On the final night of the Republican National Convention, vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin attacked Democrat Barack Obama’s apparent disdain for small town values. Two days later, the Washington Times’s Web site ran a story that showed small town residents so angry about media coverage that they were all but carrying pitchforks. Joining the Republican ticket for the “McCain Street USA” tour in Cedarburg, Wisconsin, the Times’s Joseph Curl reported: “Hundreds of angry people in this small town outside Milwaukee taunted reporters and TV crews traveling with Sen. John McCain on Friday, chanting “Be fair!” and pointing fingers at a pack of journalists as they booed loudly.”
The intense media scrutiny of Palin, who was almost entirely unknown outside Alaska before McCain tapped her for VP two weeks ago, has prompted a renewed debate about the media’s “liberal bias.” Time’s Mark Halperin went so far as to publish a graphic suggesting that “Anti-Republican, liberal media bias” contributed to a “feeding frenzy” in which the press becomes a shark pursuing a saintly Sarah Palin. Glenn Greenwald of Salon in turn took Halperin to task, arguing that “to attribute the media scrutiny of Sarah Palin to this mythical ‘anti-Republican bias’ is absurd beyond description.” He cited archival news reports portraying the Alaska governor in many of the same terms by which she is being portrayed today.
It is no accident that Halperin pictures Palin with her hands clasped as if in prayer. Coverage of the Alaska governor’s religion—she is an evangelical Christian raised in an Assembly of God church who now belongs to a non-denominational congregation—has given some ammunition to those alleging bias on conservative people of faith. Juan Cole’s story in today’s Salon provocatively appropriates a joke Palin made in her acceptance speech last week to ask, “What’s the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.” Cole writes: “On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God’s will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts.”
While many Americans will be troubled by her beliefs in these areas, it seems a considerable leap to compare her unsuccessful efforts to remove books from a public library to the actions of fundamentalist regimes that actually succeed in limiting free speech, denying women drivers licenses, and curtailing a host of other civil liberties.
Though the New Yorker’s humorous “Shouts and Murmurs” section does not mention Palin, the disdain for evangelical Christians that it exhibits this week takes on a decidedly political cast against the backdrop of her nomination. Paul Rudnick imagines a Christian fitness center, whose proprietors are anti-Semitic, secret philandering child molesters, and obsessed with a simple mindedly puritanical attitude towards sex. In publishing this piece, the magazine lives up to the caricature of the “elite media” much more successfully than most Christians live up to the stereotypes Rudnick evokes.
But obviously over-the-top discussions of faith are outliers. The greatest challenge for the press is that language about religion in politics sounds very different on different sides of the ideological divide. On Sunday, The New York Times published a story headlined, “In Palin’s Life and Politics, Goal to Follow God’s Will.” Many people of faith might scratch their heads and wonder why such a statement was worthy of a news story at all—reporting that an observant Christian strives to do God’s will is like reporting that a running back strives to score touchdowns.
Though a few paragraphs mention her church’s social conservatism, the Times article is mostly apolitical, basically reporting that Palin is serious about her faith: “Interviews with the two pastors she has been most closely associated with here in her hometown … and with friends and acquaintances who have worshipped with her point to a firm conclusion: her foundation and source of guidance is the Bible, and with it has come a conviction to be God’s servant.” Why is that news?
Nicely done. I look forward to the article in which you attack the primarily Christian comments on atheists, or address the issue that atheists are misunderstood and misrepresented, up to and including the fact that in on poll they were less trustworthy than terrorists.
What you ask me, an atheist, to do is try and understand Palin's religion as inspiration for her politics. Really? Why should I do that when I consider her religion a myth? Admittedly Obama has stated he believes Christ is his personal savior, a position I find just as mystifying, but he hasn't ever, as far as I've read, stated that his politics is informed by his religion. Fundamentalists, Catholics, Pentacostals, Muslims and even Hindis all have beliefs I find disconcerting, but some believe their faith is a partner in governance of the U.S. more than others. To me, that is worth knowing and avoiding, and I think I'm entitled to that knowledge as much as the Christians are to their freedom of religion.
Posted by b8ovin on Wed 10 Sep 2008 at 01:53 AM
Well, of course the media should attack fundamentalist Christians -- just like any skeptical, even-handed media organization should criticize organized religion relentlessly.
The sooner we all realize that there is no Man in the Sky Who Reads Your Brain (and cares what you call him!), the better off every single member of the planet will be. It was so long ago we believed Zeus threw lightning from his hands onto people's heads.
It frightens me to think that we're two months away from having another dangerous religious zealot roaming the White House. It frightens me deeply.
(Obviously, I agree with you b8ovin. Shame so many others don't.)
Posted by mj on Wed 10 Sep 2008 at 02:44 AM
The quote about the NYT attributed to Fyfe gets to the heart of the bizarrely misplaced "liberal media" accusation coming incessantly from the right. The Times makes an innocent, value judgment free claim that Palin is guided by faith in her politics, and this is somehow some kind of secret dogwhistle message to the Times' ultraliberal readers? Last I checked, the Times has both a liberal and conservative readership and employs a good deal of conservatives and centrists on its editorial board. I'm unsure how else the Times would deal with a story about Palin's faith which, as an atheist, I do find somewhat newsworthy (FYI: check the sports page, there are stories there about running backs who want to score touchdowns every day).
The latest assault against the media coming from the right has no theological or theoretical bent: it's a tactic. Palin supporters have found a candidate they like (and good for them), but fear that she will not stand up to the scrutiny of the public eye. But to act like this scrutiny is something new that has never been applied to any other public servant is to protest a bit too much.
Posted by Evan Woodward on Wed 10 Sep 2008 at 09:04 AM
Thank you for a refreshingly balanced review of the subject (although the Palin as book banner myth has been debunked: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-09-Palin-book-ban_N.htm).
The current demonization of Evangelical Christians is no less offensive than anti-Semitism or racism. Would the New Yorker ever consider running a similar “humorous” article on Muslims, or blacks, or gays?
Posted by JLD on Wed 10 Sep 2008 at 09:08 AM
Admittedly Obama has stated he believes Christ is his personal savior, a position I find just as mystifying, but he hasn't ever, as far as I've read, stated that his politics is informed by his religion.
Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. – Barack Obama
Still gung ho for your messiah?
Well, of course the media should attack fundamentalist Christians -- just like any skeptical, even-handed media organization should criticize organized religion relentlessly
Welcome to the start of another 4 years in the political wilderness.
Last I checked, the Times has both a liberal and conservative readership and employs a good deal of conservatives and centrists on its editorial board.
Just cause someone doesn’t carry around a copy of Mao’s lil red book, doesn’t mean they are “centrists”. Your political compass is seriously warped.
Would the New Yorker ever consider running a similar “humorous” article on Muslims, or blacks, or gays?
Of course not, it takes balls to offend a Muslim. Talk as much shit as you want about a Christian and the worst you get is an angry letter or two, offend a Muslim they come and cut your head off. For all the talk the left does about “speaking truth to power” they whimper like little children when the going gets tough.
Posted by TDC on Wed 10 Sep 2008 at 09:40 AM
I hardly see that Palin's book banning has been "debunked". The factcheck.org link you posted yesterday confirmed that she asked the librarian about removing books. Even as a hypothetical question, most people find this a little alarming.
And re: the NYT op-ed page, Maureen Dowd, Roger Cohen, and Thomas Friedman count as more or less centrist to me. Herbert and Rich are the only two who tack to the left in any substantial way.
Posted by Evan Woodward on Wed 10 Sep 2008 at 11:06 AM
Only in this wacky world of "professional journalism" can "asking a library about removing books" possibly be transformed into an "unsuccessful efforts to remove books from a public library".
As for the "debunking" - here's the dish from factcheck.org"
"Actually, Palin never asked that books be banned; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time..."
If that ain't a "debunking" then nothing is.
Posted by padikiller on Thu 11 Sep 2008 at 09:44 PM