Is There Bias in the Mainstream Media?

Many political and social conservatives decry an alleged liberal bias in the so-called “mainstream media.” Concerns of such bias have led to a backlash that has led to the success of conservative talk radio and Fox News Channel.

To a point, I understand and agree there is a bias in the mainstream media. As someone who runs in a variety of different social circles—from conservative Christians to liberal idealists to pro-business capitalists—I actually think about this point quite a lot and have for a long time.

Many of my friends and acquaintances believe adamantly that there is a left-tilt in the mainstream media and it ticks them off. I also have plenty of friends who completely relate to the cultural perspectives shared by many mainline journalists, so it would never occur to them that there is anything wrong with the mainstream media’s worldview. As a consumer of such media who is fairly sensitive to each of these perspectives, I personally have for years had my antennae up listening and reading for evidence of such liberal bias.

In my observation, most journalists in the mainstream media seem to come from fairly homogenous backgrounds culturally. They seem to be college educated. Many are from the East Coast (but rarely from the South). Religion does not seem to be of much importance to them. And they seem to think they’re pretty clever.

I pick all this up from a plethora of fairly subtle things. NPR stations encourage listeners to contribute to support the “intelligent talk radio” on NPR. Such statements seem to be code for: “Yes, we are technically a type of ‘talk radio’ but we’re not blathering idiots like Rush, Glenn and their ilk.” I get the sense the point they’re trying to express is that Terry Gross and Diane Reem are qualitatively superior to the right wing windbags.

In mainstream media reporting, I’ve also noticed that acceptance of the Theory of Evolution is a given; no sane person would admit to Creationist sympathies. The unspoken assumption seems to be: “We are well-educated and smart; well-educated, smart people are always Darwinists.”

When religion is covered in various stories by the mainstream media, I often get the impression the people reporting are really thinking “WTF? Can you believe such crazy people exist?” Sometimes it is the tone of the reporting. But a lot of my impression is based simply on the type of stories that are chosen. We always seem to hear the stories of the religious bigots who are burning someone else’s scripture, or folks who are believing in something that defies scientific or other logical proof. It gives one the impression that if you run into these journalists at a cocktail party, it might be wise to not come out of the closet as a Christian.

I think that homogeneity in the culture of American journalism and perceived cultural bias is likely why Dan Rather (a native Texan) played up his regional accent and even added flaky colloquial phrases later in his career. I don’t know that for sure. That is just my gut reaction. But frankly why else would he start using those odd colloquialisms?

Indeed, some of those little witticisms were so darned wacky, I was truly embarrassed as a fellow Texan. (Classics: “Bush has run through Dixie like a big wheel through a cotton field.” “If [Gore] doesn’t carry Florida, Slim will have left town.”)

Clearly, Dan had not spent a lot of time in the Lone Star State in recent years. I don’t know anyone these days who talks like that. It was like a 40 year old stereotype of how Texans express themselves. But when he was still on the air, my assumption was that Dan spoke like that to appeal to the “common folk” and appear less of a New York liberal. I don’t know who he thought he was fooling, but I guess he thought it was worth a shot. For those who are unfamiliar, the link below has an article from 2000 about Dan’s “down-home witticisms.”

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2000/11/08/rather

So, yes, Virginia, I do believe the mainstream media has certain biases. I think all of us do. If I’ve learned nothing else as a lawyer over the past decade plus, I’ve learned that human objectivity is a myth. We are all shaped by our life experiences and the attitudes we’ve been exposed to. We should try to be objective if we are lawyers or journalists. But we should also be aware that subjectivity is always going to seep into anything we do. We should be aware of that tendency so we can fight against it as best we can. If we’re not even aware, then we won’t be successful in that struggle.

Frankly, I think it also helps to listen to different perspectives. I always encourage my students to listen open-mindedly to different opinions and points of view. We learn and grow that way. But hearing other perspectives also helps us to realize the biases that we carry around.

I imagine the newsroom of most mainstream media outlets to be composed of people from roughly similar backgrounds and values. They seem to have group think a lot of time. They don’t seem to realize many people in this country have different life experiences and belief systems that (gasp!) may be valid or at least deserving of equal respect. (See the November 19, 2009 post to this blog for some discussion of the media’s reaction to Jimmy Carter’s expression of his Christian faith in the 1976 election.) I think such work environments could benefit from less group think and more diversity of opinion. I’m not saying CBS and CNN should just hire a bunch more registered Republicans. That is too simplistic. Instead, I think that a real diversity of life experience and perspective would add a lot.

Now I want to make clear that even though I do believe there is a sort of cultural bias in the mainstream media, in my long-time, critical observation, I don’t necessarily perceive political bias in the stories that are typically reported. Even though I think that the mainstream media is likely dominated by secular, college-educated Northeasterners, I don’t typically notice that the mainstream media is more supportive of Democratic politicians and policies than Republican politicians and policies.

Indeed, the backlash against alleged media bias really ticks me off. For a long time, I have perceived the media to be rather meek and tepid to ask the hard questions. (See the May 18, 2011 post to this blog for a discussion of the media’s interaction with Lee Atwater.)

This kind of spinelessness has gone on for a long time, but the culmination, in my opinion, was the way the media essentially became George W. Bush’s cheerleaders after 9/11 and refused to ask tough questions in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

Our country is about to observe the tenth anniversary of the horrific tragedy of 9/11. Many of us have not gotten over the shock and anguish of that awful day. Honestly, it is just impossible to get our minds around it fully even so long after the fact. The events of that day were just unimaginably agonizing.

You cannot make sense of such evil and such resultant human suffering. People who did nothing wrong and were just going about their business died unexpectedly in unthinkable ways. But you and I are still here. We cannot bring back the victims of the 9/11 attacks, but I think we have a duty to honor their memory. In my opinion, one way we do that is by keeping our democracy strong. Part of that involves challenging those in authority, asking inconvenient questions and holding our leaders accountable. If we fail to do that, we become no better than a totalitarian state.

Mark 3:27

No one gets into the house of a strong person and steals anything without first tying up the strong person. Only then can the house be burglarized.

“The Objectivity Bias”

I’ve mentioned before in this blog my admiration for the radio program On the Media, and I wanted to mention a report they did this past summer. It was called “The Objectivity Bias” and was aired on July 29, 2011. It is available at the link below.

http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/jul/29/reporting-extreme-positions/


The report involved modern American journalists’ strong fears of being perceived by the public as biased and partisan. The report examined how that fear impacts journalists’ ability to do their job. Specifically, the fear is that the public will think the media is biased toward the Democrats and are overly critical of the Republicans. It was a very thought-provoking report.

James 3:17 (King James Version)

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

High Salaries for Celebrity Journalists

Apropos of my recent blog posts, I came across an article about the amazingly high salaries of the celebrity journalists who bring us the “news” in the major media outlets. The article is available at the link below.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/matt-lauer-makes-17-million-topping-annual-tv-150858412.html

On the very same day, I saw an article about desperate mothers in Kenya physically fighting other desperate mothers to get food for their starving children. As a mom myself, I couldn’t begin to imagine the horror of watching my own children starve before my eyes. That article is available at the link below.

http://news.yahoo.com/mothers-exchange-blows-kenya-drought-deepens-155527381.html?nc

I was talking recently with a colleague who mentioned that he could imagine I would be a real “Mama Grizzly” if anyone ever threatened my kids. When I read this article about the moms in Kenya, I thought about that “Mama Grizzly” comment. To the best of my recollection and with the possible exception of some minor naughtiness as a young child, I’ve never physically assaulted anyone. I cannot conceive of harming another human being like that. But if my children’s survival were at stake, I can imagine that might begin to be an option. It is horrifying to consider, but the love for one’s children is strong. It would kill me to see my children’s lives in danger and I would probably do just about anything to protect them. It would fly in the face of every value I embrace and I would hate myself. But the anguish of watching your child waste away is unthinkable.

The irony of the two stories appearing at the same time struck me. I don’t begrudge anyone good fortune and a windfall. There will always be people who earn outrageous salaries while others live in deprivation. These rich “journalists” are not alone in receiving such compensation.

But the services provided by these celebrity “journalists” is relatively cushy. They are in temperature regulated studios in places like Manhattan and Northwest D.C. They wear expensive suits and are well-coifed. They bathe regularly and have people who fuss over getting their make-up just right.

By comparison, the investigative journalists who bust their butts and often risk their lives to bring us the news from places of instability and violence are often unsung heroes. Tom Odula is the person who wrote the article above about mothers dealing with horrific drought in Kenya. Frankly, I’ve never heard of him before. I googled him and was not able to learn much. I could be wrong, but I’m assuming that he is making considerably less than Matt Lauer this year. However, to me, Mr. Odula is performing a much more important public service than Mr. Lauer’s hosting of the Today show.

I suppose the same sort of inequality exists in other professions. I began my professional life as a grade school teacher in an underfunded church school in a neglected part of town. The salary I earned that first year probably would have put me below the federal poverty level. The teachers at the best public schools on the other side of town made several times more than I did. Teachers at prestigious private schools in other more affluent communities also would have made many times more than I was making that first year.

When I was in practice as a lawyer, I was very fortunate and made more money than I could have ever imagined. Partners at big firms made a lot more, but I couldn’t complain. I made much more than the lawyers in my community who defended indigent clients to avoid deportation or incarceration. I also had a much nicer office in which to work.

Similarly, the plastic surgeons who play on the insecurities of various people perform tummy tucks and breast augmentations, for which they earn lucrative income. By contrast, the doctors who live in rural communities serving underserved populations often with substandard facilities live a much less opulent lifestyle.

I think it is interesting to note the way that market forces sometimes overcompensate services of lesser social value and undercompensate services of greater social value.

Galatians 5:13

You were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only don’t let this freedom be an opportunity to indulge your selfish impulses, but serve each other through love.

Juan

In October of last year, it was announced that Juan Williams was fired from NPR. Mr. Williams had been an analyst for NPR for years. Hosts would bring him in to provide analysis of the day’s news stories. However, he was also working as a commentator for Fox News Channel in recent years. He appeared on FNC programs to share his opinion on the day’s news stories. Mr. Williams was fired by NPR because its management objected to things Mr. Williams had said on FNC in his commentator role; they believed it compromised his analyst’s role on NPR.

There was a lot of fall-out and debate after Mr. Williams’ firing. Many conservatives cited it as illustrative of the liberal political correctness and intolerance of differing perspectives on NPR. For a variety of reasons, many on the left wrung their hands in angst over the departure of Mr. Williams and his full-time defection to the dark side of FNC.

I heard one news report during that time that was interesting in putting the whole affair in perspective. It explained the different roles Mr. Williams had played at the two media outlets. For NPR, he had been an analyst, which meant that after someone else provided the supposedly objective facts of the news, Mr. Williams explained the significance and repercussions of those facts. Per the report I heard, a news analyst is supposed to still retain journalistic objectivity and not inject his own views on the news. But for FNC, Mr. Williams had been a commentator, which meant that he was paid to give his own opinions and debate the opinions of others.

After listening to that report, I thought a lot about these two roles: news analyst and news commentator. Initially, I was skeptical about the need for either in news programming. But after more consideration, I now understand that just straight reporting of the news may not be enough. For viewers/listeners/readers to understand the reported news facts, context may be necessary. For example, to understand the significance of a particular presidential veto, we may need to understand the legal and budgetary repercussions of the failure of the legislation to be enacted, the history of the bill in Congress, the political rivalries that may have played out and prompted the veto, the frequency with which a particular president uses his veto and a host of other facts. I can appreciate that news analysis may be necessary, but I also recognize that it may be difficult to maintain one’s journalistic objectivity when providing such analysis. It can be a fine line between analysis and commentary. I can imagine the line might even be illusory at times.

But I remain unclear why supposed news programs need commentators. Why in America do we pay the same relatively small group of people big bucks to sit around constantly debating their opinions? The Sunday morning talk shows, the cable news shows, the talk radio programs and others simply expose us to the same folks spouting their opinions over and over again on a number of topics. Why do we always have to hear from the same people?

If we have to have these opinion-based shows, why don’t we at least bring in more folks to share their opinions so we will have more perspectives to hear? That might challenge us more and it could be enlightening. But that is not what such programming is all about. Again, such programming masquerades as news but is simply entertainment.

We end up with these little cults of personality. People love to quote Rush or Glenn or Jon or Keith. But these gentlemen do little to inform us of what is going on in the world and they rarely give us a challenging new perspective. Right wing audiences listen to Rush or Glenn spout what they want to hear. Similarly, left wing audiences listen to Jon or Keith for similar reasons. It is just a depressing state of affairs.

When the whole Juan Williams brouhaha was going on, my in-laws were visiting our family in Arizona. I like to hear the perspectives of different people, so I asked my father-in-law what he thought of the whole thing. His reaction was surprising and quite interesting.

My husband’s family is from a small town several hours from the nearest urban center. There were only a couple of radio stations available when my husband was growing up, and until the advent of cable, they couldn’t really watch much TV. My father-in-law told me that before the firing, he had never heard of Juan Williams and had never listened to NPR. My in-laws are well-educated and intelligent people. I was surprised they had never listened to NPR even once, but my father-in-law indicated they didn’t get NPR in their town. As a result, it was hard for him to put in context the whole event.

I suspect that that was not an uncommon reaction. When our family has gone on road trips, my husband and I sometimes have trouble finding an NPR affiliate in remote areas. Though the media pundits were obsessed with the firing of Mr. Williams for a while, I’m sure that a lot of Americans were like my father-in-law and didn’t know who the heck Juan Williams was. We in urban centers often have no clue what life is like in more rural areas of our country. The popular media seem to share and reflect that same ignorance.

Proverbs 11:29

He who troubles his own house shall inherit the wind, and the foolish shall be servant to the wise of heart.

Keith

Abruptly in January of this year, Keith Olbermann announced he was no longer appearing on MSNBC. There has been speculation why. Months later, it was announced he would be appearing on the Current TV channel, to which few people seem to have access. But don’t cry for Mr. Olbermann, he is going to receive a multi-million dollar raise.

Mr. Olbermann is a man of strong opinions and strongly-worded opinions. I happen to agree with many of them. Nonetheless, I’m not a fan. When I have watched his program, he is simply a left wing version of Bill O’Reilly, with whom he has had a public feud.

Such bombast and on-air confrontation is in my opinion the verbal equivalent of wrestling in the WWF. It should never be confused with journalism. People like Mr. Olbermann and Mr. O’Reilly give viewers little new information. They are a form of entertainment. The audience is supposed to listen to them spout their opinions in self-righteous style and berate anyone with whom they disagree. We rarely get new information from that type of broadcast.

I have always hated WWF wrestling. People with silly costumes pretending (?) to violently inflict pain on other human beings while embracing ridiculous personas to either cultivate audience support or audience antagonism. Why would anyone be interested in such senseless violence? I’ve never understood it.

But it seems to me that the same base appeal is used to lure people to watch Mr. Olbermann and his ilk. And that is tragic. We need to recognize that such shows are simply entertainment, not truly news. Again, there are only so many hours in the day. Time spent watching such programming means that we are likely foregoing opportunities to really learn what is going on in our world and to be truly informed about issues of importance.

Proverbs 10:14

Wise men store up knowledge [in mind and heart], but the mouth of the foolish is a present destruction.

Meredith and Katy

In my opinion, one example of the decay in American journalism is the fact that the movement of journalists from one program to another has itself become news. When a journalist is fired or resigns or takes a new position, that journalist often makes the rounds on other shows and is interviewed about the move. The journalist is the news.

This phenomenon is part of our current focus on so-called “celebrity news.” The journalists themselves have become celebrities, so events in their lives are considered celebrity news in this day and age. But when a journalist is the news, it detracts from her ability to deliver other news objectively.

This summer two media stories received a lot of attention. One involved Meredith Viera’s departure from the Today show. The other involves Katy Couric’s departure from the CBS Evening News, her initial indecision about the next stage of her career and her eventual decision to host an afternoon talk show. I rarely watch TV, but when I turned it on this summer, I saw an awful lot of attention paid to these two news stories.

I am not even clear why we consider these stories to be newsworthy. Plenty of people make career changes. In modern America, it is indeed a frequent occurrence. When a journalist goes from one employer to another, it should not distract from learning about budget battles on Capitol Hill or the details of the violence in Syria.

But people like Ms. Viera and Ms. Couric are celebrities, so their career changes are lumped in with other celebrity news. To me, people like Ms. Viera and Ms. Couric don’t really seem like journalists any more. The line has been so blurred between journalism and celebrity. These big name “journalists” earn millions of dollars each year. Those big paychecks are not doled out for straight delivery of the news. They are doled out because these “journalists” have become entertainers, and like many entertainers in this country they earn the big bucks.

As fate would have it, on the day that turned out to be Meredith Viera’s last day on the Today show, I was under the weather. Confined to my bed, I turned on the TV and watched a bit. Frankly, I don’t think I watched the Today show the whole time Ms. Viera was co-hosting. On that last day, I caught a montage of what were apparently her finest moments on the show. The montage was accompanied by her on-air colleagues singing her praises. In the montage, she was shown in past appearances making goofy faces, playing jokes, dressing in costumes, and showing compassion to guests. Her on-air colleagues praised her warmth and sense of humor. They gushed at how she brought so much of herself to each interview.

I was horrified. Why are these thought to be laudable attributes of an alleged journalist? How does bringing so much of oneself aid the objectivity that is supposed to be the hallmark of good news programs? I was particularly horrified that the montage included clips of interviews where Ms. Viera was clearly shown sympathizing with a particular guest. This was seen as a good thing because she was being so compassionate. What about the other side? Aren’t there always at least two sides to every news story? How do we know the guests’ position was the best to support?

Even though I was a semi-captive audience due to my illness, I turned off the T.V. I couldn’t bear to watch any more. Despite the wildfires in Arizona, the devastating drug war in Mexico, and the cruelty of Qadhafi’s attempts to retain power, real news was being ignored to celebrate ad nauseum the five years Ms. Viera had been on the Today show.

The attention this summer to Ms. Couric’s next career move was also demoralizing to me. The news stories focused primarily on her ability to attract viewers and the changing realities of attracting ratings in the age of the 24/7 news cycle and internet updates. Even on NPR, real news was ignored and time was spent debating whether Ms. Couric’s talk show will be successful from a ratings perspective.

It is so sad that we allow ourselves to be sidetracked from more pressing matters to focus on such trivialities. The news is frankly now just viewed as another form of entertainment. Moreover, the presentation of the news has become just one segment of the entertainment industry. Thus, we pay attention to how many consumers it will attract because that is what drives the bottom line. We don’t pay attention to how well the news is being delivered and how much information we are getting about what is going on in the world around us.

Proverbs 9:6

Leave off, simple ones [forsake the foolish and simpleminded] and live! And walk in the way of insight and understanding.

The Decline of CNN and Hard News

In our country, our news is delivered largely by for-profit media businesses. Their reporting is driven by the need to attract customers, i.e., readers, viewers, listeners. I’ve been worried for a while whether that model is compatible with the need for a well-informed citizenry. We as an electorate need to know what is going on in the world, in our country and in our communities so that we can form prudent opinions about policy and cast our ballots accordingly. But in the current age, we just aren’t getting enough information.

People blame the media, but in a for-profit model, the news outlets give us what we are most inclined to consume. If we prefer reading rumors about Jennifer Anniston’s love life or watching a report on a chain-smoking baby, that is the sort of thing the media will try to give us more frequently. By comparison, if we don’t tune in to learn more about the current humanitarian crisis along the Kenya-Somalia border or the structural issues causing unsustainable increases in our health care costs, then news outlets won’t give us as much of that. They give us what we’ll consume. And besides, it is more expensive to send reporters to remote regions in Africa or to investigate complicated economic issues than it is to pay some paparazzi to stalk celebrities.

I’m not saying that government funded media is the solution. Certainly, that approach has its own set of issues. But the profit-driven media approach we have is problematic and flawed.

I was particularly reminded of that point recently when I listened to an NPR report on the plight of CNN. The report is available at the following link:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/01/137538689/new-cnn-news-chief-takes-stock

Our family canceled cable years ago and we don’t watch much TV except when we travel. I hadn’t realized that CNN’s ratings have become a casualty of the clash of the Fox News and MSNBC echo chambers. Per the report, CNN has tried to stay neutral and focus on actual reporting. Their forte is apparently delivering news. But apparently people aren’t tuning in for that. They would rather opt for the loud, bombastic talking heads of Fox News and MSNBC.

This really depresses me. As consumers of news and as citizens of the world’s oldest modern democracy, we can’t allow this situation to continue. We are so incredibly fortunate to live in our country. With great blessings come great responsibility.

Luke 12:48

“For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.”

“On The Media” and “Echo Chambers”

Another “On the Media” show recently was really fascinating. It involved the concept of “echo chambers.”

For those who are unfamiliar with it, the World English Dictionary defines the term “echo chamber” as follows:

“Also called: reverberation chamber a room with walls that reflect sound. It is
used to make acoustic measurements and as a source of reverberant sound to be
mixed with direct sound for recording or broadcasting.”

The term “echo chamber” has been used in recent years to describe the concept that in our modern society people have so many choices about where to get information, and they are often choosing to get their information from sources that express beliefs or perspectives that are similar or identical to their own. Per this use of the term “echo chamber,” people who are disgruntled right-wingers listen to Rush or Bill to get their news because those gentlemen will put a conservative spin pleasing to their audience. Alternately, such members of the public may read books by Glenn or Ann for the same reasons. Along the same lines, the concept is that liberals will listen to Steven or Jon, or read a book by Al, or watch a film by Michael to get a spin on world events, with which they agree.

Previous discussions I’ve heard on the “echo chamber” concept essentially blame the news consumer. The standard antidote is that we should consume news from sources that at least try to provide a more objective presentation of events. It is also advocated that we should make a conscious effort to listen to viewpoints with which we do not agree.

However, the recent “On the Media” program on echo chambers explored the possibility that there may be behind-the-scenes efforts via the internet to personalized content such that there may be an echo chamber effect that we do not even realize. Despite our best efforts, we may not be escaping our own echo chamber. It was a fascinating program. The link below will allow you to access the report.

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/06/17/06

Job 5:3

I have seen the foolish taking root [and outwardly prospering], but suddenly I saw that his dwelling was cursed [for his doom was certain].

“On the Media” and “Internet Facts”

Recently, “On the Media” examined a sensational, horrifying news story that traveled quickly around the world, but turned out to not be true. The “On the Media” piece explored the increasingly blurry line between television news reporting and social media. In internet-based “news,” fact-checking standards are often much looser or even non-existent. But the public is not always savvy about that. In that context, something that is completely false can become widely recognized as a “fact,” thus the coining of the term “internet fact.”

In listening to the “On the Media” report, it seemed to me that as news consumers we are often too believing. And it seems that is even more the case when the “news” source is one like social media. We need to be less trusting and we need to think critically about the media we consume—regardless of its source. But we need to be particularly skeptical when the source is an informal one where the authority in question may or may not have thoroughly investigated the claims it is making.

The transcript of the “On the Media” report is available below.
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/06/10/01

Proverbs 14:18

Foolish dreamers live in a world of illusion; wise realists plant their feet on the ground.

The Role of Journalism in Shaping Public Perception and Public Opinion

The news is important. It is how we learn what is going on in the world. That knowledge helps shape our political views. If we hear that the employment rate has hit a certain percentage, we may believe that certain policy choices should be taken by our elected representatives. If we find out that the government is spending a certain amount on a particular program, that information may lead us to the conclusion that either more or less should be spent on it. In turn that conclusion may influence our decision about whether taxes should be raised, lowered or kept constant.

Most of us are busy earning a living and taking care of our families. We are not in the halls of Congress when bills get passed, we’re not in the streets of Damascus as Syrians protest against their government, and we’re not in the death chamber when Texas executes another inmate. Journalism is the primary vehicle for bringing the news to us.

The World English Dictionary gives us four definitions for the term “journalism”:
1. the profession or practice of reporting about, photographing, or editing news stories for one of the mass media
2. newspapers and magazines collectively; the press
3. the material published in a newspaper, magazine, etc: this is badly written journalism
4. news reports presented factually without analysis

The fourth one I find particularly insightful. Our ideal of journalism is that a person presents facts to us objectively. We are then left to make our own decisions based on the facts presented. Per our idea, the journalist is an objective third party who tells us impassionately what is going on--without inflicting her own opinions on us.

When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, I remember learning in school about the concept of “yellow journalism.” We learned that yellow journalism was problematic in our country in the late 1800s. Press titans like Hearst and Pulitzer tried to sway public opinion by their manipulation of the way news was presented. The sense we had in reading our history books was that this issue of yellow journalism was a problem our country had dealt with in the past. When our parents went home and watched Roger Mudd or John Chancellor, they were getting the straight forward truth of what was going on in the world. At that time, it was a very different situation for our Cold War enemies. TASS was the media mouthpiece of the Soviet Union and did not exactly present an unbiased perspective of the day’s events. But growing up, I took it for granted that our press in the United States was independent and gave us that straight scoop.

Sometime in my late teens I began to hear people complain about bias in the media. In particular, there were complaints that the media had a liberal bent. I didn’t particularly see it, but then again I’ve always been left of center.

In my adulthood, the complaints of liberal bias became more and more pronounced. People turned away from traditional media outlets. Plenty of people I knew were enthusiastic about new media like A.M. Talk Radio and eventually Fox News Channel.

I have tuned in to such outlets on many occasions over the years because I have felt that it was important to know what sizeable segments of the population were listening to in order to help shape their opinions. I always try to be open-minded, but was frequently demoralized when listening to such programs. They typically provided little in the way of news. Few facts were provided. And when facts were provided, there was often little or no attempt to be objective. There seemed to be a lot of whining about certain facts.

I suppose the people who produced such programming felt that the traditional media was biased and that justified their own biases. The difference seemed to be the amount and transparency of bias. If the traditional media was subtly biased, these new conservative media were explicitly biased and often did not hold any pretense of being objective. But such media degrade to gripe fests and the indulgence of like minded people giving each other verbal high-fives. Listeners are exposed to opinion, but little to no new facts.

The left then responded with their own explicitly biased media. We had Air America, which didn’t last long. MSNBC has emerged. Oddly, Comedy Central has become a news media outlet for some with their Daily Show and Colbert Report programs. More recently Current TV has come into existence. It has received more attention as Keith Olbermann has signed on to host his show on that channel.

Such explicitly liberal news programs are more palatable to me than their conservative counterparts, but just barely so. I am repulsed by the jump-on-the-bandwagon, bash-your-opponent mentality. The other side is always wrong and vilified. Let’s get angry and yell about our opponents for hours on end. Alternately, let us point out how stupid, arrogant or corrupt the other side is, then we’ll ridicule them mercilessly.

Whether conservative or liberal, such programming is a waste of time in my opinion. We only have so many hours in the day. If we opt to tune in to such programming, we likely are not making time to read articles or listen to programs with a more objective approach and with a greater focus on providing information. This sorry state of American journalism is dumbing down our political debates. We make up our minds without a lot of factual information. We often just parrot whatever our favorite pundit has publicly opined. Truly, that is a tragic, worrisome state of affairs. It makes me pessimistic about the future of our republic.

Mark 4:24 (Amplified Bible)

And He said to them, Be careful what you are hearing. The measure [of thought and study] you give [to the truth you hear] will be the measure [of virtue and knowledge] that comes back to you--and more [besides] will be given to you who hear.

Talk Radio (and TV)

Recently, I blogged about the growth of angry conservative talk radio, and its spill-over into other media. I lamented the efforts of those on the left to mimic the vitriol instead of finding another, more productive response.

I recently came across an interesting discussion of this issue. In a syndicated column, Peter Funt shed light on the topic: "Why Conservatives Win the Talk-Show War." I thought it was a good follow up to my blog on the topic. The column is available at the following link:

http://westvalleyview.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=38894&SectionID=6&SubSectionID=141&S=1

Romans 1:13 (The Message)

Please don't misinterpret my failure to visit you, friends. You have no idea how many times I've made plans for Rome. I've been determined to get some personal enjoyment out of God's work among you, as I have in so many other non-Jewish towns and communities. But something has always come up and prevented it. Everyone I meet—it matters little whether they're mannered or rude, smart or simple—deepens my sense of interdependence and obligation. And that's why I can't wait to get to you in Rome, preaching this wonderful good news of God.


Ephesians 4:26 (The Message)

Go ahead and be angry. You do well to be angry—but don't use your anger as fuel for revenge. And don't stay angry. Don't go to bed angry. Don't give the Devil that kind of foothold in your life.

How Did We Get to this Pervasive Lack of Civility in Public Life?

In the United States, we have always been passionate about politics. And dirty politics entered the scene very early in the history of our republic. So it would be factually incorrect and potentially disingenuous to mourn the loss of perfect civility in our American public life. Nonetheless, many long-time residents of Washington and others have noted a noticeable decline in civility in the past few decades. In Congress, there is now less reaching across the aisle to work in a bipartisan manner. Obstructionism trumps as political opponents look for any edge to prevent the other side from accomplishing anything on their agenda. Anyone who disagrees is vilified mercilessly.

In my observation and in my opinion, this sad trend really began at the grass roots level with conservatives. First, talk radio exploded in the 1990s as an opportunity for disgruntled conservatives to come together to gripe, blame others, and verbally high five each other. The hosts and listeners have often expressed tremendous amounts of anger and frustration, as well as a fair amount of sanctimoniousness. On such talk radio shows conspiracy theories have often received a lot more attention than they have in traditional news outlets (e.g., Bill and Hillary Clinton murdered their friend, Vince Foster, but made it look like a suicide).

During this time, we saw the rise of Rush Limbaugh. Despite his multiple divorces and drug scandal, his “dittoheads” still speak adoringly of him. Mr. Limbaugh has been the predominant icon of talk radio. But others have also achieved a lot of success in that arena including Laura Ingraham, Laura Schlessinger (a.k.a. “Dr. Laura”), Dennis Miller, Neal Boortz, and Michael Medved, among many others.

In the late 1990s, we also saw the advent of the Fox News Channel on cable television. It provided another venue for conservative talk programs. But when compared to talk radio, there was generally less interaction from the audience and more hours of broadcasting. Instead of just an hour or two in the afternoon, the Fox News Channel broadcasts 24/7. Like talk radio, Fox News programs often feature a lot of griping and blaming of others. Many of the programs are marked by a high level of anger and outrage. In its success, Fox News Channel has created celebrity pundits including Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.

Some Fox News celebrities have also been successful in talk radio. Some came to Fox News Channel from talk radio. Others started in television and later branched out to the talk radio format.

Many talk radio personalities and Fox News celebrities have also written books. Some have also toured the country giving “shows” with pricey tickets where the audience is treated to in-person versions of their angry rants with some comedy thrown in for good measure.

During this same period when talk radio and Fox News Channel became staples for many, conservative journalists in on-line news media have also gained a following. They often lack the audience interaction that is the hallmark of talk radio. And they don’t necessarily have the angry tone common to both talk radio and Fox News Channel. But conservative on-line news media have gained notoriety in some quarters for providing attention to conspiracy theories that target liberal persons and institutions.

In the 1990s, we saw the emergence of the Drudge Report, an internet news website that provides links to a variety of other reporting sources. The site provides plenty of access to traditional news stories, but the Drudge Report has also gained prominence in publicizing scandals (or gossip of potential scandals) involving high-profile Democrats. For example, the Drudge Report had the dubious honor of being the first to break the story of Bill Clinton’s sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The site also played a significant role in gaining attention for the accusations of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and in circulating a photo of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama in Somali tribal attire. The Drudge Report has also run controversial stories of questionable merit including allegations that Bill Clinton’s aid Sidney Blumenthal beat his wife, gossip that Bill Clinton fathered a child out-of-wedlock, and rumors of an intern scandal when John Kerry was running for president.

In the late 1990s, WorldNetDaily was founded with the stated purpose of "exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power" with an “unabashedly conservative” viewpoint. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Farah#cite_ref-1990_WP_5-0. See Faye Fiore, “Raking Up Muck and Rolling in the Dough,” Los Angeles Times (Jan. 27, 2010).
See http://www.wnd.com/About%20WND.

. WorldNetDaily has attracted high profile conservatives including Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Katherine Harris (among many others) to contribute commentaries and columns to the website. However, WorldNetDaily has also become known for its attention to conspiracy theories. It is cited as a significant contributor to the rise of the “birther” movement; as of January 2011, the site continues to run stories about the theory that President Obama is not a “natural born” citizen. WorldNetDaily has also made incredible allegations that the Girl Scouts have a secret “sex agenda”, and have a relationship with Planned Parenthood. The articles of WorldNetDaily often have semi-hysterical headlines that express a fair degree of paranoia (e.g., “Is this the end of America?,” “How to prevent mass murder,” “Cop, unprovoked, shoots Christian on train”). The articles featured on WorldNetDaily also seem to focus disproportionately on the legal status of abortion, efforts to impose prayer in secular settings and attacks on Christianity.

I force myself to listen to a lot of viewpoints, with which I disagree. To that end, I’ve spent a lot of time in my life listening to programs hosted by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and others with similar view points. I’ve also read books by folks like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly. There are only so many hours in the day, so I admit I myself don’t read the Drudge Report very often, but my husband reads it regularly and often fills me in on the latest stories. I force myself to find out what these different media sources are publicizing not because I’m a glutton for punishment, but because I believe in being open-minded, in listening to people and trying to find common ground.

Ultimately, in all honesty, I think most of these celebrity talking heads are in it primarily for the money and may not really care about the issues on which they rant. For example, Glenn Beck has described himself as an “entertainer” and even a “rodeo clown.” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has derided Mr. Beck as a “cynic.”: “Only in America can you make that much money crying. Glenn Beck is not aligned with any party. He is aligned with cynicism and there has always been a market for cynics. But we became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers." See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/sen-graham-calls-beck-a-c_n_306434.html?view=print (Amen, Senator Graham!)

Not everyone shares this opinion. I personally know many lovely folks who listen to talk radio personalities and Fox News celebrities earnestly following their angry rants in agreement. If my neighbors are listening to these folks with enthusiasm, as a good citizen, I should know what is being said. I admit it does sometimes make me queasy. But at times I have found points, with which I agree.

Though I believe conservatives got us started in this trends towards vilification and away from civil discourse, liberals no longer have clean hands in the matter. Instead of having the vision for an alternate approach, most have reflexively jumped on the bandwagon to try to do the same thing as the Limbaughs, the Becks and the O’Reillys but with a left wing tilt.

Air America, a radio network specializing in liberal talk radio programming, went on the air in 2004. It never caught on and ceased operations in 2010. I was always curious about it, but never knew where to find it and frankly never had enough time to look. Presumably folks like me were the target audience of Air America. Maybe liberals and progressives are too busy to listen to talk radio in the day time. Younger generations do tend to be more liberal and/or progressive, and when we are young, we are in a particularly busy season of our lives. In our 20s and 30s, many of us are getting an education, getting established professionally and/or raising children. That makes for busy days and not a lot of time to listen to people rant on the radio.

One alum of Air America, Al Franken, did enjoy a great deal of success after his time on the radio network. A comedian, who wrote and appeared on Saturday Night Live in the 70s, 80s and 90s, he began hosting a program for Air America in 2004. Prior to joining the network, he wrote books combining liberal politics with humor. Who could resist classics like Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations? He famously took on Fox News Channel and others with Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Many of us discovered Mr. Franken’s books after he gained attention because of his work on Air America. He then translated that publicity into a (barely) successful campaign for Senate.

Though Air America was not successful, its cable news counterpart has done better. MSNBC was actually founded in 1996. In its early days, the news network featured celebrity conservatives like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. But towards the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the network was taking more of a progressive tilt and doing better in the ratings. It began to feature left-tilting talking heads like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews.

Again, I assume I’m probably in the target audience of such MSNBC shows, but I rarely watch the network. First of all, I am not a fan of television and our family does not even have cable. As a result, I only have access to MSNBC when I travel. Second, the network’s programming is just not appealing to me. Sure, it is generally less nauseating to listen to Rachel Maddow than Glenn Beck. But to me, MSNBC is only slightly better than Fox News Channel. I’m glad they call out hypocrisies and injustices. But the talking heads on MSNBC are smug, self-righteous know-it-alls. They have a snarky tone that really puts me off. In that respect, the talking heads on MSNBC have a lot in common with the talking heads on Fox News. They just embrace different political views.

I don’t want progressives to emulate the angry talk radio format or the in-your-face propaganda of Fox News Channel. I’d like progressives to take a different approach entirely. Instead of playing that same game, we ought to change the rules and find a better way. The snarkiness, the failure to listen, the default vilification—none of that is helpful to our society.

Matthew 17:5

While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, " This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"

Reality TV

I hope you have had a wonderful holiday season. Our family has been traveling to celebrate Christmas with our family in Texas. They don’t have Wi-Fi, and their computers either have dial up or other impediments to blogging. As a result, I’ve taken a bit of a break from posting to this blog.

We had a great visit with our relatives, but being away from home is always tough. For example, we don’t generally sleep well. I particularly have a hard time sleeping, and woke up in the wee hours several times with nothing to do but sit in the living room flipping channels. There is not a lot on at that hour no matter how many channels you have. I ended up catching up on some reality TV.

Yikes. Surely the end of civilization must be around the corner.

My husband and I both hate reality television, but for somewhat different reasons. My husband thinks everything is staged and there is no reality in “reality television.” Basically, he thinks it is all a fraud.

I don’t disagree with him. And I loathe the basic premise of such staging/fraud, which seems to be to show how screwed up others are so that we can laugh at them and/or wag our fingers at them. In essence, reality television encourages us to judge others and feel superior to them.

My other major source of disgust with reality television is that people are allowing their personal lives and their families’ personal lives to be exploited for monetary gain. That is tragic on so many levels. And it is a bargain that never seems to turn out well, but people keep doing it.

Anna Nicole Smith was one of the early reality TV stars, and apparently her teenage son did not handle the situation well. As I have read, Daniel was a shy young man and a good student with aspirations to go to college, but he began using drugs because of awkward attention at school about aspects of his mother’s reality television show. A couple years after the reality show ended, he tragically died of an overdose.

Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey signed on to do a reality show of their early married life. Marriage is tough enough under the best of circumstances, but I cannot imagine how a young couple can possibly sort out the difficulties of adjusting to being a married couple with cameras following them in their home and on dates. Ms. Simpson and Mr. Lachey ended up divorcing after just three years of marriage.

In my opinion, Jon & Kate Plus Eight is one of the worst reality television debacles to-date. Yet another couple’s marriage fell apart as the world watched it play out on their TVs. It was horrifying that a couple’s personal tragedy was entertainment for the world to watch and exploit in disgusting detail. Of course, the tragedy was exacerbated because the couple had eight young children. (At least Ms. Simpson and Mr. Lachey did not have kids.) As if all of that was not horrifying enough, Kate Gosselin signed on for another show without her ex-husband to let the world gawk some more at her children.

Because of my Christmas vacation insomnia, I saw a bit of two more recent reality TV shows. They were both so horrifying, I couldn’t watch entire episodes. The infomercials looked good by comparison.

The first of the two shows I caught was What Chili Wants. I was a young adult in the 1990s when the musical group TLC was popular, but I haven’t heard what they have been up to since the tragic death of one of their members, Lisa Lopes. What Chili Wants is a new reality show following TLC member, Chili Thomas, as she works with a relationship expert to find true love. In the first scene of the episode I caught, Chili described to the expert what she is looking for in a mate. She explained he had to be physically gorgeous and sexually appealing; there were specifications for both his abs and his genitals. Chili also demanded that her future mate be a believer in God and not consume pork. However, she was a bit more tolerant with regard to a potential mate’s family status; she would accept up to two baby mamas.

My mind reeled. I’ve never heard someone speak so shallowly and so selfishly about finding a life partner. Chili Thomas is a lovely, talented woman. She is about my age and has a son. I cannot imagine someone who is so accomplished, who is a parent and who has arrived in middle age being so self-absorbed and clueless about finding a mate. Consequently, I hope my husband is right and there was no reality to that reality show. Surely, the whole thing was invented to attract viewers. Even so, after about 15 minutes, I couldn’t take it anymore and had to change the channel.

The other reality show I caught during my insomnia was Sarah Palin’s Alaska.

I’m not even sure what to say about that show. I did give it a fair shot and watched almost a full episode. It was absolutely horrifying on so many levels. I’m just not sure where to even start.

And that may be a sign that I ought not even try. Perhaps it is best to not dwell on the many revolting aspects of the show. Instead, I’ll just sum it up by saying: oh, my goodness, I cannot believe we as a nation have sunk to this level.

Somewhat surprising, my apolitical husband is particularly disgusted that Sarah Palin has agreed to do a reality show. He thinks exposing one’s personal life to the cameras like that is about the most tasteless, undignified thing one can do. And he fears that Governor Palin has set a new (low) standard that other politicians will follow. His greatest fear is that we’ll have a president someday who has been a reality TV star.

My husband is not very interested in politics, so (unlike me) he is not even that offended by Governor Palin’s political rhetoric. His chief concern is just the cheapening of our democratic process and the stature of those elected to office. Serving in public office these days is not an opportunity for selfless public service, but simply another opportunity to exploit oneself for economic gain and public attention. In the past, politicians have done that primarily via book deals and honoraria for giving lectures. Apparently now there is a new avenue: reality television. President Snooki or President Palin? As my husband sees it, what is the difference? He has a point.

Mark 8:36

"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?"

Mark 10:45

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Letters from the Other Side (2006)

In all the highly-charged posturing and debate in the United States recently with respect to illegal immigration, it saddens me that the rhetoric often overlooks the human side of these issues. Like many issues in our public life these days, the issues often get oversimplified. Often the discussions I have heard seem to degenerate to pro-immigrant v. anti-immigrant stances. Oversimplification is a problem we have with respect to a number of issues; illegal immigration is one example.

I serendipitously came across a documentary on PBS recently, Letters from the Other Side. The link below provides some information about the film:

http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/news/20060828_HispanicHeritage.html

I thought the documentary did a good job at providing Americans with some insight into the experience of Mexican families with relatives who come to the United States. The documentary chronicled the experiences of several Mexican women in small towns in Mexico, who have had male family members leave to cross the border illegally and work in the United States. The women explain in some detail the economic challenges of simply providing food for their families. There are no jobs and their entrepreneurial efforts yield discouraging results. Some of the women in the film cite NAFTA as the prime culprit; they indicate that local Mexican markets are now flooded with cheap goods from the United States and the local Mexican producers cannot compete. They explain that in desperation over the dire economic situation, the husbands and sons of these families have left for the United States to help support their families.

The women describe the resulting heartache of the separation of their families. Because of the life-threatening dangers (and high economic costs) associated with crossing the border illegally, the men rarely come home once they have arrived in the United States. To do so would be to risk their lives. Consequently, fathers are seldom home for holidays or major family milestones. The documentary shows the impact on children who grow up yearning for--but never knowing--their fathers.

Moreover, men who go north sometimes start families there. One woman in the documentary looks longingly at a video of her American-born granddaughter whom she may never meet. The woman cannot travel to the U.S., and it is too risky for the little girl’s father to cross the border to bring her to visit her family in Mexico. The documentary shows the separation causes irreparable harm and leads to the disintegration of the family unit.

The documentary emphasizes the acute physical dangers of crossing the border illegally. One man, who has done it successfully, describes in the film the dangers of crossing the barren desert, and how he has seen men traveling with him die. He describes how those experiences have impacted him deeply. Two of the women in the documentary are the widows of men who died horrific deaths at the hands of human traffickers as they tried to make their way through Texas without interception by the authorities.

Through out the interviews, the documentary also provides insightful statistics. They note a stark increase in the number of people who have crossed the border illegally in the last decade, and the rise in remittances as a percentage of GDP. Remittances from relatives in the United States are now the second largest revenue source in Mexico, just after petroleum. Remittances now account for more revenue than derived from tourism. The statistics also describe a build up of manpower along the United States side of the border during this same time—particularly since 9/11. There are also grim statistics about the frequency that people crossing the border illegally die in the process.

I am the first to admit I don’t know the root causes of Mexico’s current troubles. Poverty has been a problem in Mexico for decades, but it seems like the economy is worse than it has been in the past. I don’t know if NAFTA is the cause or not.

Beyond the economic issues, security is also a serious problem. Warring drug lords have killed thousands of Mexicans in recent years and parts of Mexico are under military control. Many of us Americans, who have in the past loved visiting Mexico, no longer feel it is safe to go there. In the 1990s, my husband and I enjoyed visiting vibrant, cosmopolitan cities like Monterrey and Mexico City. We would love to take our children to see the sites in those cities, but it doesn’t seem safe enough any more.

I also know a lot of people in El Paso, Texas. In the past, folks in that border city enjoyed going to Juarez frequently to shop or to eat in one of the many excellent restaurants. Those activities have largely dried up. Americans aren’t crossing like they used to. The small businesses in Juarez that relied upon those visitors used to support a middle class on the Mexican side of the border metropolis, but many such businesses have failed in recent years. I have read that in El Paso there is now a growing business in renting middle class homes to Juarez professionals who find it is no longer safe to live in their home town. I am not sure why the drug wars have become so much more violent than they used to be. But it seems clear that Americans are at least in part to blame; it is our country’s demand for those drugs that fuels the illegal drug trade in Mexico.

It seems to me that the current bitter American debate about illegal immigration is misplaced to some degree. Surely we can all agree that it is no long-term solution to Mexico’s problems for a large number of the country’s citizenry to emigrate (legally or illegally). The separation of families and the dependence on remittances deeply harms Mexico and its people in social, cultural and economic ways. In my opinion, building an eyesore of a fence and enacting state laws to scapegoat illegal immigrants are not productive ways to deal with the situation. Those are mean-spirited actions that at best put a band-aid on a gaping wound. To find a long-term, effective solution, it seems to me we in the United States must look to Mexico as an equal partner to work together to find ways to build up the economy on both sides of the border.

1 Samuel 26:24(Amplified Bible)

And behold, as your life was precious today in my sight, so let my life be precious in the sight of the Lord, and let Him deliver me out of all tribulation.

A Village Called Versailles

I recently saw a wonderfully moving documentary on PBS’s program Independent Lens. A Village Called Versailles told the story of the Vietnamese American community in New Orleans before and after Katrina. Their story was largely overlooked by the mainstream media, but I had heard snippets of their experiences over the years. It is an amazing story that the film tells in greater detail.

The film begins by explaining how this group of Vietnamese refugees initially came to New Orleans, and settled in a cluster of apartments called Versailles in New Orleans East. The trauma of their escape from Vietnam after the fall of Saigon, and their journey to the United States was heart-wrenching. The film shows how the refugees worked hard for over 30 years to rebuild their lives and build a strong community in their new homeland. Then Katrina hit.

The Vietnamese American community of Versailles was devastated when the levees broke. The community was forced by rescue workers to go to the convention center, where they languished for days. Then they were eventually placed on buses for evacuation centers in Texas and Arkansas. The experience was particularly painful for the older Vietnamese Americans because it was so reminiscent of their initial arrival in the U.S. as refugees. Perhaps because of that prior experience, they were arguably even more determined than some New Orleanians to return. One elderly man was interviewed for the film, and explained that when he was forced from his home in Vietnam, he could have no hope of ever returning. But he was determined to not be permanently forced from his second home, New Orleans. That was not an option. The film focused largely on the community’s efforts to return to New Orleans and rebuild their community.

For purposes of this blog, I would like to focus on the role of the community’s church. Most in the community are Catholic, and Mary Queen of Vietnam Church has been the spiritual center of the community. The pastor, Father Vien, helped organize the parishioners as the waters began to rise after the levees broke. When the community was evacuated from New Orleans, he traveled great distances to visit his flock and minister to them in person. He also began rebuilding the church almost immediately. Footage shows him on the roof of the church with a hammer in hand in the blazing sun. Just weeks after Katrina, they were able to begin having mass again. Parishioners drove hours and hours on Sundays just to participate in worship at their home parish. It was a huge encouragement to the scattered community, and served as a major impetus for members of the community to return.

As the city began to rebuild, plans initially were made in a vacuum to not repopulate much of New Orleans East. Then Mayor Nagin used emergency powers to establish a major storm debris landfill on the edge of the Versailles community. The Vietnamese American community was outraged. They feared the toxicity of the landfill would be the death nail in their community, and they wouldn’t stand for it. Under the leadership of their priests, Fathers Vien and Luke, the community organized and protested effectively to close the landfill. The community had not been active in politics before, but through the leadership of their priests and the galvanization of their community, they found their political voice. It was particularly beautiful to see the elderly residents of Versailles participate in rallies. They had escaped a totalitarian regime that stifled freedom of expression. They were fighting for the continuity of their community.

I also found it very moving that the people of Versailles organized events to reach out beyond their own ethnic community. They held masses and candlelight vigils that were attended by Vietnamese Americans as well as African Americans. Currently, Mary Queen of Vietnam Church offers services in Vietnamese, English and Spanish.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/village-called-versailles/

John 13:35

By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Women in Developing Countries

I recently found a wonderful show on PBS called WorldFocus. It is a nightly news program with in-depth coverage each night on a different international theme. I tuned in on March 30th and there was a program focusing on the struggles and achievements of women in developing countries. They spotlighted a number of interesting stories.

The program reported on Liberia’s fight to eradicate a rape epidemic since the country’s bloody civil war. They also had an amazing piece on the post-genocide composition of the Rwandan parliament. As a strategy to heal the country, there had been efforts to get more women in government, but the efforts were much more successful than anyone had ever imagined. Rwanda’s parliament now has a larger percentage of women than in any other governmental body in the whole world.

The entire episode of WorldFocus can be watched if you use the link below.

http://worldfocus.org/blog/2010/03/30/special-edition-on-women-in-the-developing-world/10127/

Unfortunately, as I was searching for the link to prepare this blog post, I learned that this terrific show was recently canceled. It was apparently on the air for just 18 months. This is really demoralizing. I watched it several times in what was apparently its last month on the air. It was much more informative than other American news programs. I assume it was pretty expensive to send journalists out to research stories around the globe, and not just to pay talking heads to gab in a television studio.

Mark 4:24

Consider carefully what you hear,” he continued. “With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more.”

Television and Family Values

The prior blog post discussed the disdain many Christian families have for television. Obviously, many families of other faiths and families of no religious faith have similar concerns. It is not something discussed much in the media, but so much that is on television these days is toxic for children (and not that great for adults). If you can navigate through the shows that contain pervasive sexualized themes and/or display graphic violence, you are still generally stuck with the commercials which can be even worse. This point was driven home for me again recently when our family tried to watch the Super Bowl and the Winter Olympics.

When our family tuned in to watch the Super Bowl this year, I had to keep asking our kids to close their eyes for a moment to avoid commercials for brutal crime shows that showed images of corpses, commercials with objectified sexualized portrayals of women, and commercials featuring adults who were essentially worshipping beer. These were not images and concepts I wanted them to absorb. The barrage was so great and the commercial interruptions so frequent, I couldn’t have them close their eyes for all of the offensive commercials. It troubled me that to simply enjoy a football game, we had to endure so many disgusting images and messages. Moreover, it seems that many people are just so accustomed to these images and messages, they think nothing of it. What happened to our society?!

The Winter Olympics wasn’t much better. I was horrified when we tuned in for the Opening Ceremonies and NBC kept showing the heartbreaking, graphic footage of the fatal crash of the Georgian luger, Nodar Kumaritashvili. I suppose I was somewhat grateful that the anchors at least warned viewers of the deeply disturbing nature of the footage, which allowed me time to have our kids cover their eyes (and for me to close my own!). But if the footage itself was so graphic that a warning like that was necessary, why did they show it at all—let alone numerous times? Where was the respect for the young man who died, and the respect for his grieving loved ones? More fundamentally, where was the respect for basic human dignity? The death of a human being is a solemn moment. Why did anyone at NBC think it was important or necessary to show that footage even once? Perhaps I’m cynical, but I assume it was a warped ploy at ratings based on the base human appetite for blood and guts. In commercial television, is it necessary to try to appeal to such base appetites? ...I’m somewhat frightened of the potential response to that question.

It seems like not many people in our country even think about the impact of such television content on children. The implicit attitude in most circles is that guarding children from negative influences is the parents’ job—period. But how exactly can parents do that job when the inappropriate images and messages are so ubiquitous? If you have young children, are you just not supposed to let them near Super Bowl and Olympic coverage? Those sporting events in and of themselves are not offensive.

It is frustrating to me and many other parents that television has degraded so much that we don’t feel it safe or appropriate to let our children watch even occasionally. And I worry about the effect of sexualized and/or violent content that is routinely viewed by children in families where the television is on more frequently and monitored less closely. But frankly, I also worry about the effect of such content on adults. Particularly when seen so frequently, it must have a significant impact on one’s thinking and how one views others. What does it say about our society that sexualized and violent content is so pervasive? It is a concern that rarely seems to be raised as a problem outside religious circles. As a result, critics are often dismissed (unfairly)as up-tight prudes to deflect and dismiss their concerns.

Matthew 18:5 (Contemporary English Version)

And when you welcome one of these children because of me, you welcome me.

Veggie Tales

The prior post made several references to Veggie Tales. For the uninitiated, some explanation might be helpful.

Veggie Tales is a series of animated Christian-themed cartoons where all the main characters are vegetables. Veggie Tales is one of the series created by Big Idea, a company whose mission is to “enhance the spiritual and moral fabric of society through creative media.” The Veggie Tales series began in the 1990s with videos sold primarily in Christian book stores. As they took off in popularity, they became available in larger chains like Wal-Mart and Target. The Veggie Tales shows are now shown on the Qubo channel, and NBC includes them in their Saturday morning cartoon line-up.

The main characters include Bob the Tomato, Larry the Cucumber, Archibald Asparagus and Junior Asparagus. (Madame Blueberry is also a reoccurring character, but no one seems to mind that she—and Bob—are technically fruits, not vegetables.) The plots of each of the shows involve a moral issue. Biblical characters and bible verses are incorporated in fun ways. For example, the Old Testament story of Joseph was updated into a Western called The Ballad of Little Joe. The title character ends up slinging sarsaparilla for a saloon owner after his jealous brothers throw him off their ranch and sell him into slavery. In Josh and the Big Wall, the story of Joshua and the fall of Jericho is retold with snooty French peas who throw grape slushees at the Israelites from their perch on top of the walls of the town.

The stories incorporate catchy songs with modern touches. One of our family’s favorites is “Belly Button” by the Boyz in the Sink—who seem to have a striking resemblance to N’Sync. The song melodramatically conveys a squash’s wrenching admission to his girlfriend that he doesn’t have a belly button.

The characters in Veggie Tales are loveable but imperfect. Archibald is elitist, Bob is often impatient, and Larry is frankly a bit dim. But they are each trying their best to do right and often try to improve their behavior when shown the error of their ways.

Our kids have seen most of the videos, and adore them. Several years ago, I took our older child to a live Veggie Tales concert/show when the tour came to our town. The concert was held in a local mega-church, and the concert began with a prayer by the host congregation’s children’s minister. It was impressive to sneak a peek to see every little head bowed with eyes closed in prayerful concentration. Then the show opened with a few of the main characters coming on stage to sing a familiar song from the videos. The first character on stage was Bob the Tomato. Hundreds if not thousands of little voices shrieked “Bob!!!!” in a manner that was reminiscent of the Beatles appearance on Ed Sullivan.

I’ve mentioned in previous blogs our family’s general dislike of television. It is a disdain that many Christian families share. I think that is the primary reason for the phenomenal success of the Veggie Tales. In a video format, parents don’t have to worry about interruptions by inappropriate commercials. And the shows themselves are fun and have positive themes. The motto of Big Idea is “Sunday morning values with Saturday morning fun.” That is a winning combo for many families.

In relatively conservative circles, a lot of folks talk about the “Culture Wars,” but my sense is that many on the left don’t understand or appreciate what that phrase means or how it resonates with so many. Indeed, I have to admit that before I became a parent, I had a vague sense that those who spoke of “Culture Wars” were paranoid nuts. Until I became responsible for sheltering little ones from inappropriate content, I never had a sense there was really a problem with mainstream entertainment. But thinking about popular culture through the eyes of children opened my mind to the potential impact of such influences on little ones who don’t have the type of filters that older folks do. Based on my present appreciation of the problem, I think that the Veggie Tales phenomenon is emblematic of the Culture Wars, but is beneath the radar of many on the secular left.

www.veggietales.com

Matthew 19:13-15 (Contemporary English Version)

Some people brought their children to Jesus, so that he could place his hands on them and pray for them. His disciples told the people to stop bothering him. But Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and don't try to stop them! People who are like these children belong to God's kingdom." After Jesus had placed his hands on the children, he left.

John Oliver: Topical Comedy, With A Crisp Accent

I listen to NPR a lot, but very infrequently during weekdays. A while back, I did happen to catch “Fresh Air” when Terry Gross interviewed John Oliver, a correspondent for the Daily Show. I rarely watch the television program, but when I do, it makes me laugh. John Oliver is not someone I remember from the show, but his interview with Terry Gross was interesting.

Oliver is British and in his role on the Daily Show he has occasion to do faux press coverage of American political events. In the “Fresh Air” interview, he talked about attending the recent Tea Party rallies and how he was struck by the intensity of the conviction of the attendees. He laughingly rejected the attendees’ characterization of the Obama administration as “tyrannical.” He comically warned that that really diminished what his country had done to its colonies and what other truly tyrannical governments had inflicted on their people. Oliver also shared that in speaking to Tea Party attendees, it was apparent that many were ardently convinced that President Obama was a Muslim. Oliver expressed concern not only that so many embraced this falsehood, but that those who embraced it were extremely fearful because they believed the president’s Muslim faith was evidence that he would allow our country to be overrun and taken over by nefarious forces. Some reading this post might think that Oliver was exaggerating what was said at the Tea Parties or simply making things up. I’ve never attended a Tea Party, but I have heard a number of other people in other contexts make similar statements in complete earnestness. Such statements leave me incredulous. I’m not sure how to even respond.

Terry Gross also asked Oliver about his reaction to American politics as a Englishman who has only come to this country in the last few years. He said he was most struck by the influence of religion; that was something very different from Europe. He noted that Tony Blair was a very devout Catholic, but was careful to not talk about his faith or be photographed going to church. Oliver indicated that in Britain the public would react with immediate suspicion if he had flaunted his religion. I thought that was a fascinating statement. President George W. Bush spoke in religious terms frequently during his administration. Such references always made me suspicious. It always seemed calculated, a ploy. Perhaps this is just the reaction of someone who was raised in D.C., but I always wondered why more of my fellow citizens weren’t similarly suspicious.

Terry Gross’s interview with Terry Gross is available below.

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13

Matthew 5:33-37 (The Message)

"And don't say anything you don't mean. This counsel is embedded deep in our traditions. You only make things worse when you lay down a smoke screen of pious talk, saying, 'I'll pray for you,' and never doing it, or saying, 'God be with you,' and not meaning it. You don't make your words true by embellishing them with religious lace. In making your speech sound more religious, it becomes less true. Just say 'yes' and 'no.' When you manipulate words to get your own way, you go wrong."

The Collapse of Civilization

The last night I was in New Orleans, I watched a program on the History Channel about what would happen in a catastrophic pandemic. The program alternated between documentary style interviews of experts from various backgrounds (e.g., sociologists, epidemiologists, military survival trainers, etc.), and a dramatization of a couple and their teenage son living in Los Angeles when a fictionalized deadly pandemic hits. The program described and dramatized what each step of a catastrophic pandemic would be like from the initial days and weeks, until months and years later. The program was horrifying and upsetting. Perhaps like passing a wreck on the highway, I couldn’t help but watch.

The program’s experts described the chaos and lawlessness that would take hold, and the desperate plight for survival of those who didn’t succumb to the pandemic itself. Essentially government as we now know it would completely collapse. Violent people would break into homes and residents would be at their mercy. People might want to escape urban centers where the violence would be worse, but the major transportation arteries would be clogged and controlled by people with weapons looking for easy prey. Rural communities would block access and threaten violence to outsiders in efforts to preserve their own scant resources, and to protect the local residents from the sickness and violence that outsiders might bring. Roving armed gangs would be looking for opportunities to secure basic necessities, and those who controlled such basic necessities would use violence to enforce a new social order. Orphaned and abandoned children would savagely protect what few resources they had, and kill without remorse if threatened. There would also be a rise in religious fundamentalism, and scapegoating of “sinners” who are viewed to have brought upon mankind the catastrophic plague.

The program lasted a couple of hours, and when it was over, I felt thoroughly depressed. Over the next few days, however, I began to think about the irony of the program. It seemed to appeal primarily to the fears of fairly affluent, comfortable folks who have enough disposable income to subscribe to cable television. Particularly after American tragedies like 9/11 and Katrina, and international ones like the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and the recent Haitian earthquake, the program played on the concerns that many of us have that our social order might one day collapse and we’ll be left vulnerable, unable to satisfy our basic needs and to keep our families safe. But to me, the irony is that without a deadly pandemic the doomsday scenario described and portrayed in the program is already occurring in various communities. I think many of us realize that the program’s depiction of chaos and violence is not that different from what life is currently like in places like Darfur, Somalia and Sierra Leone. But even across our own country, there are countless communities in inner cities and in neglected rural areas where lawlessness and violence already reign. Doomsday programs like the one I watched play on our fears that eventually something cataclysmic will happen and that same chaos will come to our more privileged communities. We overlook that it is already happening to our neighbors.

Psalm 82:3-4

Vindicate the weak and fatherless;Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy;Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.