Covering religion: Does the media get the message?
BackReligion sections in American newspapers are rarities
Or so students in a religion class at the University of Rochester have determined. They have released a study which so says.
According to the report published last month, titled "Religion in American Newspapers: A Critique and Challenge," entire newspaper sections dealing in depth with such matters appeared in only two of the 12 papers they chose for their study.
Further, the students' comments indicate that columns such as this one may be rarer still. For my part, I try to supply a critical point of view on issues of faith and religion and how they apply to different aspects of life and society.
But the study also found:
- Newspaper stories merely mention religion far more often than they explain it, thus risking omission of important context.
- Religion mostly is used as an identifier, even if it is not necessary.
- About half the stories about religion read in the study treated the subject in terms of legal, criminal or political activity.
- Coverage of the impact of religion in lives of women, African-Americans and Hispanics was disproportionately low.
- Islam takes it on the chin. Its coverage is disproportionate to the percentage of Muslims in the United States and it most often is connected to bad deeds.
- Roman Catholicism doesn't fare much better.
- Coverage of Judaism and Protestantism was more likely to be balanced.
- Stories about reactions to tragedy - e.g.: the space shuttle disaster - mentioned religion in almost strictly generic terms. That is, quotes about faith might be used, but rarely was context supplied about specific beliefs.
- Coverage of religious views on the Iraq war tended more toward anti-war than pro-war.
- The press uses religious terms (e.g.: "Tao," "mantra," "guru" and "gospel") liberally, but usually incorrectly.
This was not a media relations effort as such - or, at least, I didn't see it that way. The AAR saw the same things across the range of media that the religion class at Rochester saw in newspapers.
Of course, I did not get that job and not enough time has passed since the position was filled to judge the effectiveness of the AAR's effort. I am not giving the AAR the benefit of any doubt, either. Having been a journalist for more than 25 years, I know the problems addressed in the Rochester report have deep and tangled roots.
But this condition might be expected when we deal with two cultures - religion and media - that may tend to be insular.
The Rochester report raises challenging questions. An interesting one is that if the presence of a weekly section indicates the importance and relevance of religion, then why is such coverage limited to a weekly section? (I have to admit this tickled me. It reminded me of the comically ironic complaint, "The food was terrible and the portions were too small.")
If there is to be an impetus for more comprehensive and balanced coverage of religion in newspapers - let alone throughout all media - the Rochester report is not likely to supply it.
The report serves more as a marker of status or progress. The same class produced a similar report in 1995 and this year noted whatever shifts may have occurred since.
Instead, initiatives like that of the AAR hold out greater possibilities. These are more proactive and likely to address the gaps from the side of religion rather than expecting the media to make up all the distance.
The seventh recommendation by the Rochester report calls on the press to "develop a means of obtaining advice and expertise about religion." They counsel the formation of "religion advisory groups" (presumably local bodies) while the AAR proposes to use its resources of professors, lecturers, writers and researchers in a more ambitious effort that can reach a broader range of media - perhaps nationwide.
As it is described by the report, the AAR - and media - have a complex and vital task before them.
Back