Article 1 “What should be the media policy about identifying a person’s faith in their reporting?”
Rabbi Reuven Bulka is head of Congregation Machzikei Hadas in Ottawa and host of Sunday night with Rabbi Bulka on 580 CFRA.
Ottawa Citizen, January 2, 2011. Reprinted with author’s permission.
Consistent fairness. No more, and no less.
I am not sure it is the media’s business to announce a person’s faith every time it reports on an issue involving people. Where does it end? Every time we mention a politician, are we obliged to announce that politician’s faith or lack of it?
And if we are going to announce the person’s faith or lack of it, why not announce that person’s favourite food, or least favourite food, how many naps they take per day, and their preferred vacation spot?
There are times when people of faith do things which are media worthy — either positive or negative. Certainly, a religious leader who is caught in a scandal will receive more than a full measure of opprobrium, and deservedly so.
The impression created is that it was the religion that caused the deviance. That conclusion is absurd, but it is certainly suggested — though hopefully not intended. What is clear is that the espoused religious faith did not prevent the deviance. And it is almost impossible to avoid faith identification when it involves a religious leader.
On the other hand, if a religious leader does something extraordinarily commendable, then it is only fair that the person’s faith be part of the reporting equation. Generally, the media are OK on this, even though the chances are greater that a scandal will be reported than a good deed will be reported. But that imbalance is true of everyone, not just religious leaders. “Man bites dog” is more newsworthy than “dog bites man.”
This issue becomes more of a challenge when it involves someone other than a religious leader. Tiger Woods’s religion was not part of the immediate media reporting of his escapades. Yet he himself admitted that part of his problem was that he strayed from his faith. One can have no quarrel with the media reporting this, as it was the subject himself (Woods) who opened up this pathway of reporting.
Otherwise, unless the matter being reported, for good or for bad, was linked to faith, there is no reason to mention it. In other words, whatever the media decide to do, it must be fair and consistent, not one rule for people of faith and another for those who lack faith.