Liberal media?

They may get the media exposure but does that always mean they win the argument? What would be interesting would be a study not on the number of hours/column inches but on the impact upon the audience (something hinted at within the study).

To take two other examples, UKTV History has tons of shows about Nazis on it - does that mean all its viewers turn into Nazis? Let us also not forget that Mary Whitehouse moaned about Doctor Who but it outlived her…

Two other thoughts though,
i) Do the more charasmatic style worshippers create more television friendly people because they are used to dealing in soundbites and flash presentation? This is no comment upon the quality of the worship (honest guvnor) but more they are used to working in such an environment. Looking at the variety of liberal religious thinkers within the UK too often are there too many ums, errs, doctrinal sub-clauses and possibilities to fulfil the media’s 30s sound bite requirement.

ii) Do evangelical religious leaders live up to stereotypes of media news therefore will be referred to. Built into this is the possibility of a lack of good news - Archbishop Rowan Williams asks everyone to love their neighbour or Leading evangelical X declares war on Abortion clinics… which would a news editor choose?

regards
John

If you look at the footnotes (which requires reading more than the executive summary) you’ll see this is well researched.
The 2006 American Values Survey is footnoted.
Read it.

I read the negative response to this study - ie: CBN and Fidelis.
The CBN analysis was average. What I’m not seeing is a thoughtful analytic dissection by the relgious right because
methodogy is not in dispute.
Fidelis didn’t even try, they went for shoot the messenger.

It’s about profit. It’s about what sells and what gets ratings or sales.
And what is not arguable is hyper hot button pushing religious right leaders understand news as entertainment, when you are working deadline, you grab who is available. These guys make themselves available.

John, you ask some good questions.
1) Do the more charasmatic style worshippers create more television friendly people because they are used to dealing in soundbites and flash presentation?

Yes, they do, most stay on their own channels, (TBN, CBN etc) Benny Hinn or Paul Crouch isn’t making political announcements on Larry King Live, or opening a Republican CPAC. The religious right is pushing separation issues more, (particularly in the US south) reading law sites such as Religion Clause is an eye opener.

If you look at the men in the study (Democrat/Republican) you are looking at seasoned political activists. By the same token, the US ‘left’ isn’t crowing over this study, this is sobering information.

2) Do evangelical religious leaders live up to stereotypes of media news therefore will be referred to?

Some. Which is what part of this kind of study does shed light on.

I’d like to see some solid network/newspaper editor and producer response to these findings.

dh

I’m sorry to say you missed the point of my points!

The UKTV History Channel shows alot of programmes about the Nazi era, this does not mean its viewers are nazis. Therefore my question was, when presented with a large range of programming covering an issue or viewpoint does this mean that that message will be received by the audience or merely the audience will just watch it. I’ll be honest and say I was on purpose using non church examples to broaden thinking away from the so called theological divide.

On the second point, war on abortion clinics, it was an off my head example of a typical story that would be run by the media to illustrate how some outlooks are easier to make newsworthy than others.

Regards
John

John Cooper, I guess I think your examples were bad examples. I also have spoke with those who use such examples like the ones you gave and after digging into it the bias becomes evident. I’m sorry if I lumped you into those discussions but it seemed to me more than a coincedence. However, it appears it might have in this case. I still standby the point I gave. However, I will take back the level of degree with the points I gave and retract my conclusion toward you that I presented. At the same time we ALL must use proper examples that don’t presume something toward a group that isn’t there. That is the type of thing that makes the “divide” greater than it should.

On to answering your questions: I DO believe that it means they “win the argument”. I personally believe that people ARE interested in what Evangelicals have to say because people can see how those who are not Evangelicals (not including conservative Catholics in this “non-Evangelical mix) appreciate how non “watered down” the message is. I think people as a whole and not refering to the current “post-modern type” but including ALL people want definitive answers and when a certain group of Christians in the best sense and Christian-like in the worse sense (this is because many people are one or the other and only God knows the heart) give answers that are not really answers or that people can “see right through” it brings them back to a “relativism” that ultimately helps them to reject Saving Faith. At the same timewhen a certain group of Christians in the best sense and Christian-like in the worse sense (this is because many people are one or the other and only God knows the heart) who give definitive truthful answers with a hostile attitude ultimately helps them to reject Saving Faith as well. One must combine a truthful, definitive answer with a caring loving attitude for those who are searching for God. I think when it becomes difficult is when people who say they are searching are trying to get additional “amunition” toward those who have Saving Faith. How do we help those or do we “shake the dust from are feet” (depending on the situation) so that we are obedient to Christ in our thought, word and deed toward those who desperately need the Lord whether they know it or not. If you get my drift.

I still believe it is a study of media bias in that the predisposition of the study is group is evident by this:“a progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”
What I have found is those who use the term “progressive” when refering toi oneself they usually have something to hide. IMHO

Thanks for the amen dh. In John’s defense, I took his point (which I agree with, if I’m stating it right) to be that the Media Matters “study” methodology doesn’t support any conclusion either way about bias in the media.

““The more liberal view is the host’s view,” he told Family News in Focus. “So, you don’t need someone who’s going to come on and have a love fest with him. And that’s often what you see from the evangelical Left.”

This isn’t “doublespeak” but actual truth. If the interviewer has a bias in his questions, even with both sides represented, then how can one say there isn’t a tendency toward the bias as a whole?

Also, it isn’t doublespeak because the study says they are religious figures or “leaders” when they actually aren’t leaders.

You say “Used the word ‘liberal’ eight times, ‘conservative’ four, they can’t attack methodology.” So what? One can use these terms when addressing concerns and still be unbiased if the tersm are acurately used. What is the big deal?