-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the media coverage of the Church really fair and unbiased?
- Thread starter -Peacemaker-
- Start date
LemonGrenade
Member
The vast majority of 'news' in general is negative; there is no special treatment of the Church in this regard. Media attitudes are positive only when focused on doctrines in which they have a vested interest; the Church's 'relevancy' depends on how well its doctrines compliment those of corporate enterprise.
As to the last part, I think you are overlooking the fact, as Kilgore pointed out, that much of what the Church itself stands for can be perceived as anti-Christian.
Matt 7:19-20
19 Every tree that doesnt produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So youll recognize them by their fruit.
Would you say that media coverage of church related scandals relates to being cut down and thrown into the fire? Notice how the media is not cutting down and throwing into the fire the good and charitable things the churches do?
"Fair & balanced" is not the same as "unbiased".
The latter is impossible, but the former is a worthy goal.
Example:
If NPR covers an economic issue with discussion panelists from both free
market & statist advocates, I'd call that an attempt at fairness & balance.
We often don't notice bias when it's shared, eg, news coverage of the Boston bombing was biased in favor
of victims & against terrorists. It seems absurdly obvious to say this, but it points out the ubiquity of bias.
More controversial examples would be Fox's pro-Republican stance, & MSNBC's being pro-Democrat.
dust1n
Zindīq
Generally, when we speak of bias in media, we are referring to a large-scale trend. And sure there is plenty of bias in the world, and in the news world. But that doesn't mean nor make the case that all news is inherently biased. Now, if we are talking about the television stations, I wouldn't expect much to be unbiased in that regards.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Pretty much that.
How can a news source not have some bias regarding their country, shared politics, shared religion, etc?
dust1n
Zindīq
Before, and just to be sure, I want to ask if this is an acceptable understanding of what bias is?
Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives in reference to objects, people, or groups. Anything biased generally is one-sided and therefore lacks a neutral point of view. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.
Bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1 prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair:
Definition of bias in Oxford Dictionaries (US English) (US)
LemonGrenade
Member
It's not the existence of bias being questioned but its qualities; namely the view toward which the weight of favour leans on a given issue.
It isn't just the church, though. Linsey Lohan just can't seem to catch a break, but that's because in spite of all other things she might be doing with her life, her alcohol addiction, rehab stints, and arrest record are considered "newsworthy." People talk about weird things. How often she's been arrested is considered odd. The Church claiming to be a beacon of morality caught with its pants down is considered "odd", and people want to know more or talk more about it.
I don't think so. Christianity is still posted up on social media platforms by believers. I see prayer requests, Bible verses, and interpretations by many Christians on FB, Twitter, and on blog sites. I think Christianity is being seen and heard, like most things, online.
My last check on CharityWatch.org shows that Christian-based charities are not as ubiquitous nor are as highly rated as secular programs (rated on effectiveness of the help and the charity's financial and human resource ethics). When it comes to homelessness, only Habitat for Humanity ranks highly. But it's outdone quite a bit by other programs that have specific targets for whom to help....homeless veterans, homeless children, etc.
When it comes for to the sick, St. Jude's ranks, but not nearly as highly as the many various organizations that target specifically whom they are helping (again)....breast cancer research and development, hospice care, American Cancer Association, etc.
Where most Christian organizations meet eye to eye with secular organizations, it is in international relief and development.
I wouldn't say Christian charities are at the forefront, however. At least not nowadays. It doesn't minimize the help and relief they offer, but by no means have they cornered the Charity Market.
There are a lot of leaps in logic here. Let's substitute "Church" for other groups just for fun to make a point: Why does the media shy away from how the arts have improved people's lives? Why do they shy away from stories of how Paganism has improved people's lives? Why does the media shy away from how atheism has improved people's lives?
Hopefully the point won't be lost there.
"Rationalism" from my understanding has no worship involved in it. It is a perspective, indeed, and one that seeks answers that may be seen as superstitions. It's not like superstition is a bad thing, but that it is a perspective.
Sexual "freedom"? What do you mean by that. We've had these debates before, but I don't want to assume what you're implying, and especially with the quotation marks around the word "freedom."
Finally, it is unfortunate that you see secularism as being against everything that Jesus stood for. At the very least, are not both committed to truth? I find many parallels between the two, but truth is a good start as a comparison.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Victimizing children, attempting to cover it up, and opposing the rights, equality and freedom of women and homosexuals? Yeah, that is pretty much the only relevancy the church holds.
I don't doubt that the church has done some good, but it's vastly overshadowed by a long, sordid history of injustice and misdeeds.
Nope. Secular simply means religious neutrality. To not endorse or promote a particular faith doesn't mean to oppose that faith.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Merely by attempting to be rational and truthful will give anything the appearance of an "anti-christian slant".
The bold portion is too restrictive. I'd call bias where there is a mere tendency towards one side as opposed to others.
Otherwise, it would give a pass to more subtle & crafty forms of prevarication & propaganda.
Bias is a difficult thing to measure because we don't notice it when we share a bias. And many actually believe
there is no bias if their opinions are popular & shared. Thus, bias often wears a cloak of "We have the truth here!".
An interesting take on this issue.....
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-democrats-view-the-soviet-socialist-trenches
Last edited:
Does it?
I typed "church" into Google News. Here are the headlines that came up, in order. The ones in blue deal with sex scandals or LGBT issues:
Two out of nine... and both of the stories have to do with Jason Collins coming out.
Is 22% "the vast majority"?
dust1n
Zindīq
I'm a little confused how "Anything biased generally is one-sided and therefore lacks a neutral point of view" is too restrictive but "a mere tendency towards one side as opposed to others" isn't. I'm not even sure what the difference between those two sentiments are. What is the contention?
I know what a popularity bias is, as well as many others, but I still don't see how all articles are biased in any sense. Should I provide some non-biased articles or something?
I contend that it's wise to consider bias in all articles.
That way we get snookered less often.
I might not be smart or aware enuf to always detect the bias.
(I'm a lowly human, after all.....more lowlier than most.)
LemonGrenade
Member
There is a contextual element to consider; bias might manifest itself directly through the content of the article, indeed, but it might also do so through the relative levels of exposure given to a number of issues.
dust1n
Zindīq
I'd agree it would be wise to consider bias in all articles, not assume that all articles are biased. That's no more consideration than the alternative.
Neither am I. But that doesn't mean bias is always present.