Should journalists be religious?
At a recent journalism conference I attended, a former Wall Street Journal and NYT reporter estimated that more than 70% of journalists who write for mainstream papers are secular in some form or another. He then showed a piece of data that less than 2% of all reporting from mainstream papers has to do with religion. He claimed there was an inequity there, and thus, what should religious journalists do about it?
He compared the responsibility of a Christian to that of a Journalist:
-Do the right thing.
-Speak for those who don’t have a voice.
-Speak the truth.
-Lead by example.
-Report unto others as you would have report unto you.
So, in my estimation, the speaker’s argument took the following form:
1. If mainstream media underrepresents religious ideas, then religious journalists should respond not by reporting more religious ideas, but conducting their investigations of non-religious ideas in a religious manner.
2. Mainstream media underrepresents religious ideas.
3. Therefore, religious journalists should respond not by reporting more religious ideas, but conducting their investigations of non-religious ideas in a religious manner.
My main objection lies in his first premise. Religion represents less than 2% of what mainstream media gets reported on, but a lot of social psychologists, such as Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Haidt, and Steven Pinker believe the crises of our generation is a lack of meaning. Observe the following trends: rates of suicide, depression, opiate use, anxiety— these are all up to record levels. Nobody seems to understand why that as all markers of physical health and medicine seem to be progressing: heart disease, cancer research, autoimmune diseases, etc.-- mental health seems to be plummeting in the opposite direction.
Many mainstream papers report on these sorts of problems, however, the vast majority of them don’t mention this idea that it may be from a lack of religion, predominantly from our secularization of society. So I would propose as a change to the argument that mainstream media report more on religion and bring it more into the conversation. This doesn’t mean you have to side with the beliefs or support them, just bring them into the conversation, since a lot of academics believe religion is at the core of our mental health crisis. We can’t fix something until we know about it.
He compared the responsibility of a Christian to that of a Journalist:
-Do the right thing.
-Speak for those who don’t have a voice.
-Speak the truth.
-Lead by example.
-Report unto others as you would have report unto you.
So, in my estimation, the speaker’s argument took the following form:
1. If mainstream media underrepresents religious ideas, then religious journalists should respond not by reporting more religious ideas, but conducting their investigations of non-religious ideas in a religious manner.
2. Mainstream media underrepresents religious ideas.
3. Therefore, religious journalists should respond not by reporting more religious ideas, but conducting their investigations of non-religious ideas in a religious manner.
My main objection lies in his first premise. Religion represents less than 2% of what mainstream media gets reported on, but a lot of social psychologists, such as Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Haidt, and Steven Pinker believe the crises of our generation is a lack of meaning. Observe the following trends: rates of suicide, depression, opiate use, anxiety— these are all up to record levels. Nobody seems to understand why that as all markers of physical health and medicine seem to be progressing: heart disease, cancer research, autoimmune diseases, etc.-- mental health seems to be plummeting in the opposite direction.
Many mainstream papers report on these sorts of problems, however, the vast majority of them don’t mention this idea that it may be from a lack of religion, predominantly from our secularization of society. So I would propose as a change to the argument that mainstream media report more on religion and bring it more into the conversation. This doesn’t mean you have to side with the beliefs or support them, just bring them into the conversation, since a lot of academics believe religion is at the core of our mental health crisis. We can’t fix something until we know about it.
Comments (10)
How accurately did we report suicides (due for one to a heavier stigma about it) and diagnose depression 100 years ago? And of course, opiates weren't so easy to get 100 years ago.
The idea that there's some huge mental health crisis, relative to past eras, might be wonky.
Mainstream media is trying to report what is interesting and important for the mainstream to know. Not all people are religious, and obviously there are countless kinds of religion and kinds of Christianity.
For farmers, teachers, hunters, vegans, and even flute enthusiasts there are specialized, alternative news sources, because these are specialized and alternative views. Same for religious folk.
The climb in suicide rates could be because we tended to report suicides as something else, especially because of the social and religious stigma of them.
I don’t see it. The religion of the journalist should not weigh on his duty to the ethics of his craft, which is well documented.
The relationship between religion and suicide isn't always good news:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4990512/
http://dc.medill.northwestern.edu/blog/2017/07/05/new-study-suggests-religion-affects-suicide-rates-differently-around-the-world/#sthash.7dRwYiGz.dpbs
Did Benjamin Button suffer from growing pains?
Suppose that in the 1700s or 1800s, say, suicides tended to be reported as some other cause of death (to the extent that any specific cause was noted). What do you think we could find as evidence of that?