Do Journalists Associate Religion With Issues That They Shouldn't?

An interesting question was posed in class as I helped in a presentation about faith and journalism. Prof. Whisenant said that he thought conflicts that were labeled as religious in the text--Mind of a Journalist by Jim Willis--were actually plain, old secular problems. Sure, they occurred with a religious background this time, but the religion was not the primary element in the story. (This is how I understood what the professor said, at least.)

I'm not sure he's right but I'm willing to entertain the possibility and I'm going to use a current event as a case-study to explore the idea.

Lets examine the controversy over building a mosque (that is just one portion of the proposed community center that also includes a performance hall and swimming pool) at ground zero. I'll use a CNN article. Those mentioned in the article who support the mosque being built, say that:

• Technically the project didn't require the permission of the city to go ahead and build anyway. They just asked to be polite.
• It will celebrate pluralism in the United States and within Islam
• It will help people understand that most Muslims aren't terrorists
• That area of Manhattan is mostly commercial and residents need a community center

The two people specifically mentioned in the article who oppose the plan say that:

• The mosque would add insult to injury for the families of victims
• The terrorists were Muslims, so a mosque there reinforces their message that the attacks were God's will

Actually, I had a hard time breaking the comments of the dissenters down into a clear argument. Here is what they actually said:

"Lower Manhattan should be made into a shrine for the people who died there," said Michael Valentin, a retired city detective who worked at ground zero. "It breaks my heart for the families who have to put up with this. I understand they're [building] it in a respectful way, but it just shouldn't be down there."...

"[The 9/11 terrorists] did this in the name of Islam," Zelman said. "It's a sacred ground where these people died, where my brother was murdered, and to be in the shadows of that religion, it's just hypocritical and sacrilegious. "

I studied Islam for five hours today as a part of my Intro to World Religions class. While I'm not exactly an expert yet, I feel confident saying that the dissenters quoted don't understand very much about the religion. They probably technically know that terrorists are a part of the extreme fringe of Islam but don't have any experience with the peaceful and less visible Muslim majority; they base their feelings on the side that they have experience with--horrible, traumatic, tragic experience.

I agree with my professor that this case  is an issue of public ignorance about Islam more than conflict about the actual doctrines of the religion.

But this conclusion raises more questions. How shall we define religion? Prof. Whisenant is relying on a bare-bones, strictly defined to the thing itself definition, and I think that's an effective one to use. But there's another definition worth mentioning, the religion plus all of the trappings that pop culture associates with it. That method of defining things makes for a more nebulous definition, but accounts for the reactions that people have which seem incongruous when held to standard of the strict definition.

Perhaps that last paragraph got too abstract and foggy. Hopefully this next one will clarify my point:
This conflict could be categorized as "general ignorance versus reasonable request." In that case we might as well be talking changes to minimum wage laws or hunting policies. But there are elements connected to the mosque issue which are unique to religious issues. Partisans seem least likely to try understand and empathize with their opponents when religious leaders endorse one side or the other. There may be other reasons but I don't want to take the time to explore it now. 

My Civilization Professor's Thoughts on Citizen Journalism

I had an interesting conversation with my Digital Civilization professor, Gideon Burton, over +Google. He offered an interesting and informed perspective on the restructuring of news organizations. This is how it went:

 Prof. Burton: A very successful crowdsourcing platform for journalim is Deseret Connect. Once you register, you can get story assignments and get published in the online or paper versions of the Deseret News. I got an offer to do an assignment today to give Utah legislators a scorecard, for example. One of my prior students has published a movie review via Deseret Connect. While not without problems, the content platform has really gotten a lot of people to contribute stories and media (paying mostly in terms of reputation). 

My comment: Citizen journalism initiatives like Deseret Connect both encourage and frustrate me. I like that members of the community can provide skilled or expert perspectives that might not otherwise be published in a news organization's content. But I also wonder about the quality of a lot of journalism that is produced.
Also, since I'm studying journalism, part of me thinks, 'Deseret News, stop crowdsourcing the job I'm training for to volunteers from the public!' Questions about the training, ethics, and quality of citizen journalism aside--I feel protective about my prospective industry. Still, I recognize that perhaps I'll have to adapt with the economy and apply my training in a new business model or different industry...and that could be ok. 

Prof. Burton's Response: Just like many industries being challenged today due to digital shifts, journalism is having to reinvent itself. Rather than seeing unpaid correspondents as competition, you should look at the space it opens up for much-needed expertise. As I've spoken to the leaders of Deseret Connect, it was clear that while old jobs were being phased out, new ones are on the horizon. Who will train and organize the volunteers, for example? The scope of journalism, also, is expanding to areas where it has not been before. More available data and media means more possible types of stories and again, more need for other kinds of expertise. No, it won't be the old news room anymore, but Deseret Connect has shown proof positive that they can evolve into new labor and business models that work (which is more than can be said for other failing newspapers). They are a Phoenix rising from the ashes; pay attention.

Well, that gave me some good food for thought. In fact, I'm still digesting it.  He's right that journalism has to reinvent itself. Nobody's sure what that's going to look like yet, but the idea of a new need for people to train organized networks of citizen journalists is appealing and something I hadn't considered. I wonder if that suggestion came from one of the administrators of Deseret Connect?

"More need for other kinds of expertise" is an intriguing idea also. What might that be? Fact-checking and other forms of verification? Ethics monitoring? Contributor managing?

Anyoody have any ideas to flesh out Prof. Burton's advice?

My Journalism Ethics

Here's a brief overview of the principles that think are important and will abide by as a journalist:

What does mathematics and ethics have in common?

Both are centered around relationships. Math is the study of relationships between objects and numbers. And ethics matter because we have relationships with other people and our actions affect them. So my ethical construct will be categorized by the relationship involved.

With My Employer:

• I will complete the number of stories I am required to by my deadlines.
• If I must miss a deadline I will let my employer know in advance and explain why.
• I will abide by limits by my employer restraining my personal political activism within reason.

With My Audience:

• I will seek to help my audience understand their world better.
• With some stories this will mean giving little more than the hard facts and letting readers draw their own conclusions
• With more complex stories I will insert more of my own interpretation of events so that the audience can understand what is happening. I will try to keep my opinion to a minimum--using it only as much as is necessary for readers understand an issue well enough to form an opinion.
• If I do write an op-ed or other overtly opinion oriented article, my commitment will be to the truth, not to a special interest. (William Safire-style.)
• I will provide sources for my material (to the extent that I am able to)
• Names of human sources
• Studies where my statistics come from 
• etc.
• When I need to use a source anonymously I will explain to readers why I chose to.
• I will become a masterful writer
• There's enough poorly written journalism already
• I will read good books
• I will keep a clear head and continue to develop critical thinking skills
• I will not indulge in sensationalism.
• I will disclose ties I have to subjects involved in my articles.

With My Sources

• I will respect on/off record arrangements
• As long as they are made before the interview
• I will be lenient if the person should not have known better
• I will not necessarily go to jail to protect my sources. I'd probably give in to a subpoena out of respect for rule of law and obligation to my family to not go to jail needlessly.
• I will treat them respectfully.
• I will verify what they tell mew though other means as much as possible.