Media Bias
by Brian C. Stiller
Evangelical bashing seems to be the current mood of some members of the press. A journalist told me that after checking with his associates, he concluded that although it was considered inappropriate for journalists to make an derogatory remarks about Jews, blacks or homosexuals, "it was open season on evangelicals."
My normal response is usually quite measured. I don't resort to conflict by claiming, "the sky is falling in" nor do I see a commie or church liberal behind every wrong colored theological flag pole.
But on this issue of media treatment of evangelicals, I've concluded it's time I spoke out on the subject. However I must begin with a qualifier. Over the past three years I've developed both friendships and respect among journalists and television and radio hosts. Often, in finding that one can be a follower of Jesus Christ and be reasonable at the same time, a number have become most helpful and accommodating in assisting me in this role of speaking out.
However there are recent examples of how the media has taken delight in discrediting those of us who hold to an evangelical faith.
Last fall, CBC television in Winnipeg did a story on Campus Life, the high school division of Youth For Christ. It's difficult to understand why, but either those doing the research or the on-camera interviewer thought they had a story of a cult-like group operating in Winnipeg high schools. Although they demonstrated a very definite bias in their treatment of the story, what struck me was their absolute lack of understanding of the Christian community in Winnipeg. They not only regarded Youth for Christ as being somewhat of a fringe religious element but they lumped Calvary Temple and the Mennonites into the same category. Calvary Temple not only just celebrated its 79 anniversary but is the largest attended Protestant church in Winnipeg. As well, the Mennonite community is historically significant to the city and has scores of churches.
Then the Winnipeg Free Press ran an article on December 7th, called Unethical Fundraising Campaigns" written by Catherine Bainbridge. She interprets a study prepared by Charles MacLeod called Non-Profit and Charitable Solicitation in Canada: A Review of Techniques and Ethical Consideration. This report was supported by Cult Project of Montreal.
In the second paragraph of her article she says, "A federal study says direct mail solicitation by a growing number of evangelical preachers include tactics ranging from misleading the reader to outright threats."
First it was not a federal study. The group only received a federal grant. But most important MacLeod in his report studied 245 agencies of whom only some were religious. He does deal with the pressure and hype some groups use by direct mail, to get people to give. What is curious is that in his study, MacLeod uses an example of an American TV evangelist and an animal protection group. But what does the journalist do? Of course. She focuses on an evangelist.
Further the report only describes TV evangelists from the United States. It is never suggested that Canadians are using fraudulent or pressure tactics to raise money.
MacLeod, in the introduction makes it clear. "This report should in no way be considered as an attack on the religious or other personal beliefs of any group or individual. The report is intended to evaluate fundraising and solicitation methods, not beliefs..."
Tom Harpur, in his January 4th column in the Toronto Star, looks back of 1986 for his "highlights." The first one is the discovery of seven new galaxies. Then he awards "the most bizarre story of 1986." For this he chooses the tennis story of U.S. players in Lagos Nigeria. After Bible reading, some (he says they were "born-again") claimed to have seen God. They ended up being sent home. His "award" for "the most disgraceful religion story" comes out of the Bainbridge story from Winnipeg.
Her original story had been picked up by the Canadian Press and a number of newspapers ran it. Without checking the source Harpur says, "that unethical fund-raising campaign launched by 'some Christian charities' are prying millions of dollars a year out of Canadians." Harpur, a former seminary professor in New Testament, out of all that happened in 1986, picks up two derogatory stories which reflect on the evangelical community.
I don't think it's being over sensitive to take a good look at the issue of our treatment by the press. It's time we came face to face with the harsh realities of how and why we appear the way we do. There are some reasons why we get bad press. Some are of our own making, some aren't and some we can't help.
In today's world, a primary cultural attitude is that one should not be too passionate about one's faith. And if one is, you shouldn't take seriously any notion that is exclusive. Thus for an evangelical to assert that "Jesus is the only way," creates
consternation. "How can anyone be so bigoted," I often hear. This appears to a journalist, whose job it is to examine and describe our world, as being too inflexible and arrogant. This aspect of our faith, flies in the face of what people expect.
Since Time magazine declared 1978 as "The Year of the Evangelical" the press has woken up to our existence. We existed as a quiet side stream to the rush of the main body of Canadian life. But now they know we exist and because at times we make "good" press, they will run stories. But keep in mind most journalists have very little religious training. And for sure, hardly any have been raised in an evangelical community. Thus we are a curious group. I have a hard time making sense of the forty plus evangelical denominations in Canada, not including other Protestants, Catholics and the many new and old cult groups. And it's my business to know. You can imagine the challenge facing a journalist. As well there are very few newspaper who have "religion editors." And the television and radio networks devout little money or staff to research religion. Most local stations only pick up what they get on the wire service.
One of our real problems is the impression created by some American based evangelists. Can you imagine what skeptical journalists have made out of Oral Roberts announcement that he might die if he doesn't receive four and a half million dollars by March? They conclude that evangelicals must by either naive or incredibly gullible to believe that and that all evangelists and evangelical leaders are hucksters, able and without conscience, trained to fleece people. Further our theology becomes suspect.
One radio host asked me, "Brian how can you be an evangelical? You're too logical." Another was astounded when I responded to his statement that most of the Old Testament was a myth by saying that modern scholarship is demonstrating that in fact the Old and New Testament are reliable and trustworthy. The look on his face almost made me laugh, if it hadn't been so tragic.
To approach this issue and to do something about it, it will take understanding. Too often the blatant bias of a reporter sticks out. And we should do something about it. But there is more than one side to this problem. At times we are our worst enemy; we generate the problem.
We recognize that "the world is no friend of grace," but that doesn't give us license to cause unneeded embarrassment to the cause of Christ.
My point in this is not to avoid attacks or to soft peddle the Gospel. My desire is as was Paul's "..that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed."
My normal response is usually quite measured. I don't resort to conflict by claiming, "the sky is falling in" nor do I see a commie or church liberal behind every wrong colored theological flag pole.
But on this issue of media treatment of evangelicals, I've concluded it's time I spoke out on the subject. However I must begin with a qualifier. Over the past three years I've developed both friendships and respect among journalists and television and radio hosts. Often, in finding that one can be a follower of Jesus Christ and be reasonable at the same time, a number have become most helpful and accommodating in assisting me in this role of speaking out.
However there are recent examples of how the media has taken delight in discrediting those of us who hold to an evangelical faith.
Last fall, CBC television in Winnipeg did a story on Campus Life, the high school division of Youth For Christ. It's difficult to understand why, but either those doing the research or the on-camera interviewer thought they had a story of a cult-like group operating in Winnipeg high schools. Although they demonstrated a very definite bias in their treatment of the story, what struck me was their absolute lack of understanding of the Christian community in Winnipeg. They not only regarded Youth for Christ as being somewhat of a fringe religious element but they lumped Calvary Temple and the Mennonites into the same category. Calvary Temple not only just celebrated its 79 anniversary but is the largest attended Protestant church in Winnipeg. As well, the Mennonite community is historically significant to the city and has scores of churches.
Then the Winnipeg Free Press ran an article on December 7th, called Unethical Fundraising Campaigns" written by Catherine Bainbridge. She interprets a study prepared by Charles MacLeod called Non-Profit and Charitable Solicitation in Canada: A Review of Techniques and Ethical Consideration. This report was supported by Cult Project of Montreal.
In the second paragraph of her article she says, "A federal study says direct mail solicitation by a growing number of evangelical preachers include tactics ranging from misleading the reader to outright threats."
First it was not a federal study. The group only received a federal grant. But most important MacLeod in his report studied 245 agencies of whom only some were religious. He does deal with the pressure and hype some groups use by direct mail, to get people to give. What is curious is that in his study, MacLeod uses an example of an American TV evangelist and an animal protection group. But what does the journalist do? Of course. She focuses on an evangelist.
Further the report only describes TV evangelists from the United States. It is never suggested that Canadians are using fraudulent or pressure tactics to raise money.
MacLeod, in the introduction makes it clear. "This report should in no way be considered as an attack on the religious or other personal beliefs of any group or individual. The report is intended to evaluate fundraising and solicitation methods, not beliefs..."
Tom Harpur, in his January 4th column in the Toronto Star, looks back of 1986 for his "highlights." The first one is the discovery of seven new galaxies. Then he awards "the most bizarre story of 1986." For this he chooses the tennis story of U.S. players in Lagos Nigeria. After Bible reading, some (he says they were "born-again") claimed to have seen God. They ended up being sent home. His "award" for "the most disgraceful religion story" comes out of the Bainbridge story from Winnipeg.
Her original story had been picked up by the Canadian Press and a number of newspapers ran it. Without checking the source Harpur says, "that unethical fund-raising campaign launched by 'some Christian charities' are prying millions of dollars a year out of Canadians." Harpur, a former seminary professor in New Testament, out of all that happened in 1986, picks up two derogatory stories which reflect on the evangelical community.
I don't think it's being over sensitive to take a good look at the issue of our treatment by the press. It's time we came face to face with the harsh realities of how and why we appear the way we do. There are some reasons why we get bad press. Some are of our own making, some aren't and some we can't help.
In today's world, a primary cultural attitude is that one should not be too passionate about one's faith. And if one is, you shouldn't take seriously any notion that is exclusive. Thus for an evangelical to assert that "Jesus is the only way," creates
consternation. "How can anyone be so bigoted," I often hear. This appears to a journalist, whose job it is to examine and describe our world, as being too inflexible and arrogant. This aspect of our faith, flies in the face of what people expect.
Since Time magazine declared 1978 as "The Year of the Evangelical" the press has woken up to our existence. We existed as a quiet side stream to the rush of the main body of Canadian life. But now they know we exist and because at times we make "good" press, they will run stories. But keep in mind most journalists have very little religious training. And for sure, hardly any have been raised in an evangelical community. Thus we are a curious group. I have a hard time making sense of the forty plus evangelical denominations in Canada, not including other Protestants, Catholics and the many new and old cult groups. And it's my business to know. You can imagine the challenge facing a journalist. As well there are very few newspaper who have "religion editors." And the television and radio networks devout little money or staff to research religion. Most local stations only pick up what they get on the wire service.
One of our real problems is the impression created by some American based evangelists. Can you imagine what skeptical journalists have made out of Oral Roberts announcement that he might die if he doesn't receive four and a half million dollars by March? They conclude that evangelicals must by either naive or incredibly gullible to believe that and that all evangelists and evangelical leaders are hucksters, able and without conscience, trained to fleece people. Further our theology becomes suspect.
One radio host asked me, "Brian how can you be an evangelical? You're too logical." Another was astounded when I responded to his statement that most of the Old Testament was a myth by saying that modern scholarship is demonstrating that in fact the Old and New Testament are reliable and trustworthy. The look on his face almost made me laugh, if it hadn't been so tragic.
To approach this issue and to do something about it, it will take understanding. Too often the blatant bias of a reporter sticks out. And we should do something about it. But there is more than one side to this problem. At times we are our worst enemy; we generate the problem.
We recognize that "the world is no friend of grace," but that doesn't give us license to cause unneeded embarrassment to the cause of Christ.
My point in this is not to avoid attacks or to soft peddle the Gospel. My desire is as was Paul's "..that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed."