Concluding Address:  Where do we go from here?

What can faith groups and journalists do?

What can journalists and faith groups do to improve faith coverage in the mainstream media? A veteran journalist provides a few suggestions. A presentation by Lois Sweet to the June 7-9, 1998 Faith and the Media Conference We've spent the last couple of days critiquing and analyzing how the media deal with issues of faith--and now are probably hoping that this hasn't been an exercise in futility. But that's always a danger at events like these--to take an interesting issue, debate it, dissect it, and go away feeling something's been done when, really, it's just a necessary first step.  So--what do we do, where do we go--both as journalists and as members of faith groups--if we're concerned about improving faith coverage in the mainstream media?

By appropriate, I simply mean that the media take faith more seriously. That they cover it as if it matters. That they give faith the attention it deserves. Faith, after all, continues to motivate, inform, nurture, oppress, define, and direct--in short, to play a role in both the private and public lives of millions of Canadians. This should be reflected in the papers people read, the radio they listen to, and the television they watch.

By proportionate, I mean that faith be given the same kind of attention to accuracy and fairness that we give to other areas considered important enough to cover on a daily basis--like politics, health and education. If so, that would actually amount to a fair bit of coverage! The reality is that covering faith in a comprehensive way involves identifying the multitude of ways in which it intersects with virtually every area of life--whether it's law, politics, economics, entertainment, science, human rights, or multiculturalism.

It also means that faith coverage should be approached with the same kind of professionalism we bring to any other kind of reporting. To put it another way, it means approaching these stories--these issues--in neither a patronizing, nor a promotional, way. It almost seems ridiculous to have to point that out, but for some reason this beat can attract both.

By paternalism, I mean a tone to the writing that implies "What a quaint belief! How unusual!" The promotional approach--which is much more prevalent on designated Religion or Faith pages--is best characterized by lacking an edge, by expressing an attitude that's neither curious nor questioning, but which, instead, implicitly accepts the presumptions of the faith being covered--and, in most cases, it's Christianity.

In fact, covering faith should be seen as just one more aspect of the journalistic exploration. This means approaching stories and issues rationally--with curiosity and respect, and with a good dose of healthy skepticism. Our responsibility is not to promote a perspective, but to become aware of our own prejudices and to question them.

Yesterday, when reviewing the media scan analysis, I mentioned that what often was missing was a sense of context in stories. And when I examined stories on designated religion or faith pages, it seemed to me that they often were written with the assumption that people wouldn't read these stories unless they're believers. (And, of course, without a journalistic edge, this is probably true.)

But because faith has an impact on everyone's lives--believer and non-believer alike--it should be approached and covered with the interests of everyone in mind. Faith or religion pages shouldn't be newsletters for the faithful--they have their own vehicles for disseminating the party line. The responsibility of the mainstream media is to provide analytical coverage that looks at trends and movements within faith groups and examines how these trends influence, or are reflected in, society.

As I said yesterday, it's not just stories in the Faith or Religion pages ghetto that lack analysis and context. In fact, faith coverage generally lacks analysis and context. And to understand that, I think we have to recognize the cultural context within which all of this is happening. We live in a society in which conventional wisdom disdains faith and its manifestations--unless they're kept private. And while journalism is merely a microcosm of our larger society, it often does seem as if journalists as a whole are more secularist than their counterparts in other professions.

On the other hand, maybe they aren't more secularist, but they feel as if they have to present that image among their colleagues in order to be professionally acceptable. Coming to stories "objectively" is an important tenant of journalism, so admitting to being a practising, or believing, "whatever" could be considered an impediment to doing a good job.

But political journalists presumably have personal views about politics. But we assume it doesn't prevent them from giving fair coverage to views they don't happen to hold. The same principle applies to faith coverage. One's own perspective shouldn't color their writing to the point of covering things unfairly or inaccurately.

Then, of course, there's the fact that faith just isn't considered a very important beat--certainly not in the same league as covering politics or crime. When I made the decision to go for the Faith & Ethics beat at the Toronto Star for example, a number of colleagues took me aside and said, "Are you really sure you want to throw your career away?" That says everything about how this beat is viewed--as insignificant and end-of-the-line.

All of this means, of course, that journalists interested in covering faith have a number of very tough barriers to cross. The cultural aversion to faith is a serious problem with no simple solutions. But it does help to try to understand the origins of this negativity. And the reality is that many people, including journalists, have been hurt by organized religion--by oppressive religious institutions that maintain rigid rules about appropriate gender behavior, that suppress critical thinking, that verbally promote "tolerance" while practicing intolerance towards members of other religions, other races, or those of a different sexual orientation.

Perhaps some went through a school system that crammed a joyless Christianity down their throats. But they learned enough history to understand that religion has caused--and continues to cause--immense suffering. And so they think it's better to only pay attention to it in a re-active way--i.e. to report on a news event, but not in a substantial, analytical, on-going way.

Another problem for journalists is that it's a really hard beat to cover--because while faith is a powerful force in the world, it's disorganized. By its very nature, it's deeply pluralistic, sectional, and particularistic. For example, when people bring a religion from another country into urban Canada, certain changes may occur through time--changes which might conflict with the group's origins. The debate within the West Coast Sikh community over the use of tables and chairs in their Gurdwara is a case in point.

Even Roman Catholicism operates differently around the world. Liberation Theology, for example, is quite specific to Latin America. Understanding the particulars of faith groups--what kinds of accommodations are made, and where--is an important point of entry into the world of another faith.

There are also times when it seems as if the media and faith are two distinct and alien cultures. One is rooted largely in the search for facts, while the other is grounded in a discovery of faith beyond fact.

There's another problem which is also socially and culturally rooted; as products of this culture, most journalists are religiously illiterate. To be religiously illiterate is to be unfamiliar with belief systems--except possibly the one in which one was brought up. This means they don't have the vocabulary to speak fluently with others about faith. Now when I say "vocabulary," I don't mean just the words; I mean having the depth of understanding that allows one to appreciate religious concepts, and compare and contrast them--and to do so unselfconsciously.

Perhaps these things account, in part, for the uneasy relationship that faith groups and journalists often have. A sense of distrust--on both sides--gets in the way. Believers fear ignorance, mis-representation, and trivialization. They also often misinterpret skepticism for cynicism. For their part, journalists are afraid of not getting the whole story, of being conned, of taking something seriously that they've been told is a matter of superstition. Needless to say, they don't want to be seen to be giving credibility to something that they've been taught to regard as credulous. Perhaps not surprising, then, when I covered this beat, I found one of the biggest challenges was to develop a relationship with the people I interviewed that moved beyond defensiveness.

Another barrier for journalists is our own sense of ourselves. We often like to think of ourselves as intellectuals--and we want concrete proof in order to verify what we write. But issues of the spirit go well beyond facts and into that nebulous area called faith. And it's true that what some people believe is really quite hard to accept. But we don't have to believe in order to write about beliefs in a respectful way, or to attempt to understand them, or to put them in some sort of social perspective. (Which brings us back to why some faith groups distrust us; they think that unless we believe what they believe, we won't--we can't--do them justice.)

That really puts these faith groups between a rock and a hard place. Because while no coverage may often seem to them to be better than bad coverage, not being taken seriously in the media isn't in their long-term interests. All it does is ensure a position of marginality and perpetuate ignorance.

So what can members of faith groups do to ensure that the mainstream media give appropriate and proportionate attention to faith? Well, I think that many of the arguments they could make are precisely the same ones that interested journalists could make. To begin with, they could argue that if the media intend to live up to their self-avowed intention of truly reflecting society, then the importance that faith holds in millions of Canadian's lives should be more evident.

They could also argue that this country is changing; that this country, in fact, has already changed. We are a multicultural, multi-faith community and we can't begin to understand what Canada is about unless we take faith seriously. Good faith coverage could play an important role in understanding this new Canada, and could contribute to our ability to cope with the changes we're undergoing. Religion is a vital part of this country's national evolution and, as such, it's worthy of serious and on-going journalistic attention.

It was the multicultural aspect of this beat that attracted me to it. I looked at the demographics--both currently and projected--and was stunned at how dramatically Canada is changing. Then I looked at how we're covering those changes and was appalled. Basically, we avoid dealing with "the other"--with those who hold worldviews dramatically different from the mainstream. What this means is that we basically don't write about "the other" except in times of conflict.

Now, conflict, when it occurs, obviously must covered. But journalists are irresponsible if they don't take advantage of stories that could be covered in those times in-between. That's when bridges of understanding could be built by exploring the myriad ways in which faith is expressed across this country.

In fact, the best arguments for taking religion, or faith, seriously are political and social--they aren't moral. These arguments relate to the importance of faith in our political and social lives, and in the importance of understanding that role.

In addition, I've never been able to understand why the decision-makers in the media--those who are acutely aware of the corporate bottom-line--are so slow in recognizing that there are economic benefits to be reaped from covering faith well. There's a readership and there's a market, albeit largely untapped.

So--what can be done? Well, faith groups could be demanding better, and more accurate, coverage. And although they might not like this next suggestion, they could contribute to keeping journalists honest. Pursue reporters, call them on mistakes, write letters to the editor. In other words, take responsibility for correcting misinformation.

Yesterday, I used the example of the Globe & Mail story that referred to the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination as the "Christian and Military Alliance." That was actually a golden opportunity for that group to educate, not only the Globe reporter and its editors, but also its entire readership. Why didn't someone write an op-ed piece about that denomination--its origins, history, legacy, and why it isn't a "military alliance"--instead of letting it drop?

Here's another example. When the Christian celebration of Easter was about to begin, the Ottawa Citizen ran a story that began with the observation that it was unusual for so many religious groups to be celebrating holy days at the same time. Christians are observing the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, it said, Jews are observing Passover, and Muslims are celebrating the end of Ramadan.

Well, Muslims were indeed celebrating, but it wasn't the end of Ramadan. (That happened two months earlier.) They were celebrating the feast that marks the end of the pilgrimage to Mecca. This error could, in fact, have been used as an opportunity for Muslims to educate people about their beliefs and practices in the course of setting the record straight.

I'm sure some people are shaking their heads now, thinking "If we took on the job of keeping journalists honest, we'd have no time for anything else!" But you have to ask yourselves: "Is it purely a coincidence that the two faith groups that get the most coverage in the media--Roman Catholics and Jews--also have their own organizations monitoring how the media cover them, and then follow-up immediately when they take issue with that coverage?

Also, faith groups should make it their business to be available for comment and/or analysis. A non-defensive attitude when approached by the mainstream media can go a long way in creating a good foundation for further relations.

And what can serious journalists do to further the cause of giving more appropriate and more proportionate attention to issues of faith? Well, from a purely practical perspective, they can keep badgering editors with story ideas that address these issues. But I think it's very important to come up with non-institutional story ideas. There's obviously a place for such stories, but faith reporting should go far beyond that. When stories are confined to institutional structures, they tend to be narrow, anemic, and dry. To be relevant, writers must go beyond the obvious and approach issues with freshness and creatively.

There's also a case to be made for being aggressive. There are a lot of competing interests out there. Everyone thinks his or her story is the best story of the day and deserves front-page play. And sometimes your faith story may fit that bill, but unless you've got support from an editor who gives you the time to pursue the story, and then fights to give it that kind of play, it might get lost.

If you work for an institution that's reluctant to let you chase faith stories, then keep on persevering. Show your commitment to these issues by continuing to fight to cover them. Embark on a personal knowledge quest by learning all you can about faith. Talk to people, of course, but also read books about religion. There are lots of them out there and they can give you the kind of knowledge base you need to tackle these subjects intelligently.

And if media outlets are going to take faith seriously, then they have to help develop reporters in their effort to become specialists. And they should do this because it's specialists who are best equipped to write stories in context, and, on an on-going basis, to write stories that draw on that context, and that relate to ones that were done in the past.

Faith reporters, of course, must treat people's views seriously even when they are anathema to them. This means exploring where these views came from. Again, I have to stress the importance of becoming religiously literate, of being well-enough educated to be tested in that capacity.

After all, when we read political stories, we check out the writer and give more credibility to reporters we've learned to trust. By that, I mean reporters who've built up a knowledge-base from which to draw, who don't take cheap shots, who have good contacts, who report fairly and accurately, and who provide context and analysis. We need the same with faith coverage.

And, once on the beat, journalists have to leave conventional wisdom behind, and, talk with people of faith, and learn how they identify themselves, what motivates them, and how they position themselves in relation to the broader society.

Finally, gatherings such as this that bring members of the media and representatives of different faith groups together to explore their relationship can only help us move in that direction.

Lois Sweet has been a journalist for over 20 years. She has worked as a producer in Yellowknife for the National Film Board of Canada, in Edmonton for CBC Radio and as a columnist for both the Edmonton Journal and the Toronto Star. Most recently, she was the faith and ethics reporter for the Star. In 1992 she won a Southam Fellowship to study race relations at the University of Toronto. In 1995 she was awarded the Atkinson Fellowship in Public Policy to examine the interplay between religion and education in a multicultural society. Her book, God in the Classroom: The Controversial Issue of Religion in Canada’s Schools was published by McClelland & Stewart in 1997.

Return to top