Religion: Progressives Left Behind?

Media coverage of religion has increased significantly since the 2004 elections. Unfortunately, the coverage has presented a skewed picture of religion in America -- one in which religious conservatives are the experts on mainstream issues. I’m sure you agree this is a far cry from reality. The fact is we live in a country in which 90 percent of our people identify themselves as religious, with conservatives representing only a small portion of that large religious community.

In a new Media Matters for America report -- "Left Behind: The Skewed Representation of Religion in Major News Media" -- we document the media’s coverage of religion since the 2004 elections. What we found was a dramatic oversimplification of the public debate and a consistent skewing of coverage in favor of conservatives....

Here are some of the key findings from our new report -- they highlight the disparity in coverage between progressive and conservative religious leaders.

*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 news channels, and PBS -- conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed 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.

And here is video of Paul Waldman, Senior Fellow and Director of Special Projects here at Media Matters, talking about the report at a press conference held today.

It’s important for us to recognize where the news media turn when talking about religion because it has dramatic implications for both the issues discussed and the outcome of the debate. When conservative religious leaders dominate the airwaves, so do their issues and their perspectives, even when they aren’t a priority for the majority of Americans.

For instance, more than eight in 10 Americans agree that too many leaders use religion to talk about abortion and gay rights and don’t talk enough about more important things like loving your neighbor and caring for the poor. That opinion is held consistently across virtually every religious tradition. But because of the media’s preference for far-right conservative religious leaders over progressives, abortion and gay rights are presented to the public as the key religious issues of the day.

The news media need to hear from you.

As we approach the next presidential election, we can expect another spike in coverage of the intersection of politics and religion. We can’t afford to allow the dominance of conservative religious views to continue while progressive religious voices are left behind.

I am urging news organizations to reflect on our findings and consider whether the skewed representation of religion in major news media serves the public interest. I am asking you to do the same. Together, our voices can make change happen. Click here to view our latest report and take action today!

Thank you once again for your continued support.

•  Tip Jar

  by David Brock on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:26:10 PM PST

•  Faith communities include progressives, too!

  I am a Christian. And I am a progressive Democrat. It is important for the media to recognize, and not marginalize, the diversity that exists within all faith communities.

  by jhutson on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:30:34 PM PST

  •  Hear hear!

    Or is that "Here! Here!" ;0

    I truly wonder if perhaps we are the Silent Majority among Christians.

    by texasmom on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:48:57 PM PST

  •  Amen!

    The media makes it out like only religious people support Republicans, another false meme they like to carry on. I'm not religious but I've met many liberal Christians here in Portland OR, and they vote Democrat!

    by sarahlane on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:00:33 PM PST

•  Mainstream religious leaders

  have usually felt that their influence should be focussed on winning hearts and minds, not winning votes for their favorite candidates in the electronic arena. Unfortunately, the Wingnut preachers didn't take seriously Matthew 5.48-6.10, especially verses 7-8:

  7 ‘When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

  by Sharoney on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:35:29 PM PST

•  I can think of few things more revolting

  than using religion as a political wedge.

  Yet they do it again and again and again.

  If Jesus came back tomorrow he wouldn't stop throwing up.

  by Karmafish on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:37:12 PM PST

•  Thanks for Pointing Out What Should Be Obvious

  It's sad that we need to document this sort of thing for people to realize it. These sorts of things have a way of sneaking up on people, I guess.

  by BlackGriffen on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:41:32 PM PST

•  Conservatives have made a cottage industry of it

  'it' being the ability to tie religious piety with political action. They mastered that game 27 years ago. Suddenly morality becomes a political wedge issue, and a true message of faith gets drowned out by debates over indecency or homosexuality with the top bidder having the highest pulpit. The same morality that is used as a political tool also becomes commodified for the masses; give our megachurch $1000 and you, too, can look your nose down upon the heathens and their 'rule of law'.

  Religious progressives left behind? Perhaps they were too busy actually doing instead of figuring out ways to maximize profits on other people's fear.

  by PanzerMensch on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:42:51 PM PST

  •  I thought morality was about good and evil

    But the religious right has made it mean something else.

    In the English language, killing people is immoral, and smoking hemp is not immoral. In the language of the religious right, it is the other way around.

    by Mike Erwin on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:02:34 PM PST

•  Media bais favoring religious conservatives

  Others my have a different take, but your statistics showing media citing religious right sources over 'progressive religious" sources should be directly attributed to the far better funded and longer established religious right infrastructure, its dedication, media savvy and its leverage within the Republican Party. Until 2004, neither Democratic Party organizers nor progressive institutions have considered funding and organizing a comparable counterweight. As of now, Dems and progressives are a day late and a dollar short on this front.

  by mreyn1 on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:47:52 PM PST

  •  good diagnosis, but tricky prescription

    its leverage within the Republican Party

    I think this is the core issue.  Between Bush I and Bush II, the Republican Party made an explicit decision to integrate the religious right directly into its operations.  

    Whereas Bush I and the post-Reagan party tried to keep the Christian Right happy, but at arm's length, Bush II has offered them a throne at the table.  

    Day One saw the launch of his vaunted Faith-based Initiative, a barely-veiled payoff to the religious right.  And they haven't looked back.

    While Pat Robertson was a nutty fringe-dweller who Bush I tried to appease-- Bush II has ushered the graduates of Regent University into the highest levels of government.  Direct campaigning in churches, the Terri Schiavo debacle, the SCOTUS "partial birth abortion" ruling, evangelical proselytizing in the armed forces, Christian fundamentalists appointed to top cabinet positions -- all of these things are unprecedented Republican Party operations.  
    And the mainstream media has allowed the Republican Party and its punditry to successfully portray these embedded partisans as the voice of American religion.

    My quibble is with the idea that the Democratic Party is too slow to fight this fire with fire.  

    I think it is important for progressives to elevate progressive communities of faith to counter the dominance of the Religious right.
    But I don't believe the Democratic Party should offer up its own version of party-sanctioned and funded religious voices.  The Democrats should proudly embody the American ideals of religious liberty and the separation of church and state that the Republicans have recklessly thrown away for political gain.

    by vivadissent on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:43:59 PM PST

•  Goleft

  Mainstream Media is Dead
  Mike Papantonio talks about how Mainstream Media is dead, but there is a new rise of the "citizens' media".

  http://goleft.tv/...

  by army193 on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:52:22 PM PST

•  Actually, there were six Democratic Congressional

  Candidates across the country that were or are Ministers.  We didn't get the attention that the Fighting Dems got, but we are out there.

  by Barry Welsh on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:17:19 PM PST

  •  Also at least one gubernatorial candidate

    and now governor, Ted Strickland in Ohio. And he was running against one of the most sanctimonious, theocrat-supported candidtaes anywhere, the odious J. Kenny "Katherine Harris" Blackwell. Whom he beat by more than 20 points, carrying 72 of Ohio's 88 counties.

    But that campaign may be indicative of a change in the wind for how people across the faith spectrum reaction to the religious right's agenda. Blackwell went into the campaign prepared to brandish abortion and gays as his issues. As the campaign unfolded, and Strickland focused without wavering on the economy, education and health care, the public seemed uninterested in being diverted to talking about gays and abortion (Blackwell admittedly had flip-flop problems with the latter and never talked that much about it). Blackwell had no real alternative proposals on Strickland's issues, just hastily assembled gimmicks (Sell the turnpike and solve all the state's funding problems!).

    Ultimately it just seemed like Ohioans had tired of the rancorous talk about gay marriage and were asking "How can I assure I'll have a job and health-care coverage? How can I educate my kids?" not "Will my marriage fall apart if a gay couple moves into town?"

    by anastasia p on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:43:12 PM PST

  •  Hey now,

    you got an interview out of it, didn't you? ;-)

    Check your e-mail, by the way - I responded to you the other night.

    by pastordan on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:45:50 PM PST

•  the religious right has a critical function...

  ... in the Corporate dominated state. Without it the rich would not have such an easy time upping their share of the wealth--the kind of top-down authoritarian religion that the sponsors is perfect. It is not, by the way, Christianity at least if you read the Gospels, not even remotely close. It is pure propaganda funded and maintained by the ruling class to enslave credulous people. Having said that, we have to also take into account the very poor record of the "progressive" churches who have very little understanding of the "juice" that keeps religion "hot" -- they tend to be highly intellectual and lack the kind of joyous and mystical qualities of the right-wing churches. That quality need not be limited to the right--it has been central to Black Churches for generations.

  by banger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:25:03 PM PST

•  Barack Obama's speech

  about religion and politics was the thoughtful, considered, and well reasoned words I have ever heard from the left about those of us who are people of faith.

  
  
  
  
  

  by brooklynbadboy on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:38:23 PM PST

  •  Is that his speech from last June?

    Because it's one of my main sticking points with him. He invented a false negative about progressives in order to try to paint himself as some sort of conciliatory "middle way." But he compared to utterly unequal things. Until he answers the question "What powerful organization or individual on the left, EQUIVALENT TO James Dobson or Pat Robertson or Focus on the Family, has attempted to silence people from speaking about their faith or drive faith out of the public sphere?" If he can't name them -- and he most assuredly can't -- he's bought into a right-wing myth.

    This, in fact, is my MAIN reservation about Obama.

    by anastasia p on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:48:39 PM PST

    •  I don't understand your question.

      What powerful organization or individual on the left, EQUIVALENT TO James Dobson or Pat Robertson or Focus on the Family, has attempted to silence people from speaking about their faith or drive faith out of the public sphere?"

      Your question is about something entirely different than the topic at hand. It wasn't about organizational power, but the way we discuss things important to people of faith.

      But, to answer it anyway, no, there is "equivalent" organization that is trying to silence people of faith. BUT, there is a dismissive tendency on the left to treat such people as "extremists" or "fundies". The secularists may lack the organizational discipline of the evangelicals, but this does not change the fact that there is animosity and harsh language on both sides of the debate. That leads to intractable positions that fail to recognize the important role that "fair minded words" can have in finding common ground.

      The purpose of the speech was about how we talk about these things. Keep the central premise of the speech in mind- "Fair minded words." Obama calls on both sides to consider this as a better way to discuss religion.

      If that gives you pause, you are no different that people you profess are trying to silence you.

      by brooklynbadboy on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:18:12 AM PST

•  One problem

    is the tendency of some progressives, including a vocal few on this site, to openly mock Christians and bash those who are open about their faith. That includes Democrats like Barack Obama, some people have torn into him for his daring to suggest that Democrats need to do more to communicate their faith.

    Progressives who mock religion or religious people need to be tossed out of the movement, much like Nader supporters. They do far more harm than good.

  by usmeagle69 on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:04:52 PM PST

  •  Now YOU'RE "some-saying"

    Who exactly are these "some progressives" who are equivalent in power and prominence to Robertson, Dobson, Perkins and other top right-wing evangelicals? It's a completely false frame to talk about "posters on DailyKos" as if they had the same influence on the debate or the same power within the political structure as a Dobson. If the "progressives who mock religion" are just some poster on Daily Kos saying "You're stupid to believe in any God," that's not a power center equal to the massive machine of the Christian right. Its equivalence is posters at Free Republic who call progressives traitors or "anti-American."

    Many of us have not "torn into" Obama because he has said progressives need to communicate our faith. We have critiqued (not "torn into") him for claiming that a handful of fringey, often anonymous posters expressing anti-religion sentiments have the same impact as the powerhouse organizations of the Christian right. It's a frame THEY try to shop -- "oh, we're so persecuted" -- and it was very innocent and under-informed of Obama to buy into it and spread it around. He was their tool. I hope he recognizes this and apologizes to progressives of faith. We're waiting.

    by anastasia p on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:56:12 PM PST

  •  It seems to me that there is alot of

    over sensitivity to criticism on religion.

    Progressives who mock religion or religious people need to be tossed out of the movement, much like Nader supporters. They do far more harm than good.

    Bye Bye atheists?  I guess it's only the religious that get to speak out on what they believe.  There are just as many religious posters here who mock and bash as there are non-religious.  It's not as simple as just throwing out those awful atheists.

    by Rebecca on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:24:07 PM PST

    •  I didn't say

       bye bye atheists. Atheists, most of them, don't mock religion, they just don't believe it themselves. Non believers certainly have a place in our party. But for those who mock religious faith, religious people and the idea of using faith as a justification for their positions are not helping the progressive cause, they are hurting it.

       Don't put words in the mouth. Take what I wrote and criticize it. But I did not say that atheists have no place in the party or the movement. Of course they do. Just as long as they recognize that Christians do too. The vast majority of them do. And the vast majority of progressive christians recognize that atheists have a place here as well. It's those, on both sides, that don't, that have to be gotten rid of, or at least marginalized.

      by usmeagle69 on Wed May 30, 2007 at 10:51:04 AM PST

•  Another Progressive Christian for Peace

  I have not always been a Christian, but I have for decades been a Progressive.  Rediscovering my faith did not turn off my progressive political leanings.  In fact, my newfound faith strengthened my commitment to those who are least among us.

  I am not going to brag--the Bible makes it clear that bragging is it's own reward and that what we do in secret will be rewarded by our Creator in a way that matters most.  I just wanted to share that Sojourners has been doing so much to rally politically progressive Christians for many years now.  Jim Wallis was against the Iraq invasion even before it began, and his book God's Politics argues his case so well that I think even non-believers can get a better understanding of how (as the subtitle of that book goes) "the right gets it wrong and the left doesn't get it."

  And there are plenty of Christians who support the separation of Church and State.  We just want to put our faith into action without blurring Constitutional lines in doing so.  There is much compassion and progressive social justice in the Christian faith that gets shouted down by the loudest voices from the Right.  Most of us walk our walk without having to talk the talk, and we understand that we believe in a "long-haired radical Socialist Jew."  

  by Kulturvultur Intifada on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:26:44 PM PST