Atheist Revolution

Of Course Fox News is Not News!

2009-10-26T05:25:00.000-05:00

When representatives of the Obama administration recently said that they did not regard what Fox "News" does as news, most of us reacted with some variation of, "Well, duh!" The best description of what Fox does that I've yet heard was provided by Keith Olbermann during a recent appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show. I am paraphrasing here based on my memory, but the just of it was that Fox starts with a real news story, blows some trivial detail of it way out of proportion, manufactures outrage, and then reports on the outrage as if it were a legitimate story. Olbermann is well-qualified to provide such an analysis since he essentially does the same thing on MSNBC.

Millions of people rely on Fox "News" as their primary source of information. Therefore, if anyone is going to make allegations about Fox not being a legitimate news source, they are going to need to put together a compelling case. One of the more comprehensive I've yet to find was written by Adele Stan for AlterNet, 8 Reasons Fox Is Not a News Organization. It is lengthy, but definitely worth a read for any who have not yet made up their mind about Fox.

Some have taken me to task recently for pointing out similarities between what Fox "News" does and what Keith Olbermann does on Countdown. I am not claiming that they are equally bad, and I'll be the first to admit that Olbermann generally does have more facts on his side. However, his recent statements lead me to believe that Olbermann views his program as a news show with some opinion pieces which he clearly identifies as such (i.e., his "special comment" segments). As a regular viewer of Countdown, I do not buy this for a second. Olbermann's opinion is clearly evident in virtually every minute of his show and in every story he reports.

And yet, it would be a mistake to equate what Olbermann and Maddow do with what Fox "News" does. There are many important differences. The primary one is that they provide factual news with opinion instead of presenting opinion as factual news. Yes, viewers are going to hear exactly what Olbermann thinks about each and every news story. But he is not merely making things up to manipulate his audience.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Twitter's Actions Reprehensible, Not Censorship

2009-10-21T16:57:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

When Twitter removed "no god" from their list of trending topics, the online atheist community immediately started buzzing. Atheist bloggers and Twitter users alike complained of Twitter's censorship. Twitter's action in this matter was unfortunate but it was not censorship. Calling it censorship reflects a common misunderstanding of censorship. So what's the big deal?

In a nutshell, censorship requires government intervention. Censorship refers to governmental actions that restrict free expression. It is a problem because it conflicts with certain laws protecting free expression.

In the private sector (e.g., Twitter), a company can decide to do things like removing or adding content of their choosing. Twitter's decision to remove "no god" from the trending topics list was not censorship. Similarly, the decision by Fox "News" not to cover recent LGBT protests in Washington DC was not censorship. Mistaken? Sure. Evidence that Fox "News" is anything but news? Absolutely. But not censorship.

Censorship is real, continues to occur, and is a serious problem. Christian extremist groups do indeed pressure the government to censor certain materials, and far too often, the government caves in to this pressure and engages in censorship. By labeling Twitter's actions as censorship, we confuse the issue and make real censorship seem less important.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Do Good Works Balance Clergy Sexual Abuse?

2009-10-20T05:29:00.000-05:00

Image by bobster855 via Flickr

In the face of scandal after scandal, many of which involve the sexual abuse of children followed by systematic and well-organized attempts to conceal the crimes and ensure the perpetrator ready access to more victims, one cannot help but wonder how the Catholic Church endures. Tempting as it may be, one need not conjure conspiracy theories to explain how they survive. No, one only need to examine how easily the public rationalizes away the crimes. The bottom line for many people appears to be this: as long as churches continue to do something we can call "good works," we are perfectly willing to ignore the evil they do, even if our silence makes us complicit in their crimes.

If my accusation seems overly harsh, allow me to draw your attention to a brief letter to the editor by Tom Albano of Miramar, FL, that appeared in The Miami Herald:

The media are quick to report about priests who are having affairs and breaking their celibacy vows. They reveal their names and publish photographs of them, as well as their life histories.

Where is balanced news reporting? The Catholic Church, which includes many priests and laypeople, helps the poor, feeds the hungry, visits the sick, counsels prisoners and comforts AIDS patients, to mention only a few of its the positive activities in our community.

I'd like to read about these. I would like to read about the teenagers at my church who collected 2,000 canned and nonperishable food items last weekend to help the poor in our community.

Report the news that people need to hear, not the news that destroys people's lives and reputations.

To be clear, I am not claiming that Mr. Albano wants to see more kids molested by Catholic priests. I am simply using Mr. Albano's words to demonstrate how the Catholic Church is able to survive. Not only does he imply that news of clergy abuse is not something about which the public should hear, but he seems to think that the good works he attributes to the Church somehow make up for the pain and suffering it causes.

It seems to me that newspapers, indeed media in general, has an obligation to promote public safety by providing accurate and timely information for use by the public. Blowing the whistle on child molesting clergy strikes me as an excellent way to do so.

Mr. Albano calls for balance. I cannot speak to the Miami Herald specifically, but I can say that every newspaper in every city in which I have ever lived has made the mistake of heaping praise on churches and churchgoers simply as a function of their professed religiosity. That is, the coverage I have seen buys the hype propagated by the churches themselves that religious belief is superior to atheism and that religious believers are superior to atheists.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

American Media Failed Us Before Iran and Iraq

2009-08-16T09:30:00.002-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

A big story over the past couple of years has been the impending demise of the U.S. newspaper industry. In our current recession, we have seen many big newspapers close their doors and many of the most prominent require bailouts of one sort or another. Some observers have argued that this is due primarily to ineffective business models (e.g., the failure to embrace an online subscription model, etc.). Others see it as a struggle between new media and traditional media where the traditional media is losing. There is little question that these factors are partially responsible, but I think that there is an even more important one that has received far less attention than it deserves.

Undoubtedly, new media (i.e., blogs, social networks, Twitter, etc.) do some things better than newspapers ever will be able to do. The utility of Twitter in post-election Iran was a recent example, but there will be many others. At the same time, most of us would agree that traditional media is light years ahead when it comes to investigative reporting.

I have always thought of the media, traditional or otherwise, as having a crucial role in the American democracy as providing another check and balance on government. Indeed, we often refer to the media as a "fourth estate" in recognition of this important function.

Sadly, I believe that it is the traditional media's abrogation of this critical investigative role which heralded it's demise. We tend to think of the lead up to Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq in 2003 as the moment when the American media failed us. To be sure, this was a failure; however, it was neither the first nor the most important. In fact, based on the startling absence of investigative reporting by American newspapers following the 2000 presidential election, we should have seen it coming.

As disappointing as it was to see the mainstream media uncritically accept Bush administration propaganda in 2002, I believe that the media's refusal to investigate compelling evidence of election fraud during the 2000 presidential election was even worse. This should have been a huge story that exposed serious problems with the American democracy and uncovered the culpability of both political parties. Instead, it was buried.

I consider this to be a watershed moment because it signaled that the media was no longer willing to perform it's essential investigative role. With increasing corporate ownership and one merger after another, it had become clear that investigative reporting which might harm certain corporate/media interests was not going to happen. Sadly, this included exposing serious election fraud and taking down a corrupt administration. More recently, it involved making sure that the least threatening candidates would get elected.

Where does this leave us today? It leaves me feeling sad and discouraged but mostly just mad. I believe that we need traditional media, including newspapers, most because of the investigative role they used to perform. But as it becomes increasingly clear that they are not going to exercise this function in a manner that might harm their business interests, I have a more difficult time justifying their continued existence. By choosing to provide soft entertainment instead of hard news, the media has betrayed our democracy.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

News Corp and GE CEOs Put End to Olbermann-O'Reilly Feud

2009-08-01T07:58:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

It is difficult to imagine how freedom of the press can be reconciled with corporate ownership of virtually all media. After all, why would any self-respecting media baron want one of his so-called news programs to present negative coverage of the various corporations that make up his empire? It would be bad for business. Sadly, mainstream media has become a business, largely abandoning its once critical role as a meaningful check and balance on government. These days, the only way to even get the mainstream media to cover certain stories is to put so much public pressure on them that continuing to ignore a story becomes bad for business.

It is against this context that we learn of what should be a huge story but probably won't. According to the New York Times, the long-running feud between MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and the Fox "News" Channel's Bill O'Reilly came to an abrupt end in early June as a result of a meeting between GE and News Corp CEOs.

Let me be clear about one thing: I watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann almost every day, and I was getting sick and tired of his habit of making Fox "News" a story in nearly every broadcast. All it seemed to do was give Fox more publicity, and it rarely seemed newsworthy. From that perspective, I hope Olbermann will find something else to do besides engaging in the same sort of attack journalism for which he so often condemns Fox "News."

Setting that aside, however, there is an important story here. The forced reconciliation between Olbermann and O'Reilly appears to have resulted from a secretive deal reached by their respective CEOs because it was judged to be bad for business. Whether it was in any way newsworthy does not appear to have been considered. This was a business decision.

So here we have a clear example of the content of mainstream "news" media being influenced by corporate decisions about what is in their business interests. This is not censorship, so please don't make the mistake of using that label. But it is something that should nevertheless be a concern for those of us who think that the news media should be truly independent.

Big H/T to Glenn Greenwald (Salon.com) for bringing this to my attention

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

A Christian Response to Celebrity Deaths

2009-07-07T13:05:00.000-05:00

Image by Bearman2007 via Flickr

I do not spend as much time as I might like reading Christian blogs. I know what you're thinking, but some really fascinating stuff can be found on some of them from time-to-time. I was curious how Christians were reacting to the recent celebrity deaths, and I ran across an interesting post on the subject at DanaPellerin.com. The post was written in late June, so it only mentions Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett. In fact, it was written on the day these two died.

Mr. Pellerin comments on how quickly public interest in celebrity deaths turns into anger over how much media coverage is devoted to such deaths. He's absolutely right. I experienced this personally as what started as mild curiosity rapidly turned into frustration and disgust with the media for essentially making these deaths (especially that of Michael Jackson) the only news story for several days. It wasn't that I suddenly turned into a Michael Jackson hater or anything; it was just that the nonstop coverage got old quickly when it came at the expense of every other story.

One part of Mr. Pellerin's post that I found extremely interesting was how surprised he seemed to encounter similar reactions from his fellow Christians.

As I was following the data stream out there on the intertubes, I noticed several rude comments from strangers, but more surprising, from some Christian friends, that implied that following such stories is a waste of time and we shouldn’t be making a big deal about them.

Why would he expect that other Christians would regard such stories as not being newsworthy? His Christian friends were absolutely right to point out that the excessive coverage these stories received was a waste and that other more important news was being neglected. How would the religious beliefs of his friends be expected to change this?

One person started throwing out stats on AIDS deaths as if dying from AIDS is somehow more noble than dying in other ways... One conversation regarding a child dying in a car accident today elicited a response from another who said “i’m glad that you have something worthwhile to pray about now, not Michael Jackson”. Wow. The callousness of these statements, especially those from Christians, amazes me.

Aside from the flawed assumption that being a Christian somehow prevents callousness, Mr. Pellerin seems to be misunderstanding what his friends are likely saying. It seems to me that the message they are trying to impart is simply that people die in unfortunate circumstances every day and are thoroughly ignored by the media. This is a valid point and one which those of us concerned with social justice are often making.

Here’s the deal; Yeah our culture makes a big deal about celebrities. And that’s wrong. It’s wrong to put people on a pedestal and worship them for simply making use of the gifts only God has allowed them to use. But I don’t think it’s wrong to mourn their deaths.

Wrong to make a big deal about celebrities? That sounds a bit simplistic for my tastes, but if we can change "wrong" to something like "inappropriate" or "detrimental to improving the conditions of others," I'll agree. I'll also agree with Mr. Pellerin that worship of other people, regardless of who they are, is absurd. Of course, I'd say the same about worship of mythical creatures like gods, angels, and the like.

But I don't think anyone is saying that it is wrong to mourn the loss of others. At least, I have not heard such a sentiment expressed by atheists or Christians. If Michael Jackson meant a great deal to someone (for whatever reason), it makes sense for such a person to mourn his passing. I have a hard time believing that any of Mr. Pellerin's associates would feel differently.

No, what I expect his colleagues are trying to point out to him is that it bothers them to see the media lavish attention on someone solely because of celebrity while ignoring those who die every day and mean the world to those they have left behind. Perhaps they worry that the level of adulation being heaped on Jackson has started to sound like worship. Then again, they may simply be reacting to a situation that seems unfair.

As Mr. Pellerin suggests, high profile deaths should remind us of our own mortality. But where he insists that we should also be reminded of "our need for a savior," I'd say that what we really need reminding of is our own humanity.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Confronting Hate Speech

2009-06-18T05:23:00.000-05:00

Like many of you, I have been following the recent debate over the possible influence of right-wing hate speech on the recent acts of domestic terrorism. When we see people shooting up churches, murdering physicians, or attacking the Holocaust Museum, it is natural that we would seek motivating factors. When we find that the right-wing extremism and misinformation peddled by Fox “News,” Rush Limbaugh, and other popular personalities on the far right is a common thread uniting these and many other acts of domestic terrorism, it make sense that we would question the degree to which these elements are good for society. And yet, this is not a comfortable question for anyone who values free speech.

I'll be honest: I have been struggling with this topic for some time. I've made my decision, resolving the issue in my mind, but that does not mean I never have second thoughts or worry about the possible implications of my decision.

My conclusion is fairly simple and can be presented in two related parts. First, right-wing hate speech, even the most extreme forms one regularly hears on conservative talk radio, must remain Constitutionally protected speech. They have the right to keep questioning Obama’s birth certificate, calling physicians “baby killers,” ranting about the evils of liberalism. I don’t like it, but I am committed to protecting their right to do it. The law, as I understand it, allows them to say virtually anything that stops short of inciting specific acts of violence against specified targets. This is as it should be.

The second part of my conclusion requires a distinction between censorship (i.e., government efforts to legislatively restrict free speech) and corporate and social measures to reduce certain forms of hate speech through a variety of other means. You see, the second part of my conclusion is that those of us who are troubled by the apparent effects of right-wing hate speech have the right, perhaps even the obligation, to oppose it. While we must avoid censorship, we have at our disposal the full range of corporate and social responses and should not feel guilty about using them.

To understand what I’m getting at, consider Fox “News” for a moment. I oppose any governmental actions aimed at shutting them down, restricting what they are able to say, etc. The use of state police power to restrict speech is something I oppose, no matter how vile I may find such speech. However, I encourage those of us who worry about the toxic influence of Fox “News” on American society to pressure their corporate sponsors to pull their advertising. This is not censorship.

I also hope to see victims of right-wing hate explore the possibility of suing those who disseminate right-wing hate and misinformation. Again, we are talking about private citizens exercising their rights in civil court and not state police power.

Freedom of speech must protect even those forms of speech which we consider to be most detrimental to society. However, that does not mean that we must sit idly by. After all, we have the right to speak out too. There is much we can do without censoring views with which we disagree.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Technorati Tags: free speech,Fox News,media,right-wing,hate,censorship,Rush Limbaugh

CNN Facing Backlash for Lack of Iran Coverage

2009-06-14T10:44:00.002-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

I certainly expected more from CNN last night as they essentially ignored what was happening in Iran. Like many others, I turned to Twitter to learn about the aftermath of the election. Now it appears that CNN and other American media outlets are beginning to face a backlash from those who want news from a self-described news network rather than mindless entertainment.

We have seen it before - mainstream media is conspicuously absent from a big story while blogs and various forms of social media step in to provide information to those looking for news. However, I'm not sure I've seen such a dramatic example of it prior to last night.

The following sources are among those covering Iran well:

Twitter (via twazzup or the #iranelection hashtag)
The BBC
Memeorandum

As for CNN, the question echoing around the Internet is "What happened?" Did they not agree that this was a big story?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Twitter Brings News From Iran

2009-06-14T08:43:00.002-05:00

For reasons which I personally cannot fathom, the American media seems to have decided that the Iranian election and it's aftermath were either not newsworthy at all or simply a minor story not worth interrupting regular programming. After seeing report after report on Twitter last night from inside Iran about the rapidly deteriorating situation there, I flipped to every major news station on TV. Nobody was covering what was happening in Iran. Larry King was interviewing motorcycle builders, MSNBC was airing a sensationalistic documentary on some American prison, and Glen Beck was...well...playing with goldfish. Disgusted, I turned the TV off and went back to Twitter.

If you want news out of Iran - not the official government press releases but breaking news from the street level - check out the #iranelection hashtag. If you are new to Twitter and unfamiliar with how to search for hashtags, you can simply go here. You just may be surprised at how little the American media is telling you about the situation on the ground.

What is Really Driving Conservative Teabagging?

2009-04-15T18:59:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

All teabagging jokes aside, I find the conservative anti-tax "tea party" protests to be absolutely fascinating. It occurs to me that any blog addressing irrational belief simply must comment on the dramatic ignorance driving these anything-but-grassroots protests. On the surface, the protests are about taxes. And yet, the protesters seem oblivious to the fact that their taxes have been cut. This raises the question about the real source of the protests and what is driving them.

On the subject of taxes, the facts are quite clear for anyone who cases about such trivialities as facts. The Obama administration is cutting taxes for at least 95% of Americans. If the protesters are unaware of this, the source of their confusion of obvious. The alternative is that they are fully aware of this fact and are protesting because they believe that people with more money than they will ever see should not pay taxes. With all the outrage we are seeing now over corporate greed and the botched bailouts, I find this alternative rather unlikely.

Perhaps the protesters have consumed so much misinformation by Fox "News" that they can no longer distinguish between propaganda and news. Or perhaps the protests really have little to do with taxes.

What then? There certainly seems to be an element of racism in the continued questions about Obama's citizenship. Some Americans remain convinced that Obama is Muslim, Arab, and/or not a U.S. citizen. Once again, right-wing media has been spinning these lies. However, the question remains why this is suddenly so attractive.

I suspect that the answer lies in lingering dissatisfaction from those who opposed Obama's election. Angered and disappointed, they seek solace in the one place which can be counted on to reinforce their beliefs: extreme right-wing media. The lies make them feel better, so much better that they soon stop caring about the truth of the information they receive. Does this remind you of anything?

And this brings us to teabagging. A bunch of angry and horribly misinformed conservatives are protesting Obama's election under the guise of a tax protest. Before we condemn them as sore losers, I'll simply offer the following: there are plenty of excellent reasons to protest some of Obama's early decisions; one does not need to manufacture false ones.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Another Form of Extremism

2009-04-08T05:35:00.002-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Atheists and Christians alike agree that Islamic extremism is a repressive force that violates human rights and spawns an unacceptably dangerous sort of conflict in our modern world. Many atheists, especially those living in highly religious areas, recognize that Christian extremism (must-see video here) is also problematic. We find the image of rapture-ready Christians in positions of political power more than a little disconcerting. But there is another form of extremism, one often intertwined with but separable from Christian extremism, to which we have payed insufficient attention.

We can disagree about whether right-wing talk radio and certain Fox pundits are engaged in hate speech, but we must not lose sight of the fact that they represent a form of extremism. Millions of Americans tune in each day to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly, Boortz, and their associates. In doing so, they are treated to Republican talking points and misinformation. But the problem is not merely one of well-orchestrated political propaganda; it is one of extremism.

I am not necessarily claiming that the assorted pundits are themselves extremists. I suspect that some are while others are simply opportunists. My concern is with their audience. We have seen too many disturbing examples of the effects of this sort of extremism at political rallies and in acts of domestic terrorism. We have witnessed the ease with which anyone who disagrees with them is accused of hating America. In short, we have seen the impact of hate media.

This sort of extremism presents a thorny problem because many of us would defend, at least up to a point, the right of these individuals to say what they say. One important question involves the precise location of the point at which free speech turns into the sort of hate speech that no longer warrants protection. Another question, and one which I see as even more important, involves what can be done about this sort of extremism other than censorship.

Remember, censorship involves governmental action to restrict free speech. That would be a mistake, even in this case. An alternative, which many people confuse with censorship, would be to make sure that the businesses buying ads on extremist TV and radio know what they are sponsoring and that their customers know too. I am not sure that this would be the best course of action either, but I am coming to believe that some sort of action will soon be necessary.

In the unlikely event that any avid consumers of right-wing extremism read this far, I would like to say a few words about your likely reaction: what about left-wing extremism. This label is probably used in reference to Olbermann and Maddow more than anyone else, and I will concede that both are more about liberal punditry, Democratic talking points, and biased opinion than news. The thing is, even at their most biased, Olbermann and Maddow rarely sound hateful. They are upset, frustrated, and even angry at times, but I can think of few examples where they crossed the line into hate, demonizing the opponent, or advocating violence. There is bias on the left, but there is also an important qualitative difference.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Glenn Beck's Idiocy Has Real Consequences

2009-04-06T06:37:00.000-05:00

Image by The Rocketeer via Flickr

I was in a gun shop not too long ago looking to arm myself in preparation for the coming zombie apocalypse (better known as Easter). They didn't have what I was looking for, so I left empty-handed. Before doing so, however, I was treated to an earful by the guy helping me. When I commented that they didn't seem to have much of a selection, he quickly told me that their guns had been flying off the shelves since it first began to look like Obama might win the election. Not realizing what I was walking into, I stupidly asked him why he thought that was happening. He went on a rant that would have made Glenn Beck proud about how Obama was going to abolish the Second Amendment and make gun ownership a crime. He breathlessly told me that Mississippians were buying guns in record numbers while they still could. I left the store wondering whether racism had as much to do with this as fears about gun control.

Given that President Obama has shown absolutely no signs of pushing new gun control legislation, it seems odd that so many people would be convinced otherwise. Then I discovered that Glenn Beck, a Fox "News" blowhard who has made a career of sobbing like a certain Ohio Congressman with a ridiculous fake tan and a name that would make Beavis & Butthead giggle, had been pushing just such a load of crap. Americans with a tenuous grasp on reality who get take Fox punditry as news were being fooled.

Oh well, I told myself, at least gun sales would be good for the economy. And then a likely member of Beck's audience went berserk in Pittsburgh and killed three police officers. How many more of these events need to happen before we are at least willing to discuss the likely impact of right-wing hate in society?

H/T to Library Grape

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

AIG Outrage Obscures News of Bush Torture Regime

2009-03-22T16:42:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

As upset as everyone is over the AIG bonuses, I think there are two things that we absolutely must remember before we continue to allow our news media to emphasize this story to the exclusion of most everything else. First, the bonuses, deserved or not, are tiny in comparison to the amount of bailout money approved by both major political parties. Second, and far more critical in my humble opinion, the media obsession with covering the AIG story is causing a vastly more important story to be neglected: The administration of George W. Bush tortured in our name. No matter how upset we might be over what happened with AIG, we simply cannot allow top Bush administration officials and spineless members of both major parties in Congress to escape punishment. The torturers and their allies in silence must be held accountable.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Why Must Media Portray Atheists as Radicals?

2009-03-12T05:27:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Australia's The Age recently printed an excellent op-ed by Catherine Deveny titled "Fear of God, or fear of a difference of opinion?" It deals with the refusal of Australia's APN Outdoor to allow atheist bus ads. It is definitely worth a read, but the part that really caught my attention was the following question posed by the author:

Why does the media appear to have a vested interest in portraying atheists as a bunch of radicals rather than dealing with it as the mainstream issue it is?

With church attendance among Australians a fraction of what it is here in the U.S., the question may strike us as far more appropriate when coming from an Australian. However, I'd argue that we should be asking precisely the same question of the U.S. media.

It seems these days that one of the few things on which liberal and conservative media can agree is that atheists are an extremely scarce, puzzling, and terrifying group of people. Why? Is the reality of our greater than usually acknowledged numbers simply too threatening? And threatening to who exactly? Conservatives are fond of accusing so-called liberal media of catering to "secular progressives," but I see little difference.

If I had to venture a guess, it would go something like this: religion is such a powerful force for maintaining the status quo that those with a vested interest in minimizing change must stamp out whatever threatens it. Media consolidation has resulted in a state of affairs where a small number of massive corporations own virtually all media outlets. To maintain their wealth, they must minimize social unrest. I'm not sure the world has produced a more effective force for keeping a lid on social unrest than religion. Then again, this is merely speculation.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Two Americas

2009-03-05T05:11:00.000-06:00

Image via Wikipedia

We have been hearing about the American "culture war" for several years now. The U.S. media loves to talk of "red states" and "blue states," but just how divided is our nation? Is it more accurate to characterize the U.S. as one nation, largely united but with frequently differing opinions, or should we be talking about two Americas? I tend to think that we are far more divided than most Americans realize, but I recognize that the nature of our divide is also far more complex than the media would have us believe.

The American cultural divide is something about which I have frequently posted. I have addressed the implications of the divide for atheists, and I have repeatedly emphasized the media's role in widening the divide. My position has not changed much, although I do find more reason to be optimistic today than I did previously.

Reality Sucks!

A college friend and his wife recently told me about their visit to a science museum in honor of Darwin Day. It was not a formal Darwin Day celebration or anything - just a bunch of people who thought it would be fun to go to the museum to commemorate Darwin's birthday. What my friend did not expect were the angry protesters. While they were waiting in line with others to enter the museum, they were subjected to insults from a group of Christian extremist protesters.

My friend's wife wrote a brief post on her Facebook page about this, noting how surprised she was to encounter this (they live in Seattle, WA). Not unlike something you might find here, she referred to the anti-evolution protesters as "morons." This led one of her friends with whom I am unfamiliar to comment on her post that she was being intolerant, etc. Apparently, it is now intolerant not to want a bunch of creationists hurling insults at you on your way to a museum.

It is 2009, but we actually have people protesting against science. I do not think it is just for show. I think that many of them genuinely believe that science is a threat to their worldview and feel pressed to defend themselves.

Nobama

I was disappointed when Gore lost to Bush, but I was horrified when Bush beat Kerry. It wasn't that I liked John Kerry (I didn't). What really got under my skin was that Bush had shown himself to be an unfit leader during his first term. I could not comprehend how anyone could possibly vote for him that second time.

I mention this because I can empathize with how those opposed to Obama feel now. Sure, some were die-hard McCain supporters because they believed in McCain. But others simply did not like what they saw from Obama. And now they feel like I did after Kerry's loss.

The difference, and I think it is a big one, is that I do not ever recall wishing that Bush would fail. I realized that a failure on his part would be bad for America. I hoped he would prove me wrong even though I saw this as extremely unlikely. I can completely relate to how the Nobama crowd feels, but I cannot relate to how they hope Obama falls on his face and hurts our country.

Media as Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

The media's need to oversimplify the information they disseminate is understandable. After all, the U.S. education system is in shambles and our entertainment culture has left us with short attention spans. But the oversimplification also contributes to the broader dumbing-down. Why bother to push ourselves when we can count on being fed what we are supposed to think?

The problem is that oversimplification combined with the ratings-driven system yields high conflict punditry masquerading as news. The "news" of today is delivered by yelling windbags who will not hesitate to cut the mic of someone with whom they disagree. Opinions are so frequently interspersed with political talking points that even the intelligent among us can be fooled.

The media has done an excellent job of creating the very sort of simplistic conflict in which they delight. Unfortunately, this has become the new reality in which we live.

Two Americas

There are two Americas today, but the fault line is not always easy to identify. It is not just about religion, for their are many religious people on both sides of the divide. While appealing in its simplicity, the model of red and blue states falls apart when we realize that next-door neighbors all over our country may occupy the different Americas.

I believe that the complex line dividing our two Americas largely boils down to where residents of each America get what they regard as information. Sure, one America watches Fox "News" and listens to Rush Limbaugh, but it is more than that. This America also reads conservative publications, attends socially conservative churches, and spends more time with like-minded individuals. And the other America is doing the same thing in the opposite direction.

It is human nature to prefer the company of like-minded people. We tend to gravitate toward friends who are like us. We also share a well-known cognitive bias for seeking out information which confirms and validates our pre-existing worldviews. The liberal watches Olbermann while the conservative watches O'Reilly.

Welcome to the two Americas.

Epilogue

What about the optimism I mentioned earlier? Regardless of what one thinks of Obama, I think we can all agree that a large part of his campaign centered on setting aside bitter partisan politics and embracing a new sort of politics. My point is not that this was necessarily genuine but that it likely helped him to get elected. This tells me that many Americans are fed up with the divide and interested in exploring an alternative, even one that remains poorly defined. This gives me at least some optimism.

I do not think we can afford to become much more divided than we are now. The future is bleak if we do not find a way out. And yet, I am encouraged to see more people recognizing the problem and at least beginning to talk about it.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Calling All Closeted Atheists: ABC News Wants You

2009-01-01T10:11:00.003-06:00

Image via WikipediaFriendly Atheist is trying to help a reporter for ABC News: 20/20 find closeted atheists for a story about living as an atheist in the U.S. If you are not yet open with family and friends about your atheism or if you have been open and experienced adverse consequences, they would very much like to hear from you. You can find the details, including an e-mail from the reporter and her contact information at Friendly Atheist.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

King of Misinformation

2008-12-27T13:22:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaCongratulations to Fox "News" pundit Sean Hannity, just named Media Matters' 2008 Misinformer of the Year. It sounds like the 2008 election really put him over the top in this contest.

But never has he so enthusiastically applied his talents for spreading misinformation as he did to the 2008 presidential race, focusing his energies primarily on President-elect Barack Obama. Day after day, Hannity devoted his two Fox News shows and his three-hour ABC Radio Networks program to "demonizing" the Democratic presidential candidates...

If someone decides to watch television because they want to hear someone reinforcing their worldview by feeding them demonstrably false propaganda, so be it. But anyone looking for truthful information is advised to look elsewhere.

H/T to Dispatches From the Culture Wars

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Why Conservatives Attack the Media

2008-10-30T05:19:00.000-05:00

Image via WikipediaGiven that all the major media outlets have been owned by massive corporations for some time now, I've always found it odd that the media has been one of conservatives' favorite targets. It isn't like the mainstream media is actually liberal in any meaningful way. Why would the right-wing be so invested in attacking them? I suspect the answer lies in the nature of their religious base more than anything. With evangelicals complaining that their views are not represented in the media, conservatives may attack the media simply in order to rally their base.

In constructions of a "liberal elitist media," we see what is little more than a political tactic. By creating this all-purpose bogeyman, the right-wing gains a valuable tool in manipulating their base. Of course, they also gain greater control over their own message, using Fox "News" to disseminate manufactured "reality" to the masses in much the same way the politicians of old relied on the church.

The lesson worth learning here is that the pretend right-wing outrage at the media is a tool for achieving political purposes. Reality becomes secondary to the quest to gain and maintain power.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Should the News Media be Liable for Promoting Prayer?

2008-09-13T07:03:00.000-05:00

Pick any natural disaster over the past 20 years, including Hurricane Ike, and you can observe a common thread in news reporting. In each case, it is relatively easy to find stories in which religious faith in general and prayer in particular are mentioned. Moreover, they are always mentioned in a neutral to positive manner. Imminent danger is bearing down, but the news media will always find someone remaining in the path of danger because they are convinced that their prayers will be answered. Does this sort of uncritical coverage amount to promoting inaction?

Although I believe some interesting questions could be raised about liability in a legal sense, I am focusing on the moral sort of liability here. By covering prayer in the way they do, is the news media implicitly promoting it as a viable coping strategy? If so, do they not share some of the responsibility for the injuries and loss of life that often happen next?

I started thinking about this question after reading a recent post by Stardust at God is for Suckers! The post referenced an article from MSNBC on Hurricane Ike. Stardust calls on the news media to "STOP THIS PRAYER BULLCRAP and encourage people to follow evacuation orders to get the hell out of the storm’s path."

I agree. By describing case after case of people resorting to prayer instead of effective coping skills, the news media is indeed promoting prayer. In doing so, they are endangering people. Prayer is far from harmless, especially as an alternative to action.

For similar stories, see the following:

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheism in the Media: A Google News Analysis

2008-08-14T05:39:00.000-05:00

Surveys designed to detect the number of people identifying themselves as atheists can be useful. However, there are metrics which may be as important. A recent post by 40 Year Old Atheist deals with the attention atheism is receiving in the media and presents some thought-provoking data collected via Google News.

Among the key findings:

There was a 75% increase in the number of news articles containing "atheism" or "atheist" between 2006 and 2008.
A large portion of articles on atheism were authored by religious believers, many of which represent attacks on atheism.
There is nothing quite like controversy to put atheism in the news (e.g., release of The Golden Compass).

You'll find more in the original post, along with some insightful discussion of the findings and their implications.

It seems to me that an important challenge facing the atheist movement involves exerting a greater influence on the manner in which atheism is covered in the media. This undoubtedly involves organizing to oppose anti-atheist bigotry, but it also means taking more ownership of atheism. Because there are far more theists than atheists, it is likely that they will always have an advantage in how we are covered. But this tells me that we must be prepared to work much harder in this area.

It may not be enough simply to try to increase our visibility in the news. We may also want greater say in how we are covered. We may want more of a voice in media depictions of atheism.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Edwards' Affair Makes News, Why Not McCain's?

2008-08-10T09:51:00.000-05:00

Now that you have undoubtedly heard John Edwards' affair discussed at length on all the major news outlets, complete with plenty of manufactured outrage, you may be wondering why you haven't been hearing about John McCain's affair. What's that? You didn't know about it? It seems that the American media is trying to make sure you either forget or never hear about it in the first place. But if Edwards' political career is now over because of his affair, the same should be true of McCain.

John Edwards exhibited a combination of poor judgment and outright stupidity by first having his affair and then thinking it wouldn't somehow be discovered. I supported him after the media ran Kucinich out of the campaign until they did the same to Edwards. He did plenty of good things for America, and it is unfortunate that he could not place this good above his own sexual desires. But does this negate any of his pasts goods or detract from what he does in the future? That seems to depend on who you ask. But why aren't we asking the same of McCain?

Assume for a moment that Edwards' affair is newsworthy primarily for the subtext in which it occurred. Affairs among politicians are not exactly uncommon, nor is lying about them. However, the image of Edwards cheating on a wife sick with cancer has the sensationalistic appeal on which our media now sadly thrives.

So how about McCain? What the media seem to want us to forget is that the Republican who would be President had his own affair. And this was no ordinary affair! When McCain returned from Vietnam in 1973 and discovered that his wife had been in a serious car accident, he left her for his current wife. After nearly dying, she had gained weight and was on crutches. Too much for our war hero to deal with. Evidently, he was in such a hurry to get rid of her that he married his second wife before divorcing the first. Oops!

If McCain continues to insist on such an ugly campaign, going so far as to try to convince the more moronic components of his base that Obama is the Antichrist, might the American public need to be reminded of this chapter of McCain's history?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

McCain's Adultery: Where is the Media?

2008-07-18T05:37:00.000-05:00

It has been widely reported around the blogosphere and other independent media outlets that America's mainstream media has been giving Sen. John McCain a free pass for some time. There are all sorts of theories about why this is the case, some more sinister than others, but there is widespread agreement that the trend continues today. I mentioned one example here already concerning blatantly racist statements McCain made in 2000. Now the Los Angeles Times has provided another, and this time it is one that may actually be upsetting to McCain's evangelical supporters. It involves adultery but gets even worse.

Here is how the story was summarized by The Carpetbagger Report:

We learned that McCain turned his back on his wife after she was seriously injured in a car accident, committed adultery, and left the mother of his children when he found a younger, wealthier woman.

Worse, we also learned that McCain didn’t tell the truth about this in his own memoir. McCain insisted that he was separated from his first wife before he began dating his second wife. That’s not true. McCain also insisted he’d been divorced for months before remarrying. That wasn’t true, either. (In fact, the LAT reported, “McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.”)

As The Carpetbagger Report correctly points out, this is usually the sort of story the mainstream media loves. Anybody remember Bill Clinton? So why has there been virtual media silence on it? Probably for the same reason McCain's racist comments in the 2000 GOP primary are not getting any attention even in an election year where the media seems determined to make race a central issue. McCain has been given a free pass from the mainstream media.

At the risk of sounding overly conspiratorial, I wonder if we are simply seeing the consequence of corporate ownership of the mainstream media. I'm not suggesting that is the only - or even the main - reason for the bubble around McCain, but I think it could be one factor.

I join The Carpetbagger Report in asking the media decision-makers to consider the following:

If investigative reporters at the LA Times had discovered that Barack Obama had been divorced, cheated on his first wife, left her after she was injured in a car accident, pursued a younger woman while still married, and then lied about the circumstances of his marriages in his memoir, does anyone seriously believe that news outlets would blow off the story completely?

Or is it more likely we would never hear the end of this?

This is a question we should continue to ask, and this is yet another issue about which the American people should be informed. Don't we deserve to have all the facts?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Faith Section In Your Local Paper?

2008-05-10T07:08:00.000-05:00

Do you have any sort of section devoted to religion in your local paper? My local paper has one called "Faith and Values" that appears every Saturday. As might be expected from my location (Mississippi), this is exclusively Christian. Moreover, it clearly promotes Christianity in the community. Many newspapers do something like this, and some occasionally print op-ed articles written by atheists in this section. Not surprisingly, this infuriates some Christians.

My local paper does not include material written by atheists in this section but has printed some op-ed articles written by a local atheist in the Opinion section. These have, of course, generated some lively discussion on the paper's Internet forums. Most of the discussion is civil, but there is sometimes a sense that local Christians would prefer not to be exposed to what atheists think. It is almost as if simply being reminded that atheists exist is interpreted as a lack of respect for their religion.

This may surprise you, but I really don't have a problem with having a religion section in my local paper. I wish they would call it something other than "Faith and Values" because these terms, when used together, have an unpleasant political connotation. I'd also like to see broader content rather than having it so Christian-focused. Then again, I realize that the overwhelming majority of subscribers are Christian and would oppose anything else.

Tags: faith, values, newspaper, media, religion, Mississippi, Christian, Christianity, atheist, op-ed

For the Bible Tells Me So

2008-03-29T19:13:00.000-05:00

If you enjoy documentary films and have any interest whatsoever in the topic of homophobia in the Christian Church and the enormous toll it takes on countless American families, I highly recommend For the Bible Tells Me So. If you are homosexual or have homosexual children, especially if you are a Christian, it is a must-see.

I rented this one after hearing little about it and was pleasantly surprised. I watch many documentaries, and this was a great one. While some atheists may tire of the religious focus (e.g., the director and everyone in the film are unapologetically Christian), the message is worthwhile, and the film serves as a reminder that not all Christians are rabid extremists.

One of the key things I took from the film is that Christian teachings about homosexuality being an abomination and so on serve to create an environment in which violence is condoned. I realize this does not come as news to you, but I think this is a point that needs more attention and repetition in the media. Repeatedly labeling homosexuals as perverse, sinful, unnatural and the like, fosters violence and helps maintain the high suicide rate in the GLBT community.

How Come We Never Hear About Jewish Extremism?

2008-03-24T08:22:00.000-05:00

While reading an interesting post at Mike's Weekly Skeptic Rant, I had an interesting thought I'd like to share. The atheist blogosphere is filled with criticism for the Christian right, and Christian extremism is increasingly recognized as a pox on American society. So how come we almost never hear about Jewish extremism? I'm not just talking about the mainstream media here but about what you'll find on atheist blogs, including this one.

Frankly, Jewish extremism is something about which I devoted little thought. Maybe it is because I have never personally come in contact with a Jewish extremist. I have probably been more than casual acquaintances with no more than five Jewish people to this point in my life. Where I grew up, there simply was no Jewish presence. I met my first Jewish friend in college, and he was more atheist than religious extremist. Here in Mississippi, I work with a few Jewish individuals but once again, they are allies in church-state separation rather than extremists.

I realize that Jewish extremists exist. I watched CNN's God's Warriors series like many of you and saw the part on "Jewish Warriors." I've learned from the news that Israel has contributed its fair share to the conflict in the Middle East and is certainly not blameless for the long conflict in the region. I also recognize that at least some of U.S. policy in the Middle East is influenced by American Jews. Still, I've never bought into the Jewish conspiracy claims I've heard.

I've been criticized, mostly by Christians, for not devoting enough attention to Islamic extremists. I think some of this criticism is warranted even though I have tried to explain my rationale for focusing on Christian extremism. Interestingly, I don't recall ever being criticized for not addressing Jewish extremism more often.

What do you think? Why do we never hear about Jewish extremism, even in the atheist blogosphere?

Tags: atheist, Christian, Christian extremism, Jewish extremism, media, Jewish, Middle East, Islamic extremism, religious extremism