From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Fri Apr 04 2003 - 07:35:57 EST
Denyse O'Leary wrote:
>
> RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
> > The media does not want evolutionists to look at religion. The media leftists
> > wants organized religion ended. That is why the media will air a creationist
> > or any crackpot before airing a credible intelligent religious Christian man.
>
> Now here I must jump in, because I work in media.
>
> Please! There is no long-term media plan regarding religion. No such
> plan is even possible.
>
> Media people tend to be less religious than others, but that mostly
> works against the media people, not for them.
>
> They keep barking their shins on stories they should have been covering.
> They lose credibility as a result.
>
> Believe me, in a world whose biggest public story is Islamic extremism,
> ignorance about religion is NOT an adaptive trait in a journalist.
>
> Example: Many New Yorkers would be alive today if enough media people
> had paid attention to real news in religion to broadcast the threat
> mounted by international Islamic extremism and the relatively weak and
> conflicted US response prior to 9-11.
>
> In recent years, many media outlets have beefed up their religion
> coverage precisely in order to prevent further embarrassment, eventually
> leading to disaster, due to ignorance and incompetence.
>
> There IS opportunity out there. What are you doing to take advantage of it?
>
> (Lefty's opinions are not news and they usually run on a slow news day.)
>
> > It is not the the demand for your events is low but the media funnel prevents
> > your message from getting to the people who could apprehend it and respond to
> > it, there are countless rationally bound religionists who've lost the faith
> > and need to know that religion is not irrational.
>
> Okay, so we have now identified an action question: How do you get
> through the media funnel?
>
> Here are some related questions:
>
> - Who do you think should attend your event?
> - What media sources reach them?
> - Who writes for those sources? (Many journalists now publish e-mail
> addresses, so if you don't know them yet, you could change that. Study
> the articles and columns, and pick a journalist who is relatively
> thoughtful, who covers an area relevant to science.)
> - What can you offer the journalist as a story that people would read?
> Are you willing to debate the creationist publicly? Call a press
> conference of local Christian evolutionists in science for the afternoon
> of the evening that he speaks?
>
> How about sponsoring a debate between a Christian evolutionist and one
> of a number of ID speakers with science credentials? You might be able
> to tie it in to science teaching issues, and draw in the school board
> reporter.
>
> You might also take the opportunity to affirm belief in academic
> freedom. There have been several recent incidents where people with
> unorthodox views on evolution have received a rough ride. A competent
> journalist would want to know where you stand on this. Where does ASA stand?
>
> The thing to remember is that opinions, by themselves, are not usually a
> story. You have to make your opinions into a story by making them count
> for something.
>
> > "Once the reasoning associated with scientific thought loses its status as
> > the only adaptive way to think, othe forms of thought associated with
> > religion cease to be objects of scorn and incomprehension and can be studied
> > as adaptations in their own right." David Sloan Wilson - Darwin's Cathedral
> >
>
> Bear in mind that most religious people despise anyone who believes
> things because they are adaptive and not because they are true. This
> quality, known as "cynical opportunism," is not widely admired anywhere.
I agree with much of what you (Denyse) say here. A few comments -
Helping the church to deal intelligently with issues of creation & evolution
should not be a matter of just individual efforts. There needs to be cooperation
between scientists, theologians & PR (or if you will, communications) people. One
person can't - & shouldn't try to be - everything. I make no claim to PR expertise.
It's churches - denominations if you wish - which ought to be expending some
effort, resources, &c to communicate sound theological views of evolution. They have
the resources, some communications networks &c - to do this. The problem is that most
churches fall into one of the following categories:
a) Opposed to evolution, & thus themselves part of the problem.
b) Willing to "accept" - more precisely, put up with - evolution, but not
wanting to say anything about it for fear of offending conservative members. (The fact
that thereby they may offend scientifically literate members & drive away potential
members usually doesn't occur to them.
c) Have no problem with evolution but don't make any effort to help people
understand it theologically.
The Presbyterian Church in the USA has made some attempt to deal with these
matters but by & large, efforts have been made by individual scientists or theologians.
I do not think that debates are a useful way to go. I have a low opinion of
formal "debates" in general, for they encourage people to go for debating points rather
than truth. Of course that's why skilled lawyers like Johnson love them. But Socrates
had a point when (if I remember correctly) he wanted to ban rhetoricians from "our
well-ordered state."
What I'd like to see is for some of the mainline churches to put together a
well-financed & well produced theologically & scientifically sound TV special presenting
an unabashedly positive view of evolution. There could & should be some disagreements
expressed about various matters but no need for clips of Dawkins, Ham &c.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Apr 04 2003 - 07:54:14 EST