydra's insightful post into the reasons mainstream media fails at substantively covering religion. It was the summer of 1999, a year after graduation, and in the pre-millennial madness that enveloped God's city – the sanatorium averaged two messiahs a month the years before, it was getting seven a week at the time – I lost my bearings somewhere around the Damascus Gate. Only in Jerusalem can one feel so lost.
It happens to most at some point, my editor at the Jerusalem Post explained, "The book of psalms calls Jerusalem the City of God and Zechariah calls it the City of Truth – but which God and whose truth?" The city and the country itself forces one to wrestle with these eternal questions. And without answers, the lines between fact and faith, religion and politics, the sacred and the secular blurred, leaving behind a conflicted and confused young reporter. My parents are Israeli-born, but raised their children in America. I've been straddling borders religious, national or otherwise all my life. I thought I was as well equipped as anyone to deal with whatever Israel threw at me: a degree in philosophy from Vassar, a thesis on Kierkegaard and Jewish thought, and a six-month research and ethnographic study at Hebrew University.
It wasn't enough to cover religion in Israel. While interviewing a Sufi mystic in Ramallah, the man leaned over and whispered, "Hamas will some day live by the words of Rumi and not the sword of Allah." If I had known then that he was referring to the 13th century poet Jalal ad-Din ar-Rumi, who preached tolerance, I would have recognized the importance of his statement. A Palestinian religious leader was, in effect, condemning his own. It didn't make the paper, because I didn't realize what was meant till much later. Many of my colleagues had similar experiences. The American Press, by and large, lacks a critical perspective informed by knowledge. To a journalist, skepticism is the pillar in which all else is built. But how can one honestly question doctrine or deed without an understanding of either?
In Israel, my experience as a journalist begged the question of how religion is covered. In America, it's why religion isn't covered enough. After a year, I left the Jerusalem Post to help start a media venture started by CNN executives targeting Baby Boomers, a demographic in hot pursuit of 'what it all means.' I interviewed Deepak Chopra, Rabbi Harold Kushner, leading academics and other figures in the spiritual marketplace, and I came to understand that you cannot grapple with America, its history and contemporary forces, without understanding the nature and history of its religious life.
Spotty religious reporting isn't a new thing. Louis Cassels wrote a much-read syndicated religion column from 1959 to 1973 for United Press International. He admitted that the worst error he remembered making was repeating the historically discredited claim that Islam was spread forcibly by the sword during religion's years of early growth, "My error stemmed from plain ignorance rather than malice."
Faith matters, and not only within the walls of a church, synagogue or mosque. There is Bible study at a Houston oil and gas company. Weekly yoga at dot-coms. Torah class at Microsoft and Islamic study at Whirlpool. In this year's presidential elections, there are relentless invocations of the Almighty. So why isn't coverage better? Why do editors show such a disregard when pitched with a religion story? A media and religion survey by the First Amendment Center found that 76% of religion writers felt that formal training in religious studies is either helpful or essential. Sadly, 6 out of 10 writers said they had no such training. Much of the media views religion suspiciously, or worse, as irrelevant. Journalists deal in matters of fact, religion in matters of faith, and rarely the twain shall meet. When they do, it's usually because religion intersects with politics or scandal. The latter usually determines the treatment of the former and as a result neither is dealt with wisely. So it's not just a question of giving religion more prominence, but encountering it with more understanding.
More important than the sort of knowledge one gains in the academy is what you might call religious street smarts or pew-level understanding. Contending with the powerful convictions and lofty ideas inherent to the beat require an intellectual grounding supported by a naive narrator's immersion into the experience of faith — what journalists covering a war call "embedded." The "small" stories, the quiet, daily influence of religion on people's lives are as important as the larger issues that arise from covering belief systems or religious philosophy.
Is anyone doing a good job? There are a handful. Jeff Sharlet, editorial adviser to Jewcy, may be among the finest. His investigative reports from the evangelical front lines appearing in publications like Rolling Stone and Harpers are the very embodiment of pew-level reportage that are also intellectually grounded. His daily review of religion and the press, called The Revealer, is one of the better religion sites on the Web.
Here's a snapshot of what Sharlet, and his colleagues at The Revealer, find worthwhile elsewhere on the Web:
Bartholomew's Notes on Religion looks at "religion in the news" from a perspective that's not so much liberal as relentlessly skeptical of absurdity, and intrigued by belief.
Casing the Promised Land offers an intelligent roundup of religion news from a center-left perspective. Christianity Today's blog is a superb resource regardless of your faith or lack thereof. Regular blogger Ted Olson roams far and wide and has the wisdom to bring back more than just the controversy of the day. DeepBlog: Not a God beat blog itself, but a good directory to the blogosphere with a growing list of "Spiritual Blogs." Direland, a sharply written politcs and media blog by journalist Doug Ireland, occasionally runs a "theocracy watch" colum
On Religion is an excellent newsclipping service — terrific links to the hot topic of the moment and good finds from the lesser-known press. OpEdNews's Religion and Politics page publishes a fine collection of original, politically progressive religion essays as well as links to other noteworthy religion articles. The Raving Atheist, "An Atheistic Examination of the Culture of Belief [on] How Religious Devotion Trivializes American Law and Politics," is an intensely intelligent, often funny, and all around well-made blog that's good enough for true believers as well as godless folk. Relapsed Catholic is a fierce godblog without mercy for liberals or unbelievers, by Kathy Shaidle, a Canadian journalist and poet with a sharp eye for the absurd and compelling.
Brian Flemming is the man behind Bat Boy: The Musical, and his blog is everything you'd expect from a man with such interests. Which, naturally, include religion, commented on from a smart, liberal perspective. Mostly limited to the news of the day, you'll find original ideas here, and, if you care to do some free associating with Brian's other interests, genuine inspiration. Makeout City's Jay McCarthy understands the art of linking and the collage possibilities of threading together fragments from around the web — whether they're his own thoughts or collected ideas from others, his posts are always essays. Jay is a man who gets the Montaignesque potential of blog. He often comments on religion, a subject in which Jay has read widely and eclecticly. The Claremont Review of Books, put out by the conservative Claremont Institute ("a new, reinvigorated conservatism, one that draws upon the timeless principles of the American founding, and applies them to the moral and political problems that we face today") is an interesting, intellectual read, whether or not you agree with their purpose, to help conservatism "understand its own majestic purposes, and become a more effective political force." Nth Position is a webzine that advertises "high weirdness" in all areas of inquiry; investigate their "strangeness" category for manifestations of the divine. Excellent writing and surprisingly good reporting (given that there's limited cash behind this fine endeavor). Oliver Willis bills himself as "kryptonite to stupid," and we can testify to that slogan's truth. Hey, wait — does that make us dumb? Nah. It just means Oliver is really smart. His popular blog is mostly political talk from a "center-left" perspective, but we think it's relevant to Revealer readers because Oliver gets the role of religion in American politics. That is, he gets that it has one, whether we like it or not, and that Dems and liberals in the U.S. are blind to its full influence and importance beyond the borders of New York and L.A. One Inch Ahead features an interesting confluence of spirit and flesh–in the occasionally religious musings of a long distance runner.



POST A COMMENT
I'll take a look at Speaking of Faith. Meanwhile, keep your insightful, often provocative, posts coming.
 tr
Tahl,
You need to add Speaking Of Faith to the list.
Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett is public radio's conversation about religion, meaning, ethics, and ideas. Each week, Tippett probes the myriad ways in which religious impulses inform every aspect of life and culture, nationally and globally. Speaking of Faith fills an important and neglected need in American media by addressing the intellectual and spiritual content of religion head-on, illuminating the ideas and practices that form the headlines from the inside.Â
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ Â
Â
Â
Excercise, drink fresh juice. :)
"Hamas will some day live by the words of Rumi and not the
sword of Allah."
Difficult doesn't even begin to describe it. Your gut answer–for reporters to stop being arseholes, yeah. But what if they stop, then what? Ready for a statement of the obvious? It is possible that the best language with which to describe the religious experience is found in…religion? Journalism, right?, best describes what you can see and touch. Religious language describes what you can't see and can't touch, but what you feel. And there's nothing truly objective about it. You and I can both agree that the bottom light on a stoplight is green, and we can be reasonably, not definitely, but reasonably sure we are talking about the same color. You can't even do that with religion.
One more question, please? Are we allowed here to mention our own websites and blogs, because I'm trying to address this issue. Not saying I'm succeeding, but I'm a' tryin'.
My gut tells me that the answer is simple: religion reporters have to do a better job of respecting a source's religious beliefs, and not treating them with the derisive skepticism that is too often part and parcel of the journalism method. But since the journalism method is so ingrained in reporters from day one, they have to work harder to get over it for religious reporting. There's nothing wrong with asking people about their prayer life, or the aspects of their religious traditions that make them comfortable or uncomfortable. It's putting that information — which is often deeply personal and introspective — in a narrative that readers can identify with even if they don't agree with the source's stated beliefs. That's the difficult trick.
I've gone to all of the links cited above, and this problem keeps coming up–religion is treated as another political party.
Now, I know that many religious people are politically active, but it seems like the gist of both your article and David Smydra's post was that religious writings in newspapers tended to treat religion at arm's length. My question is whether treating religion as political gets any closer to spirituality–at least that's how I view the opposite of 'arm's length', talking about the spiritual experience.
I'm not saying that this is easy, as it could very well lend itself to a front page story about your next door neighbor's dream two nights ago.
My question is can the newspapers do it any differently? What does it matter if one Palestinian cleric says, using a scriptural basis, that Hamas' present tactics are wrong, or that they will someday change? Or, if you write about weekly sermons in Vermont, is that news or is it preaching? Or, for the sake of equal time, a Jew in South Carolina finds a unique interpretation of a psalm that changes his or her life?
Or, here's another scenario. It seems like the place I read the most about religion, religious people, is in the sports pages. Years ago Reggie White spoke of a miracle that occurred during halftime, his injured arm (to the best of my recollection), miraculously healed and he could play the second half. Years later I read another article about that incident, this time it was reported that he took so many drugs to reduce swelling that he nearly overdosed. Kurt Warner thanked Jesus for every victory, saying his life is a testament to Jesus. Then his career tanked after a hand injury (the headline in the local free newspaper was Jesus Pissed Off at Warner). So what's the paper to do? If there's any topic, sphere, in the world where, as a general rule, things are not what they seem to be, it's in the area of religion. You can see how an editor would or should view all of this with extreme skepticism.
So I'm just asking, how is a well written article about religion supposed to be? It is even within a newspaper's purview?
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!