Cutting on the Bias

by Chuck Colson                                                                                               Vol. VI, No. 5, June 1993

[Reprinted from Jubilee, Prison Fellowship newsletter, April 1993.]

When he recently addressed a Christian organization on the subject of anti-Christian bias, Florida television anchor Lee Webb joked that he was speaking "on the condition that no one tell the media I'm here." They "might not appreciate it," he explained.

Someone did tell the media. And Webb was right: They didn't appreciate his speech. His station suspended him for three days.

Then, just a few days later, the Washington Post ran a front-page article exhibiting just the bias Webb had described.

Citing the flood of phone calls to the White House on the issue of homosexuals in the military, the piece observed that fundamentalist leaders can ignite a "grass-roots firestorm." Sarcastically referring to Christian political action groups as the "Gospel grapevine" and Christian phone networks as "dial-a-lobby," the Post's reporter cited the galvanizing influence of Christian leaders. "Their followers are largely poor, uneducated and easy to command," he concluded.

Christians in D.C. read their newspapers that morning and choked on their coffee. No one had to "command" those who called the Post to protest the slanted reporting. And what followed showed both the depth of the media bias against Christians and the height of their oblivion to it.

First, though, a few crumbs were dispensed in the name of journalistic objectivity. The Post's "corrections" box noted that "there is no factual basis for [the] statement" that followers of fundamentalist preachers are largely impoverished, unenlightened sheep. Reporter Michael Weisskopf apologized – sort of – saying it was "an honest mistake."

Then, showing just how deeply ingrained his bias is ingrained, Weisskopf said he hadn't caught the opinionated tone of the piece because in his view he was merely repeating notions that are "universally accepted."

This is like a member of the Ku Klux Klan saying that he failed to discern his own racism because in his view he was merely articulating the common beliefs of racists.

But Weisskopf's answer, though shocking, is honest; in the world of the media, it seems that a negative view if Christians is almost universally accepted. Several Post editors had reviewed Weisskopf's piece; not one had caught its derogatory tone.

The same day that the Post article appeared, the New York Times ran an Anthony Lewis column similarly criticizing Christian political action, saying that it is "orchestrated by ... conservative extremists." Lewis denounced Christian radio call-in programs as "Thug Radio."

Wait a minute. Can you imagine such descriptions being levied against any other group? Make a racial slur, and like Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott, you'll be suspended, fined, and publicly castigated. Utter a politically incorrect phrase on a college campus, and you'll be sentenced to a "sensitivity training" workshop. Breathe a thought that might be interpreted as derogatory toward homosexuals, and you'll be branded a homophobic, intolerant hate-monger. Assert that members of the media are biased against Christians, and, like Lee Webb, you'll be suspended. Christians seem to be the only group that the hyper-sensitive, hyper-tolerant media bash with impunity.

But there's no dark conspiracy at work here. It's just that no matter how objective a reporter seeks to be (and some seek it more diligently than others), no one can totally divorce himself from his world view. Secular minded journalists who see an allegiance to absolute truth as a transgression against tolerance will hardly be able to discern what motivates Christians who oppose inclusion of homosexuals in the military, for example. Their perspective restricts their ability to truly perceive another point of view.

And, if we are honest, we must also admit that some of the media's caricature is our own fault. Some Christians have argued issues in a one-dimensional or uncharitable way in the past; we must constantly seek to articulate a Christian perspective winsomely, insightfully, with love.

But there may well be another factor at work here. What seems to irk some journalists is that conservative Christians are bypassing them and sharing information directly, through faxes, talk radio, even Jubilee and "BreakPoint" ... yes, the "Gospel grapevine." We are not passively accepting the nightly news version of truth; in fact, we are anything but "uneducated and easy to command." And as we discern issues for ourselves, we surely won't concede on issues like abortion and homosexuality just because another point of view prevails at the moment.

Perhaps that's really what makes the media so nervous.