Moderate voices in media

Last Monday, I moderated a panel on religion and the public sphere at school. I ran things a bit differently than most panels, however. Instead of a Q&A session where people stand up and talk into a mic, I asked the attendees to write down their questions on little slips of paper. Two runners would grab the questions and then bring them to me at the front, at which point I would be able to throw the questions out when relevant to the conversation. It helped to keep things going by making sure the questions flowed with the conversation.

One of the most popular questions, however, had to do with the media and the moderate religious voice. Too many publications focus on the Pat Robertsons, the Jerry Falwells, and the Terry Joneses of this world: why is it that the moderate religious voices, the people who are committed to interfaith dialogue, to conversation, to dialogue, are not getting their time in the media?

Answers were given and responses arose, but at the end of everything I found myself wondering:

Is it the media's fault for not covering it, or our fault for not reading it?

I can see a little bit of both sides. While I worked at Religion News Service, I learned the age-old adage of reporters: "A dog bites a man: that's not news. A man bites a dog: now there's a story." In the world of religion, it is somewhat similar. A minister said that things are not as clear as they seem? A sarcastic "wow" would be a correct response. A Jewish group condemns the Glenn Beck? A serious story, yes. But news? Probably not. There are tons of groups who condemn Glenn Beck. Or a Christian minister who says that Terry Jones is a nutcase. Well, duh.

Now what if that Jewish group turned to the poetic form of a haiku to express their distaste...and then made a website where people could write their own haikus...and then ended up collecting over one thousand haikus? Well then, there you have a story.

Or how about if that minister publicly denounced Terry Jones...and then took up a collection to donate two Korans for every one that he burns? Now that's printable.

So on one side, there is my argument that the moderate voice needs to learn how to work the game, if you will. Media has to sell, especially in a world like today where the printed word is losing its monetary value. "Dialogue" and "complication" just does not sell. But ingenuity does. Savviness does. Cleverness does.

On the other side, however, there is the onus that I place on the actors in the media: the reporters, the bloggers, and the broadcasters. Pat Robertson is not the paragon of Christian faith in the United States no matter how loud his proponents may be. And when things are actually complicated, it is a part of responsible journalism to bring that complication to the fore. It cannot be hidden in the 17th paragraph, or under a misleading headline. In effect, certain things can be written to be sexy, to be media-appealing. How about authors try that as well?