ABC accepts an ad from James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and a spokesperson says with (I hope she could keep a straight face) “The ABC Television Network does not accept ads from organizations which present religious doctrine.” But who does ABC apply this to? The United Church of Christ, not Focus on the Family. While refusing an UCC ad on inclusiveness, ABC sells time to Focus on the Family which is an organization expressly critical of the word inclusion. Give me a break!
By his own statements everything Dobson does he does because of his doctrinal mission to shape the world according to his religious beliefs. From telling parents how to parent, to telling the Supreme Court how to judge cases, his self-proclaimed mission is to create a social order based on his religious values.
ABC knows this. This is the man who equated the black-robed judges of our judicial system with white-robed Ku Klux Klan members. This is the man who called Sponge-Bob immoral, for crying out loud. Nothing escapes his moral judgement and his morals are rooted in his religious beliefs.
I don’t care that they sell time to Focus on the Family. But I do care that they refuse the UCC and characterize this mainstream voice as espousing religious doctrine while ignoring the overtly and aggressive, on-the-record messages of Focus on the Family that are clearly doctrinaire.
ABC, who are you kidding?
A spate of articles the past several weeks assess the life-cycle of the iPod. It’s an endless circle. Innovation, acceptance, demand for something new. It’s the story of consumer culture. It’s only cool as long as it’s unique. When everyone has it, it’s time to move on. As quickly as the new “in” thing is accepted, it’s out. Something new must take its place, and so it goes. Desire is never satiated. It’s either an innovator’s dream–or nightmare. How to keep up with the never-ending demand for the next new thing.
Nothing is beyond the reach of capitalism, of course. As soon as a new idea is birthed the next thought that comes to mind is how to use it to make money. Or, even more crass, how to get rich off of it. So it’s not news that blogs are being absorbed into the great capitalist money-making scheme.
An article in this morning’s New York Times discusses Gawker Media which is a collection of blogs marketed as a set mainly for the purpose of selling advertising. Whether you regard it for good or ill, It’s a testament to the insatiable appetite of the capitalist model.
It’s mandatory, if organizations want to stay in touch with people and
In an open letter to local television news people Terry Heaton says they need to participate in the transition from broadcast to the web, or risk the death of their industry. The transition is underway and those who don’t recognize it and continue to operate on old assumptions and attitudes are contributing to the demise of local television news.
This also applies to other areas but what concerns me is the apparent lack of awareness of the importance of digital media in shaping the culture–attitudes, perceptions and practices–especially among mainstream folks. The problem Heaton writes about is news people seeing beyond the broadcast technology to digital technology.
Here’s the fundamental shift that makes that difficult–broadcast is an elitist, one-to-many lecture. It is non-participatory and non-interactive. There is distance between the viewer and the individual receiving the information. It’s controlled by one side of the equation.
The web is interactive. It gives us many options, immediately. It is, even at this late stage, an uncontrolled medium. And here’s one of the big issues. Control.
The web is participatory, interactive, multimedia and empowering to individuals, the opposite of the old model of broadcast journalism. The web shifts control to the users of information, removing it from the messenger.
Those who can’t adapt to this, Heaton says, are looking at the decline of their industry because this change isn’t going to happen, it’s here now.
As I think about this, I am concerned with the lack of media savvy in the mainline tradition. A few, of course, are aware of the how to work with these media to advance messages, but when compared to the numerical strength and financial commitment of the evangelical right–such as Pat Robertson–it’s paltry at best.
The exciting thing is these media support participation, conversation and interaction. These are strengths the mainline can capitalize upon for good.
So the issue that I’m grappling with is how to move the mainline into the public conversation, where it needs to be, while it lacks the skill and resources to make the move. This is a different challenge than that facing local television broadcasters. It’s even more basic, but it has the same result. If either of these two don’t get with the digital media already in place, and that coming in the future, they will be left out.
recently. They are offering people interpretation for a worldview in uncertain
We don?t just
tell them what
the news is…We
tell them what
it means. And
to people, especially
in moments of
National Religious Broadcasters
Evangelical news operations offer more than the news, according to an article in Columbia Journalism Review. They offer an alternate view of the universe.
This is not a new idea. Many creators of content for evangelical audiences are intentional in presenting a point of view consistent with evangelical faith. They view their work as an alternative to the mainstream culture. And the market for it has been growing.
The marketing strategy is clear. News is a way to broaden the audience. It reaches out to a wider audience than currently watches religious television, or listens to religious radio. Audiences have leveled off in the past several months, but the public attention given to the Schiavo case, Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, and the judicial filibuster provide a forum for commentary and outreach.
Consider this: there are 2000 religious radio stations, 3 direct broadcast satellite systems and 1700 members of the National Religious Broadcasters. They have demonstrated that they are a force to be reckoned with.
In her comprehensive article, Stations of the Cross, Mariah Blake provides helpful detail that not only explains the structure of evangelical religious broadcasting, she also surveys its influence on the mainstream culture. She presents one of the most accurate and dispassionate assessments of the use of media by the religious right that’s been written recently.
Thanks to Matt Carlisle for sharing the news aggregation site ten by ten. It’s more than the traditional text-based site, however, so try it and see if it doesn’t present the top stories of the hour in a more creative and engaging format.
“He’s got a face made for radio.” That used to be a commonly heard statement in the media business. Of course, it was a satirical way of saying someone did not have the physical attributes to be accepted by television viewers.
The study by University of Alberta researchers that finds parents are less attentive to children considered unattractive takes that putdown to even more tragic levels.
It’s the story of the ugly duckling without the swan at the end. It makes me wonder about how we are conditioned by media perceptions of beauty. It’s also said today that “the camera loves” this person. We mean the person’s physical attributes are suited for display in an electronic box.
There has been a ton of writing about young girls and body image. The diagnosis of bulimia has been associated with self-image and perceptions of beauty. This is a cultural distortion that is taking a toll on impressionable young lives.
Maureen Dowd is correct when she writes that the thought of being cared for less by those who are supposed to give us unconditional love is a sad commentary if it’s true. Let’s hope the study is an abberation.
When I first told Aunt Vesta I was going to enter the ministry her first words were, “Well, you’re never going to make any money, that way.”
My Aunt was imminently practical and brutally frank. She kept groping for something positive to say about my announcement. It was obvious my decision didn’t excite her. Her next rejoinder was, “Well, at least I won’t have to worry about you getting some girl pregnant.” That was the extent of her positive acceptance of my career direction.
Her view of preachers, as she called them, was that they were poor and sexless.
Apparently she was years ahead of the times. A Gallup Poll that says fewer than one-half of 1 percent of Americans would advise a young person to enter the ministry as a career. It doesn’t say why, so I can’t tell if they agree with Aunt Vesta, or not.
I suspect that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have limited following today. They are interesting to the media for their peculiarities, more than than their influence. They make for readable copy and engaging television because they’re so peculiar. The website ethicsdaily.com reports the latest example. Rev. Robertson says the U.S. Supreme Court is a greater threat to the U.S. than terrorists. It’s hard to imagine that any but a handful take him seriously anymore.
But this points to a need for articulate people from the middle to speak to these issues in order to influence the conversation toward identifying real issues that should be addressed–poverty, peace, health care, care for the environment–and propose constructive solutions to the problems the world faces.
At the same time, we must work for judges that respect the Constitution and uphold the principles upon which the nation was founded, and in that debate the voice of moderation must be heard as well.