Looking back on 2008, the Church certainly had its share of major and controversial news stories. Overall, the Church made great strides to define itself despite a sometimes adversarial, not always accurate media.
Many (mostly us conservative nutjobs) have described 2008 as the year that “journalism died” in the aftermath of the presidential campaign coverage. The unbalanced coverage of the religions of Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama did not help.
While Gov. Romney was relentlessly asked about his personal beliefs and expected to answer for his Church’s long-abandoned practices of polygamy and excluding blacks from the priesthood, there was virtually no scrutiny of the religious beliefs taught at Sen. Obama’s church. I’m not even sure how much a candidate’s personal religious beliefs should be questioned. But a media that seemed so concerned with a candidate’s “lack of curiosity” showed zero interest in the theology of Trinity United Church of Christ. Even putting religion aside, Sen. Obama was never held to account for the radical anti-American, racist, and conspiracy-mongering politics preached there by his self-described spiritual mentor.
Following the news, you would not be faulted for believing that Romney’’s Mormon Church was exactly the same as it was 120 years ago while Obama hadn’t been a member of Rev. Wright’s church for the last 20 years.
For a little objective evidence, consider a study released by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life on media coverage of religion during the primary campaigns. It’s difficult to compare the two directly as the focus on Romney’s religion was relentless, starting two years before he announced his candidacy, while the Obama religious coverage spiked for a few weeks in March and April.
But here are some interesting tidbits from the Pew study:
- While only 2% of all the campaign stories directly focused on religion, “more than one-third (35%) of all religion-related campaign stories focused on Romney, a Mormon.”
- “when Obama gave a speech to quell concerns over the controversial statements of his former pastor, both the campaign and the press steered the emphasis toward the race angle of the story. . . For about every 50 news stories that primarily focused on race, only one took a distinctively religious angle.”
- “Nearly one-third (30%) of Romney’s media coverage in 2007 focused on his Mormon faith. No other candidate even came close to receiving the same amount of attention to their faith that year.”
Interestingly, they did both give highly-touted speeches in response to controversies about their churches. However, while Obama’s speech was well-received and was able to brush off further questioning by resigning from the church, Romney’s speech did little to stop the questioning about his, and may have even fueled more.
Of course, a serious Mormon candidate running for national office is a novelty that should be expected to garner media attention. But the relentless coverage turned the question of how Romney’s faith would affect his campaign into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
From the day he entered the race on Feb. 13, 2007, Romney’s affiliation with the Mormon church dominated his media image more than anything else. On Feb. 18, 2007, during a Florida campaign event, Romney was heckled by an attendee who announced, “You do not know the Lord … you are a Mormon.” The moment was captured on video and replayed frequently over the course of the next 24 hours, gaining a thorough treatment on cable news shows.
Media analysis of the heckling incident kicked off what would become a pattern over the course of Romney’s ultimately unsuccessful campaign: Journalists often expressed sympathy for a candidate subject to anti-Mormon sentiment while simultaneously fueling the fire by suggesting his religion could be an impediment to his electability. For instance, on the Feb. 19, 2007, edition of CNN’s The Situation Room, correspondent Carol Costello noted that Romney’s courteous response to the heckler earned him a standing ovation, but she also predicted that “Romney’s faith will dog him.”
Nothing Romney said seemed to satisfy the pondering whether his religion would hurt him. The media kept asking him but never seemed to listen.
In contrast, much of the media seemed painfully hesitant to touch Obama’s faith and church while eager to clarify any mischaracterizations, even by the candidate himself. I’m sure there are various reasons for this but unfortunately I think it will be a long time until a Mormon candidate will get the kid-gloves treatment like this:
(Possibly) Related posts:
Tags: anti-mormons, Barack Obama, media, Mitt Romney
-
Very well written.
Interestingly enough, I was openly mocked back in December 2007 by my co-workers when I suggested that Romney was the best choice for the GOP nomination. I argued that come election time, the wars were not going to be the issue, instead, the economy would take front stage. I insisted that Romney was the only candidate ready to take on such problems. Automatically, they thought I was sympathetic because of my membership in the Church, and didn’t know what I was thinking. In the wake of our current economic woes, none of my colleagues have recanted.
Where have all the real journalists gone? It seems as though the media has evolved from presenting the news to pontificating so as to fill its not-so-hidden agenda.
-
Dave,
It is going to be a long 4 to 8 years for you (though I never view you as a nutjob). Happy New Year.
Chris H.
-
The irony is that I have been insisting that he is not a flaming socialist, while at the same time hoping that he is one. I will be proven right on the first argument, but my hope is looking like it will not come about.
-
It is probably worth noting that the attention given to Romney’s religion was largely a result of the evangelical base of his own party making it an issue, and not initiated by the left-leaning media, as you suggest here. Certainly the media is not in the wrong for reporting on, asking about, and addressing the very problems many members of the Republican party have about a front-runner for their party’s presidential nominee.
And do you think it might at least be possible that the attention the Jeremiah Wright issue received decreased after Obama’s speech and the attention to Romney’s Mormonism increased (or at least remained steady) following his own speech was a result of the fact that Obama’s speech actually addressed the questions and concerns and Romney’s speech was at times ambiguous, and like his campaign as a whole, poorly constructed and delivered??
-
Great post.
Even SNL has noticed that Obama didn’t receive a thorough treatment by the media.
The year journalism died indeed. -
To be honest, I would have mocked you too for your belief that Romney was the best candidate — or even a very good candidate. The guy was terrible. He pandered to the worst instincts of the modern Republican Party. And I did not much appreciate his defense of his religion at all. He may have been a brilliant businessman, but as a national leader he would have been a big flop.
-
I always complain about the mainstream media bias, but I never pay much attention to them, so in a sense I have already done what I can to stop “rewarding their efforts”. Can’t think of much that I can do to persuade *others* to stop listening to them though. It’s too bad that biased college professors have such ready access to so many young adults right at the time when they are developing their political awareness. Anyone in favor of home schooling for college-age kids ?
-
Anyone in favor of home schooling for college-age kids?
It is call not going to college.
If an 18 year old cannot handle of process differing and contrasting views, they should not be in college.
I do not try to hide my bias, it is clear from day one that I am a liberal. Heck, anyone will multiple degrees in a subject but who has not come to any directions or conclusions should not teach.
-
That should read:
“Anyone in favor of home schooling for college-age kids?
It is called not going to college.
If an 18 year old cannot handle or process differing and contrasting views, they should not be in college.
I do not try to hide my bias, it is clear from day one that I am a liberal. Heck, anyone will multiple degrees in a subject but who has not come to any directions or conclusions should not teach.”
Obviously I do not teach Speed Writing with Accuracy 101.
-
David, do you have any evidence that the media brought up Romney’s Mormonism as an issue prior to members of Romney’s own party bringing it up? I am doubtful that you do (or that any evidence exists at all), but am willing to be corrected on this point.
On the second point … Romney’s speech was fine overall. But even if it was the amazing speech you suggest, it clearly didn’t satisfy suspicious evangelical Republicans. Remember, it was they that Romney needed to convince that his religion was not a problem (and not the left-leaning media, many of whom would have loved (especially at that time) to have Romney as the Republican nominee because they saw him as unelectable against a surging Obama or the Clinton political machine).
Regarding Obama’s speech: Please explain to me how you can separate the issues of race and religion in the African American religious experience in America. Because the most inflammatory and criticized of Reverend Wright’s comments dealt directly with race from a theological persepective, I fail to see how Obama approaching the issue in his speech from the race angle constitutes “a complete dodge.” Such a characterization demonstrates a general lack of familiarity with the Black American religious experience and misses the genius of Obama’s speech–he turned a significant personal problem (Wright’s abrasive sermons threatening his political candidacy) into an opportunity to address a problem (racism) that plagues the larger American community.
-
“If an 18 year old cannot handle or process differing and contrasting views, they should not be in college.”
But the problem is that liberal-biased professors accumulate on college campuses to the point where students hardly even know there *is* a contrasting view. And I’m sure that such professors would be perfectly happy for those students with differing views to stay off campus (less competition for Groupthink). I have conservative friends who are employed on college campuses and/or working on advanced degrees and they can never be open with their views for fear of professional or academic repercussions. That is shameful.
“I do not try to hide my bias, it is clear from day one that I am a liberal. Heck, anyone will multiple degrees in a subject but who has not come to any directions or conclusions should not teach.”
But it is never presented in the classroom as just one person’s opinion. It is nearly always presented as “the truly educated people believe as I do…and anyone who disagrees with me is an ignoramus”.
-
Have you ever been in my class? Surely not. I am also the only leftist on the campus where I teach. There is not shortage of conservative-biased teachers here.
“But it is never presented in the classroom as just one person’s opinion.”
Actually, I do present it that way.
-
What I do not understand is how David H Sundwall could attend a law school with some of the greatest liberals alive on the faculty (Ed Firmage and Leslie Francis) and still be a conservative.
-
I had a seminar from Francis in philosophy (ADA, disability, and ethics). I actually did not do that great, but the paper I wrote for it eventually transformed in the my master’s essay. As a political philosopher, I often wished to be in the philosophy dept rather than in political science. I was never smart enough. Her husband (John) was a political science prof, though I knew Leslie better.
-
“People’s Republic of Montgomery County, MD”
LOL! Richard (my brother) calls it that too. In looking at Repulican counties like Madision County where I live and where McCain got 85 percent, it was interesting to see that 73 percent of Montgomery went for Obama.


19 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://asoftanswer.com/2009/01/02/jeremiah-wright-vs-brigham-young/trackback/