rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (06/11/85)
First, let me start with a few disclaimers...
I am not a Southern Baptist nor am I related to same
by blood or marriage. I am not in Journalism (as should
be obvious :-) ).
Let me quote from an AP article out of Atlanta that had
this headline in my local paper:
MODERATE BAPTISTS MAY BE READY TO DUMP
STANLEY
"The election in Dallas next week will climax a fierce campaign
launched by moderates who claim Stanley, pastor of First Baptist
Church in Atlanta, is leading a conservative effort to force its
ideology - THAT EVERY WORD in the Bible must be interpreted LITER-
ALLY - on all Southern Baptist agencies and seminaries."
It would be nice if reporters assigned to write these articles
knew just a tad more about their subject matter. I don't think
we're going to find many Baptists who upon reading Jesus' words
"I am the door..." or "I am the Bread..." are going to make the
non-figurative assumptions.
I think the doctrines that our "reporter" has messed up are
Literal Verbal Inspiration and Biblical Inerrancy.
This kind of thing happens on a regular basis from the press
but to paraphrase H.L. Mencken - when it is necessary to assign
a cause based on the choices of either malice or stupidity -
choose stupidity every time.
Would some Conservative and Moderate Southern Baptists please
comment ??
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}pcl@npois.UUCP (Paul Levin) (06/12/85)
Just to give you a little insite as to why the press is ignorant on Christian matters: A recent poll determined that over 80% (more like 95%) or the people working in the press (newspapers, magazines, TV news, etc.) to not believe in God, or go the any kind of church or temple, or believe in any morality that stems from the Bible. What is ironic is that these are the people that have a position of great influence our lives; and they are not religious while 80% of the general public surveyed does believe in God, does attend a church or temple and does believe in some kind of morality stemming from the Bible. I worry when I hear the phrase, "More power to the press." Paul Levin npois!pcl
pcl@npois.UUCP (Paul Levin) (06/13/85)
Just to give you a little insite as to why the press is ignorant on Christian matters: A recent poll determined that over 80% (more like 95%) of the people working in the press (newspapers, magazines, TV news, etc.) do not believe in God, or go to any kind of church or temple, or believe in any morality that stems from the Bible. What is ironic is that these are the people that have a position of great influence on our lives; and they are not religious while 80% of the general public surveyed does believe in God, does attend a church or temple and does believe in some kind of morality stemming from the Bible. I worry when I hear the phrase, "More power to the press." Paul Levin npois!pcl
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (06/26/85)
In article <351@npois.UUCP> pcl@npois.UUCP (Paul Levin) writes: > A recent poll determined that over 80% (more like 95%) of the people > working in the press (newspapers, magazines, TV news, etc.) do not > believe in God, or go to any kind of church or temple, or believe > in any morality that stems from the Bible. > > What is ironic is that these are the people that have a position > of great influence on our lives; and they are not religious while > 80% of the general public surveyed does believe in God, does > attend a church or temple and does believe in some kind of morality > stemming from the Bible. > > I worry when I hear the phrase, "More power to the press." Send away NOW for your free subscription to that paragon of Christian hubris, "The Plain Truth, A Magazine of Understanding" published by Herbert Armstrong of Ambassador College. It makes me glad to hear that the American (presumably) press is largely irreligious, if The Plain Truth is the alternative. Other "religious" media I've read include the Scientologist's thing, which spent most of its pages grinding an axe against the feds (esp. the IRS); and The Christian Science Monitor, which I strongly suspect of ommitting much (even their comics are very few and very bland.) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (06/27/85)
In article <351@npois.UUCP> pcl@npois.UUCP (Paul Levin) writes: > A recent poll determined that over 80% (more like 95%) of the people > working in the press (newspapers, magazines, TV news, etc.) do not > believe in God, or go to any kind of church or temple, or believe > in any morality that stems from the Bible. > > What is ironic is that these are the people that have a position > of great influence on our lives; and they are not religious while > 80% of the general public surveyed does believe in God, does > attend a church or temple and does believe in some kind of morality > stemming from the Bible. > > I worry when I hear the phrase, "More power to the press." Rather than comparing jounalists' beliefs with average Americans, why not compare them with the general population of Americans WHO ARE EDUCATED, AWARE OF CURRENT EVENTS AND ARTICULATE? After all, these are the people from which jounalists are recruited. The average American doesn't even READ newspapers, except perhaps for a couple of headlines, the sports and comics. I don't know whether or not my suggested comparison would yield different results. But the comparison you gave above is irrelevant. Frank Silbermann
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (06/28/85)
In article <586@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> A recent poll determined that over 80% (more like 95%) of the people >> working in the press (newspapers, magazines, TV news, etc.) do not >> believe in God, or go to any kind of church or temple, or believe >> in any morality that stems from the Bible. >> >> What is ironic is that these are the people that have a position >> of great influence on our lives; and they are not religious while >> 80% of the general public surveyed does believe in God, does >> attend a church or temple and does believe in some kind of morality >> stemming from the Bible. >Send away NOW for your free subscription to that paragon of Christian hubris, >"The Plain Truth, A Magazine of Understanding" published by Herbert Armstrong >of Ambassador College. >It makes me glad to hear that the American (presumably) press is largely >irreligious, if The Plain Truth is the alternative. >Other "religious" media I've read include the Scientologist's thing, which >spent most of its pages grinding an axe against the feds (esp. the IRS); >and The Christian Science Monitor, which I strongly suspect of ommitting >much (even their comics are very few and very bland.) The CSM is very conservative from a journalistic point of view (i.e., it generally doesn't do adversarial journalism). I don't see these two points of view as the only alternatives, however, which is my primary criticism. The sad fact is that reporting of religion in this country is usually very poor, regardless of who does it. The important role of anglican and catholic churches in the South African political situation, for instance, is almost entirely ignored. Fundamentalism is often treated as the sole representation of Christianity in America. With regard to "exotic" religions like Islam or Hinduism, the usual depiction is characature. Media prejudices as to what is newsworthy are very important factors in the character of the depiction of a group. The fact that reporters are largely irreligious tends to make one suspect that they will not be too concerned about the quality of their coverage. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
shindman@utcs.UUCP (Paul Shindman) (06/30/85)
In article <508@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > >Media prejudices as to what is newsworthy are very important factors in the >character of the depiction of a group. The fact that reporters are largely >irreligious tends to make one suspect that they will not be too concerned >about the quality of their coverage. > Somehow I don't recall the original posting having to do with the coverage of religious news items, but rather with news coverage in general. In the quasi-circuitous way newsgroups work Wingate is now talking about news coverage of religions and religious viewpoints in the States. Journalism is a very competative profession, and a very competative business. Reporters are in most cases very concerned about the quality of their coverage and the accuracy of their stories (so they don't get fired, sued, or ridiculed), as are their employers (so they keep their ratings up). Implying that personal religious (christian?) conviction is proportional to the quality of news coverage is one helluva non-sequitor. ---------------------- actually...it still strikes me as silly that the right-wingers in the States complain about left-wing bias in the tv networks, yet these same people don't insist on all those "christian" private networks running their own news bureaus and having 6:30 national news reports so that they can get "unbiased" news reporting... -- ----------------- Paul Shindman, U of T Computing Services, Toronto (416) 978-6878 USENET: {ihnp4|decvax}!utcs!shindman BITNET: paulie at utoronto IP SHARP MAIL: uoft
bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) (07/07/85)
>Journalism is a very competative profession, and a very competative >business. Reporters are in most cases very concerned about the >quality of their coverage and the accuracy of their stories (so they >don't get fired, sued, or ridiculed), as are their employers (so >they keep their ratings up). I'll take your word for it; but personally, I've never met a journalist with a major news organization( and I've known a few) who had a very high regard for factual accuracy. The main thing that they seem interested in is the ratings, and for that you don't need facts, just flash. The other thing is that their bosses feel(this was also revealed in the survey) that a big part of their job is to CHANGE the way people think so as to agree with their way of thinking. >Implying that personal religious (christian?) conviction is >proportional to the quality of news coverage is one helluva non-sequitor. I don't think this was implied. The critical factor is what the intent of the bias is. If these people are trying to influence the way people think, and they have a great deal of power to do so( the same survey also showed that they perceived themselves as the most powerful force in that regard, and that they felt it should be so), then I think that what they believe about what I call basic human issues has a lot to do with the quality of what they publish. The fact that they have a higher regard for how they can influence people than for factual accuracy(my observation) is more than enough to cast doubts on the quality of the product. And while we're on non-sequiturs, how about the assumption that someone is more qualified to judge moral issues if he's been through more of the media hype and educational brainwashing than someone else? Now, of course, those are my opinions, but... There is an underlying assumption that more education gives one the right to shape the way others think by shaping the facts that one gives out. When I was a boy, my dad used to call that "lying". I'm not sure what they call it now. Would have been nice then, maybe I could have avoided those sessions with _the Belt_. I will resist the urge to compare this with Nazism... oh, well, it just slipped out. Sorry. Well, not really... Keep to the truth. brian