Warren Smith of World Magazine, co-author of “Prodigal Press: Confronting the Anti-Christian Bias of the American News Media,” with Marvin Olasky, World Magazine editor, discussed the book and its topic of the development of the American press for more than a century as an institution far to the left of the American public and often advancing a secularist, anti-Christian viewpoint at a workshop of the Truth for the New Generation apologetics conference in Charlotte, N.C. at the end of September.
Smith began by discussing the development of the New York Times, from a newspaper with an orthodox Christian viewpoint, founded by Presbyterian Henry Raymond, to the liberal/left newspaper of today. It’s “crusade against abortion” involved reporter Augustus St. Clair writing investigative articles in the 1870s which resulted in an abortionist serving a seven year prison sentence. The early nineteenth century in fact saw over 100 explicitly Christian newspapers in America. In contrast, Smith quoted contemporary New York Times writers comparing Tea Party Republicans to jihadists and Times editor Jill Abramson as saying that “in my house, the Times substituted for religion; it was absolute truth.”
The American press’s drift to the left has been long term, even with roots in the nineteenth century. This involved the American transcendentalists, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, both of whom, remembered as literary figures, were also journalists “writing in the popular newspapers of their day.” Later, H.L. Mencken fulsomely covered the Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, contrasting the backwoods fundamentalists with enlightened modern advocates of evolution. Another signal event was the Alger Hiss/Whittaker Chambers confrontation in 1948-1950, which also contrasted to the two worldviews (Christian and secularist), once again with “journalists siding against the Christian worldview in favor of the secularist worldview.” For these developments “there is a reason, there are causes, but it took about 150 years.” Smith proposed that in view of this, “it may take us a few years to recover that rich Christian heritage.” Despite the daunting task, “God is still sovereign, and his grace is adequate – more than adequate – it is sufficient, for that recovery of rich Christian journalism in this country.”
As to the current situation, Smith noted an early book noting the contemporary problem, “The Media Elite” by Robert and Linda Lichter. They showed that American journalists were “well to the left of the public on a whole range of issues.” Another study in 2002 of 116 newspapers showed that their journalists were operating “within a very narrow range of liberal beliefs.” The problem discovered, Smith said, is that journalists are not “antagonistic,” rather “they are just ignorant about Christianity, or conservative ideas, or who good conservative spokespeople would be.” As a result of this, it is extreme, isolated, but striking rightist voices that the news media quotes, while from the left, spokesman who make arguments attuned to the mainstream are presented as representative. Extreme leftist voices (which may in fact be driving controversy) are not prominently mentioned. Smith noted that the American Enterprise Institute has determined that there are 10-15% fewer positive stories during Republican presidencies, while 85% of Columbia journalism students “self-identified as liberal.” Smith went on to say that Columbia “is widely considered to be the most elite journalism school in this country.” In view of this, Smith quoted the ancient Greek musicologist Daman of Thebes, saying “you give me the songs of a people, and I care not who writes their laws.”
In challenging the liberal/left media regime, Smith noted that “you can’t teach people to think Christianly, if they have lost the ability to think at all.” In this regard, modern technical media erodes “our ability to think.” Smith noted that cultural critic Neil Postman maintained that the Judeo-Christian view of the Bible as the source of truth gave people a bookish, intellectual knowledge, which involves more active participation by the recipients of the message than a message received through a more entertainment-oriented, visual types of media. With the kind of communication provided by books, people can engage in thought about “complex issues and ideas,” which are necessary for a Christian worldview. This worldview “is the very heart of the gospel,” he said.
Media, according to Postman, “are not culturally or morally neutral … all media have limited abilities.” What modern technology advances are “smoke signals” – simple messages separate from the cultural context and meaning. Electronic media tend to give a “happy hour effect,” in which the new media’s remarkable benefits are seen before its negative effects. Texting capability may be seen as a remarkable advance in personal communication, but it isolates us from our families and causes a not insignificant number of traffic fatalities. Similarly, happy hours seem enjoyable, but they result in people spending money they didn’t expect, and making foolish decisions under the influence of alcohol. He also referred to Marshall McLuhan, who famously said that “the medium is the message.” One of his metaphors has been called “McLuhan’s light bulb.” Awareness of the world conveyed by technical media alters the way we understand the world and behave in the world. As a result of this, contrary to much Evangelical thinking, “the medium we use to communicate the gospel really does matter.” The medium God has provided for the gospel “is the Word of God and the foolishness of preaching,” Smith said. The issue of changes in the message made simply by communication in a different medium is illustrated by the difference between book and movie presentations of the same drama, with the movie version advancing the producer’s interpretation of the story and its characters.
Smith then noted the effect of “word dominance” or “the Stroop Effect” in an exercise with the audience. People tend to follow the words uttered by a leader or instructor, even though they may be in conflict with other signals he is giving (such as colors shown or actions to be taken nonverbally indicated). Thus, the messages the media convey may be accepted at some level, even when we know that they are wrong. The speed and visual nature of electronic media cause people to be influenced by their messages, which likely may be contrary to a Christian worldview.
Smith concluded that what “we have a responsibility as Christians to do is this, to stand for ‘the good, the true, and the beautiful.’” And also “to stand for those who are producing ‘the good, the true, and the beautiful.’” Parents with children who have an interest in the arts should encourage their children in their decision to make a vocation in the arts, but should also “develop a strong Christian worldview.” As an indication of the challenge, Smith referred to the Battle of Britain fought in 1940 after the Nazi conquest of continental western Europe. “Less than 2,000 pilots made up the RAF” (Royal Air Force) against the much larger German air force (Luftwaffe). The air confrontation “was all that stood between the British people and this feared German army.” But with the “tremendous determination” of the British pilots, against “overwhelming odds” they fought the Luftwaffe to a stalemate. This prevented a German land invasion of Great Britain. As an inspiration to Christians entering the cultural world of today, Smith said it should remind us “that media is the air war of our generation,” and “that God always works through a remnant.”
Comment by Marco Bell on November 2, 2013 at 3:08 pm
I feel that today’s media aren’t liberal OR conservative, but instead, are purely mouthpieces for Corporate America, and that isn’t good for any religion or thinking individual.
And sadly, our politicians are geared to the same influences, and greased by the same monies.
Comment by Roger on November 4, 2013 at 5:31 pm
I agree with the article that new technology has interfered with the way people think today. The term I would use is “critical thinking” whereby people reason out the end result of a decision, action, or concept. Pastors used to preach on topics that illustrated “sin” temptations and its awful outcomes if not thwarted. Congregants today or even students are not taught these precepts either secular or spiritually. Most people want “sound bites” and conclusions spoken about with little reasoning on their part. Aesop would find it difficult to teach in today’s world.
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on November 5, 2013 at 11:16 am
There can be little doubt among thinking, fair-minded and informed people that today’s media have a very strong left-wing bias. Additionally, surveys indicate that most journalists attend church services less than the average person, setting the stage for the anti-Christian and anti-conservative bias that we regularly see.
Though not always done with clear intent–media folks are just being who they are, which is overwhelmingly liberal–the bias is there nonetheless and often subtle, enabling a variant of subliminal conditioning. The increasing number of people who have not trained their critical thinking skills will often miss the bias, resulting in a domino effect whereby the liberally conditioned mind becomes less capable of detecting bias (thereby, increasing, falling prey to it).
The solution is multifaceted but should involve a more judicious use of technology, greater competence and balance in journalism, and a stronger commitment to critical thinking skills, particularly among young adults. Christians and more traditionally-minded people need to get involved in the media to a greater degree.
In what is perhaps the most comprehensive and objective assessment of media bias to date, Dr. Tim Groseclose offers a mountain of evidence for media bias: http://www.timgroseclose.com/
Comment by zemkarlos on February 8, 2014 at 3:41 am
“Decide what you want, before someone else decides for you.” I actually can’t say things this much nicely. But you can have someone who can in here: Self management skills