Media Matters: conservative religious leaders cited 3.8 times as often as progressives

[lwcon]

Media Matters studied how much MSM coverage is devoted to conservative vs. liberal religious leaders. The results are striking:

• Combining newspapers and television, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed in news stories 2.8 times as often as were progressive religious leaders.
• On television news -- the three major television networks, the three major cable news channels, and PBS -- conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed almost 3.8 times as often as progressive leaders.
• In major newspapers, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed 2.7 times as often as progressive leaders.

While this typist is no fan of organized religion, I'm very glad to see such studies conducted.

The main reason why religiosity has become so disturbing in America of late is that the Falwells, Robertsons, Dobsons, and Haggards have had a political bully pulpit that makes them the seemingly official voice of all Americans who consider themselves Christians. It's been their way or the highway to Hell, if you get your news and punditry from mainstream sources.

Sure, I roll my eyes a bit when I see Al Gore in his wonderful pro-reason book (full report coming soon) avow, "I consider Jesus to be my Savior..." (p.59). And I wince whenever I see anyone, say, indoctrinate their children into religion or use it to justify an IED attack.

But there is a world of difference between progressives like Gore and the authoritarian, fundamentalist Christianists of the Grand Old Party.

In today's media narratives, the Al Gores, John Kerrys, John Edwardses, and Jimmy Carters aren't considered true Christians, true patriots, true Americans, or true anything else. Those who self-identify as religious are told in numerous ways that those statesmen are strictly trayf.

Why? Because today's mass-market brand of religion is not the "love-thy-neighbor" variety. It's simply a platform for the haters and featherbedders to ride Jesus' coattails into positions of power, so they can feed the meek to the mighty, leaving us little recourse but to mix metaphors in disbelief (and in disbelief).

People who are smart enough to know the difference between religion and reality are smart enough to know the difference between people whose faith is a relatively benign foible and those for whom it's a free pass to unbridled and unholy power.

The last two presidential elections don't speak well for our God-fearing fellow-citizens' ability to make this distinction. The media, of course, have played a huge role, by reflexively waving the nastier end of the religious stick on our TV screens and front pages, ushering in a sanctimonious cronyocracy that considers "reality-based" to be a pejorative.

It is a certainty that our next president will be a "person of faith." Will the American public choose the candidate who wears that (for some) reassuring label most ostentatiously... or the one who most deserves our faith?

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"