A recent report into the place of religion in public life presented a gloomy picture of the relationship between media and religion. Whilst media misrepresentations usually concern Muslims, the most vocal complainers are Christians. Abby Day argues the reason for this may lie in more fundamental, ancient and even ontological concerns.
Recent attention to mainstream media reveals that relations between religion and media appear to be breaking down. A two-year investigation into the role of religion in public life reported that virtually everyone involved expressed concern about how religion and belief is portrayed by the media. That’s perhaps not surprising, considering that most who participated voluntarily in the investigation probably did so because they were concerned.
That concern is being further explored by a new All Party Parliamentary Group on religious literacy in the media, led by Bolton MP Yasmin Qureshi. Their stated objectives are: ‘to work for greater religious literacy in both media and politics; to foster a better understanding and representation of religion in media coverage of news and culture, noting the priority of religion as a prime motivator of individuals and communities; to encourage more diversity in media representation of religion; to work towards a Seventh Public Purpose for the BBC in Charter Renewal: to promote religious literacy’.
Religious representation in the media
There are a number of failings with how religion is represented in the mainstream media, many well documented. The media needs to be held to account, for example, for incorrect stories about particular religious groups. The Independent Press Standards Organisation needs to be tougher and make sure that corrections and retractions are given weight equal to the original erroneous article.
The unfair treatment of Muslims by certain journalists is another failing of the media. In particular that media attention to religion often consists of stories about ‘extremist’ Muslims, ignoring the high levels of Christian extremism that could also be described as such.
The story of good Christian/bad Muslim is told both by expression and omission, by naming, or not naming, the religion or ethnicity of terrorists. For example, Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik is not described by the media as a Christian terrorist, although he self-identified as a Christian and would-be protector of European Christianity. The American religious scholar Stephen Prothero points out that Christians swiftly denounced him, describing his actions as political and not religious, a generosity not extended to Muslims who murder for political-religious reasons.
The massacre at Srebrenica in 1995 is another example. This is widely described by media as the killing of 8,000 ‘Muslim’ men and boys by ‘Serbs’, without noting their religion as Christians. The Serb military and political leaders charged with war crimes are not referred to as Christian terrorists. That is apparently not ‘the story’.
The decision of how to shape a ‘story’ is driven by underlying cultural norms. Here the unspoken story, that seems to be a national trope, is “Muslims are bad and Christians are good” and the ‘nation’ – or white Englishness – must be protected. It was interesting that The Mirror noted David Cameron repeated for the second year in his annual Christmas message that Britain was a ‘Christian country’.
It is somewhat surprising then that Christians who are generally treated favourably by the media and privileged in the public sphere (from the representation of Bishops in the House of Lords, to Church of England run state schools and the broadcast of Sunday morning church services on the BBC), are so quick and professionally slick in defending themselves, arguing that they are a badly neglected and misunderstood section of society.
Indeed while media misrepresentations most often concern Muslims, the most vocal complainers are Christians. Stuart and Ahmed conducted a detailed media analysis of three best-selling British daily newspapers: the left-leaning Guardian, right-leaning Daily Telegraph, and right-leaning tabloid, Daily Mail. Their analysis covered reports of ‘claims’ against a public or private organization by individuals on religious grounds. They found that between 2000 and 2010, Christians comprised 67 per cent of reported claims covered by the media, Muslims 31 percent, and the other main religious groups less than 10 percent. Christians also participated in most (96 percent) of the discrimination claims.
Deeper conflict
With Christianity so dominant and relatively accepted by the media, a look to more fundamental, ancient and even ontological concerns can help explain the Christian anxiety with the media.
First, I suggest from my experience both as a former journalist and, currently, as a sociology of religion scholar, that each side would claim it speaks‘the truth’. Media and religion are institutions largely composed of ardent, hard-working people who believe in what they do. ‘Belief’ is understood here as something deeper and more significant than just signing up to a series of statements about the existence of gods or press regulations but believing in gods or press standards means trusting those sources and acting in specific ways because of that belief.
In practice, both religious and media people often fail to do that. Their failures do not prevent them from clinging to their idea that the truth they speak is sacred, especially when they understand ‘sacred’ as something that is, as Veikko Anttonen has argued, ‘non-negotiable’. When two different groups of people each claim that their truth is non-negotiable, problems are inevitable. What is needed is a form of religious literacy that Adam Dinham describes as focusing less on an exchange of facts and more on a better quality of conversation.
To complicate the conversation further, I suggest, is a belief held by both journalists and religious people that they have the true ‘story’, as if the ‘story’ is already out there, pre-packaged and simply awaiting uncovering. In practice, the ‘truth’ is composed of multiple stories. Media and religion will choose, and create, one. It’s what’s called ‘an angle’.
The second area of potential conflict between religion and media pertains to ‘the source’. My multi-dimensional analysis of religion concluded that it is more often the ‘source’ rather than the ‘content’ that divides religious and non-religious people. Journalists will often call upon ‘experts’ to comment on a story because they believe that knowledge can and is created through education, training and practice. Such experts are typically schooled in universities or academies of some kind. Religious people may view those secular sources with suspicion and deride the research that backs the experts’ claims.
The final area of conflict is, I suggest, the claim to legitimate authority. Not only does media and religion tell their chosen story, they explain why the events happened. Media professionals see themselves as legitimate commentators on what happens and why. Particularly when events are surprising or disturbing, journalists, columnists and leader writers rush to offer explanations and, taking a quasi-religious role, try to shape chaos into order. Such matters are traditionally seen as the province of the religious leader, acting with a prophetic voice.
The media calls this process ‘analysis’; religions call it ‘theodicy’. How can people explain why terrorists kill innocent people in the name of religion? A humanistic explanation will focus on human-oriented details such as mental health, ideology or social conditions by way of explanation. A religious (or at least monotheistic) explanation may try to explain why an all-powerful, all-loving God would permit such things to happen, and consider what a proper religious response would be. This may include praying, reaching out to others on inter-faith networks and, ultimately, converting people from Islam to Christianity.
The differences and areas of conflict between religion and the media appear irreconcilable. They could, however, be improved when each side recognises the other’s equally defensible claim.
____
Dr Abby Day is Reader in Race, Faith and Culture in the Department of Sociology, Goldsmiths, University of London where she convenes the interdisciplinary BA Religion programme. She also teaches sociology of religion, religion and gender, and religion and crime on both undergraduate and MA programmes. Her book ‘Believing in Belonging: Belief and Social Identity in the Modern World’, OUP 2013 [2011] explores religion in the public sphere.
Image credit: Silke Remmery CC BY
Is there no positive relationship between religion and media?
How does African indigenous religion come in?
Usage of terms “Serbs” and “Muslims” in the Yugoslavian wars are there for a reason. Technically it was “Bosnian Serbs” vs “Bosnian Muslims” and you would have to understand the process of nationalisation and building of national identities in that area. Both Serbs and Muslims are used in ethnic terms because Muslims in Bosnia did not have “national ethnic” designation (defined by the constitution of the Yugoslavia “Muslim” was ethnicity) till the wars and their newly self-proclaimed adopted name of medieval origin “Bosnjaci”.
There seems to be two major criticisms of the media in the article. The first is of partiality in reporting of crimes with a religious basis. If one feels aggrieved then a complaint is the route, as mentioned in the first paragraph. These should be dealt with as any other form of reporting which breaches the code. There should be no special treatment for religions. Giving equal weight is not something that would be granted to any other group.
We have laws that protect religious groups and if these are breached a prosecution should result if it meets CPS criteria.
Then there is comparison to attitudes of the press and religions, in particular analysis on the one hand and belief on the other, seemingly suggesting they should be treated equally. That is a thought. The press have to support what they say by some form of evidence, perhaps two independent sources, or similar.
Should we ask for similar proof from all religions for their core beliefs? That is a nonsense of course as a lack of evidence is a requirement for belief. If there is proof then it becomes a lesson. Virgin birth, only recently ‘of faith’ of course, so perhaps can be excluded, but rising again – show me the proof and then I’ll be happy to treat it the same as journalism. Creationism is logical, but only if one believes that their bible is the inspired word of their god. Should the BBC promote such unscientific claptrap?
We treat belief in religion as special already. What other group has seats in the House of Lords by right or, more to the point, could one conceive of any other circumstances where 26 self-identified worthies are given a free pass to rule the country?
One final point, one touched on earlier: the public service broadcaster should not be involved in the spread of myth and make-believe . By all mean let them teach comparison of religion and their histories but services should be excluded.
Religion already enjoys concessions that other groups cannot enjoy. What other one could restrict management, from the top to the lowest level, to males and then demand to be approached for comment on news?. If anyone else used homophobic rhetoric they would, quite rightly, be criticised and perhaps prosecuted. But because belief is involved, it is ignored.
I fully agree with the author in one respect: if an offence is committed by christians because of their beliefs then this should be highlighted in any article. I am all for that, and was with the Serb murderers.
Three best-selling newspapers? The Daily Mail has 1.6m circulation, with many more on it world leading for readership website. The journos write to order, so the problem is with the owners. Then we have the sub half a million Telegraph and 160,000 Guardian. All three preach to the converted. Best of luck changing the mind of any Mail reader.
Christian and Muslim bashing by mass media, or simply ignoring peaceful denominations, can be largely attributed to the economic desires of six billionaires who constitute mass media: Murdoch, Rockefeller, Bronfman, Newhouse, Redstone, and Rothschild. None of these billionaires is a Muslim and only two are nominal Protestant Christians. Editors bend to billionaire owners’ desires and journalists hew to editocracy, as Paul H. Weaver noted in his 1994 ‘News and the Culture of Lying’. Others engage in ‘news-out’, a tactic of simply not reporting on activities that otherwise might place an anti-billionaire group in a favourable light. Those who do not, such as the former editor of the Cincinnati Enquirer who oversaw a series of articles reporting on the Chiquita banana billionaire’s paramilitary forces and killing of competing banana growers, are soon out of a job. CIA clandestine publishing and information warfare (IW) further reinforce mass media as a hegemonic tool for statecraft of the billionaire class and their desire to maintain the status quo. The question then arises – what is news and not mere propaganda?