The Lead

Media Matters reports that news of religion quotes conservative voices 2.7 times more often in the print and 3.8 times as often on major network television, including PBS.

"Left Behind: The Skewed Respresentation of Religion in Major News Media"
It would surprise few people, conservative or progressive, to learn that coverage of the intersection of religion and politics tends to oversimplify both. If this oversimplification occurred to the benefit or detriment of neither side of the political divide, then the weaknesses in coverage of religion would be of only academic interest. But as this study documents, coverage of religion not only overrepresents some voices and underrepresents others, it does so in a way that is consistently advantageous to conservatives.

As in many areas, the decisions journalists make when deciding which voices to include in their stories have serious consequences. What is the picture of religious opinion? Who is a religious leader? Whose views represent important groups of believers? Every time a journalist writes a story, he or she answers these questions by deciding whom to quote and how to characterize their views.

Religion is often depicted in the news media as a politically divisive force, with two sides roughly paralleling the broader political divide: On one side are cultural conservatives who ground their political values in religious beliefs; and on the other side are secular liberals, who have opted out of debates that center on religion-based values. The truth, however is far different: close to 90 percent of Americans today self-identify as religious, while only 22 percent belong to traditionalist sects. Yet in the cultural war depicted by news media as existing across religious lines, centrist and progressive voices are marginalized or absent altogether.

In order to begin to assess how the news media paint the picture of religion in America today, this study measured the extent to which religious leaders, both conservative and progressive, are quoted, mentioned, and interviewed in the news media.

Among the study's key findings:
Combining newspapers and television, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed in news stories 2.8 times as often as were progressive religious leaders.
On television news -- the three major television networks, the three major cable new channels, and PBS -- conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed almost 3.8 times as often as progressive leaders.
In major newspapers, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed 2.7 times as often as progressive leaders.

Despite the fact most religious Americans are moderate or progressive, in the news media it is overwhelmingly conservative leaders who are presented as the voice of religion. This represents a particularly meaningful distortion since progressive religious leaders tend to focus on different issues and offer an entirely different perspective than their conservative counterparts.

For the complete report Click Here

UPDATE: bloggers Richard in Caught by the Light and Fr. Jake of Father Jake Stops the World have timelines to assist working with reporters. One in pdf.

Comments (6)

I'm skeptical. How many of these mentions were positive mentions? How many of them reflected journalists' prejudice against religion in general? And, regarding the religious right, the press has been fixated with it out of proportion to its significance -- but does more press mean good press? And what does it tell us when the counted a fixed number of personalities from left and right? Perhaps citations to the left had a much bigger tail.

Posted by John B. Chilton | May 31, 2007 7:30 AM

Good question - does more press mean good press. I do think that the religious right is portrayed as the voice of Christianity more than the religious left. People I meet are always surprised that I am a Christian - sort of "how can you be one of those kind of people?" question that is not favorable to Christianity.

Posted by Ann Fontaine | May 31, 2007 7:42 AM

Well--I think the above citation lets us know something about how and why they appear; the pairing of secular liberals lets us know the rhetorical function of invoking "religion"--it's done to create contrast. As a result, it makes no sense for the media to quote religious liberals as the contrast isn't nearly as great.

Posted by Derek Olsen | May 31, 2007 9:12 AM

Derek is right about this. I've had conversations with TV bookers inquiring about Bishop Chane' s availability to speak on certain tv or radio programs, and when it becomes clear that his position on an issue fits neithter of the slots that the left v. right dynamic requires be filled, they generally lose interest. I mean, for instance, who wants to hear from someone who thinks that Christmas trees should be called Christmas trees, rather than holidy bushes, but who also thinks the "War on Christmas" business is baloney.

One other point here, though. In some eyes (and perhaps for good reason) the people on the religious right have more credibility as spokespeople for a movement than do those on the religious left: a) because they have influenced politics more than we have and b) (and here's where I may tick people off) a lot of the spokespeople on the right have people in their pews on Sundays, whereas those on the left tend to be more media-based, lone wolves. Generals without armies.

Posted by Jim Naughton | May 31, 2007 9:22 AM

Jim, the Christmas Tree debate example is an excellent one. Our opinions don't sell newspapers.

Derek, I agree that's what jumps immediately to mind (our views are close to liberal seculars) and it is compelling. I note the unintended connection to my essay today about evangelism in the Episcopal Church. If we're mostly perceived as offering something not much different from secular liberals we've got a big public perception problem. And then we've got the burden Ann mentions - liberal seculars who can't tell one stripe of believer from another. Last we've got a long tradition of low expectations of our laity. And, oh, it probably hasn't helped that we're able to pay our clergy well even in declining parishes, softening their drive to grow congregations.

It's not a formula for survival of what I regard as a beautiful and essential variant of Christianity. Or am I off base?

(Jim - Regarding lone wolves, I think I know who you're referring to.)

Posted by John B. Chilton | May 31, 2007 9:40 AM

John:
"If we're mostly perceived as offering something not much different from secular liberals we've got a big public perception problem."

You're quite right here. As I commented on your other piece, I think the key differences between Christian social action and political social action are the beginning and the end which--ultimately--are the same.... We start from the conviction that justice for the widow, the orphan, and the stranger in our land is demanded by God in the Scriptures; that feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison is not only part of the Gospel call but participates in God's own vision as Mary proclaimed in the Magnificat (on this feast of the Visitation...). And that, too, is the end--God's vision. What bothers me is when political party politics are equated with God's vision of peace and justice. It seems to me neither partisan view matches that...

Posted by Derek Olsen | May 31, 2007 10:50 AM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Organizations