Here's an interview with me about the religion in the media, as it appears in getreligion.org.
The first question:
What should journalists watch out for when they report on new religion surveys? What problems do you usually see?
I would recommend that journalists read the reports for themselves and see what they find interesting and significant. What often happens is that a large report will contain a small piece of negative, “newsworthy” material, and it’s that piece that gets reported, with much of the rest of the report being ignored. Also, even with that piece, news reports often oversimplify it whereas the report itself will usually (and hopefully) present it in context and with some nuance.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
Stark and Johnson on religious statistics in the media
Rodney Stark and Byron Johnson have written a provocative essay for the Wall Street Journal. In it, they document the various ways that the media selects "scare" stories about Christianity for publication while ignoring "stay-the-same" or "getting-better" stories.
They start:
"The national news media yawned over the Baylor Survey's findings that the number of American atheists has remained steady at 4% since 1944, and that church membership has reached an all-time high. But when a study by the Barna Research Group claimed that young people under 30 are deserting the church in droves, it made headlines and newscasts across the nation—even though it was a false alarm."
For the rest of the article...
They are right, but, frankly, I don't think that it matters. There is simply too much demand for bad news about Christianity, both by Christians and non-Christians, and so we can expect the media to continue to provide it.
They start:
"The national news media yawned over the Baylor Survey's findings that the number of American atheists has remained steady at 4% since 1944, and that church membership has reached an all-time high. But when a study by the Barna Research Group claimed that young people under 30 are deserting the church in droves, it made headlines and newscasts across the nation—even though it was a false alarm."
For the rest of the article...
They are right, but, frankly, I don't think that it matters. There is simply too much demand for bad news about Christianity, both by Christians and non-Christians, and so we can expect the media to continue to provide it.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Christian Smith on religious pluralism
Christian Smith has a wonderful op-ed on the Huffington Post.
He makes a strong case for "authentic pluralism"--avoiding both sectarian conflict on one side and what he terms "liberal whateverism" on the other. Here is part of his conclusion:
I think we need to reject both sectarian conflict and liberal whateverism and commit ourselves instead to an authentic pluralism. Genuine pluralism fosters a culture that honors rather than isolates and disparages religious difference. It affirms the right of others to believe and practice their faith, not only in their private lives but also in the public square -- while expecting them to allow still others to do the same. Authentic pluralism does not minimize religious differences by saying that "all religions are ultimately the same." That is false and insipid. Pluralism encourages good conversations and arguments across differences, taking them seriously precisely because they are understood to be about important truths, not merely private "opinions." It is possible, authentic pluralism insists, to profoundly disagree with others while at the same time respecting, honoring, and perhaps even loving them. Genuine pluralism suspects the multi-cultural regime's too-easy blanket affirmations of "tolerance" of being patronizing and dismissive. Pluralism, however, also counts atheist Americans as deserving equal public respect, since their beliefs are based as much on a considered faith as are religious views and so should not be automatically denigrated."
Despite the quality of his arguments, I'm guessing that the longest-lasting contribution of this piece will be the catchy, and somewhat dismissive, phrase "liberal whateverism." Nicely done.
He makes a strong case for "authentic pluralism"--avoiding both sectarian conflict on one side and what he terms "liberal whateverism" on the other. Here is part of his conclusion:
I think we need to reject both sectarian conflict and liberal whateverism and commit ourselves instead to an authentic pluralism. Genuine pluralism fosters a culture that honors rather than isolates and disparages religious difference. It affirms the right of others to believe and practice their faith, not only in their private lives but also in the public square -- while expecting them to allow still others to do the same. Authentic pluralism does not minimize religious differences by saying that "all religions are ultimately the same." That is false and insipid. Pluralism encourages good conversations and arguments across differences, taking them seriously precisely because they are understood to be about important truths, not merely private "opinions." It is possible, authentic pluralism insists, to profoundly disagree with others while at the same time respecting, honoring, and perhaps even loving them. Genuine pluralism suspects the multi-cultural regime's too-easy blanket affirmations of "tolerance" of being patronizing and dismissive. Pluralism, however, also counts atheist Americans as deserving equal public respect, since their beliefs are based as much on a considered faith as are religious views and so should not be automatically denigrated."
Despite the quality of his arguments, I'm guessing that the longest-lasting contribution of this piece will be the catchy, and somewhat dismissive, phrase "liberal whateverism." Nicely done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)