Main

September 26, 2006

Truth be told

Today I was browsing through the exhibits at the conference when I stumbled upon an interesting new product called Layered Voice Analysis (LVA).

LVA is software that analyzes 129 frequency parameters found in the human voice and provides an emotional/psychological profile of the speaker. It shows, for example, when a subject is being deceptive, excited or stressed.

To illustrate LVA's capabilities, the vendor had set up a large plasma screen showing the software running alongside a clip of Bill Clinton's now famous debate with Mike Wallace on Faux News.

As Clinton was speaking, the word "Truthful" continually flashed on the screen, punctuated occasionally by "High Levels of Stress". Who said telling the truth was easy? On several occasions when Wallace interjected or responded, the word "Inaccuracy" would flash on the screen.

I'm not making this up. I only watched a couple of minutes but found the demonstration fascinating. Now when can I buy a set-top box version to attach to my TV?

Of course, for watchers of Faux News, you wouldn't need to invest in this technology. Just place a sign on top of your set that says, "Lies, Damned Lies and Lying Liars" and you'll be set.

September 24, 2006

Fundamentally speaking

More on the very real similarities between fundamentalisms — Christian and Islamic.

The current issue of The Christian Century has an article by United Methodist minister Paul Jeffrey on the difficulties faced by NGOs providing earthquake relief in Pakistan. The local director of Church World Service (CWS) describes some of the measures that have had to be adopted by western aid agencies in order to avoid showing disrespect to local tradition and culture, while still providing urgently needed relief.

Interestingly, the foreign influence that causes the most trouble with the locals is not western secularism or feminism, but conservative evangelical Christianity. Operations such as Samaritan's Purse, whose leader Franklin Graham has attacked Islam as a "very wicked and evil religion", seem all to ready to exploit the earthquake victims and their suffering as an opportunity to evangelize.

Blatant proselytizing mixed with religious intolerance can be volatile for all involved. Such an approach to aid is not only inflammatory, but can well endanger other Christian and western aid groups and damage good relations NGOs have taken years to build with local communities.

In the article, Jeffrey observes two interesting parallels between fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity.

Firstly, both types of groups have flourished under US taxpayer funding. Islamist extremists got their headstart under Reagan with billions in US funding channeled through the Pakistan security forces. Based on what I learned this weekend on terrorist funding, such groups still manage to draw funding (albeit limited) through USAID by posing as legitimate charities. On the other hand, Christian fundamentalist organizations have in recent years been the primary recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to "faith-based" initiatives. In both cases much of the funding was and is diverted to proselytizing, political activity and other questionable ends.

Secondly, in troubled theaters like Pakistan and Iraq, both groups of extremists continue to foster discord among the ordinary people, posing a challenge to real relief efforts. Jeffrey quotes Marvin Pervez of CWS commenting how you hear the same type of shrill jeremiad coming from both the local church and the mosque, "as if the clergy and the mullahs exchange notes."

Another parallel is how fundamentalists of both persuasions will try to appear reasonable and compassionate in their efforts to win hearts and minds to the cause. For instance, Hezbollah is known for its charity and welfare work in Palestine. Various groups affiliated with al-Qaeda are known for the support for widows and families of suicide bomb 'martyrs'.

Likewise, on the Christian right you see furious opposition to women's reproductive choice and gay civil rights dressed up for the media and general public as compassionate "concern for the unborn" and for the "protection of marriage". But behind closed doors the real agendas of keeping women "in their place" and eliminating the homosexual 'problem' are openly discussed.

Ralph Reed does the same thing in his recent debate with Jim Wallis on God's Politics Blog. Among various other misrepresentations, he even manages to characterize the fundamentalist obsession with Israel (based on its belief in the end-times, which culminates in Israel's ultimate and horrific annihilation at Armageddon, as foretold by fundamentalist eschatology) as a social justice issue.

Pam Spauling noted a similar trend on her blog today, where she discussed Jerry Falwell's comparison of Hillary Clinton to Satan during private remarks to like-minded pastors at the Value Voters Summit. Falwell is an extremist and works closely with others who can be considered even more extreme than he is, but he likes to come across to the general public as a genial defender of the faith. Mel White has documented at length, in Religion Gone Bad, how these ideologues will say one thing in public, trying to sound as reasonable as possible, whilst uttering dark invective to foot soldiers when they suppose the media aren't paying attention.

The point of all this is not to attempt to equate Jerry Falwell or Franklin Graham with Osama bin Laden. To compare isms is not to equate them, nor to suggest moral equivalency between one kind of outrage and another. In any case, charges from the right of 'moral relativism' do not successfully detract from the validity of observations that similar dynamics appear to be at work in both.

September 19, 2006

What straw man?

Ralph Reed blames the media for creating a "straw man" that "religious conservatives focus on one or two issues or somehow believe that other issues lack a moral component."

In a response to Jim Wallis on God's Politics, Reed says he believes there is no disagreement between religious liberals and conservatives that "there are many issues of moral concern beyond marriage and abortion."

Reed speaks of

the tendency to focus on controversy over healing and reconciliation. Where religion and politics intersect, the media spotlight generates more heat than light. If a religious leader speaks out on gay rights, media coverage is extensive and often sensational. But when Franklin Graham helps tsunami victims or the Southern Baptist Convention assists Hurricane Katrina victims, there is scant press coverage. So we must do more to raise the profile of works of compassion outside the prevailing stereotype that defines religious folk engaged in public life.

Granted that evangelicals, including religious conservatives, are active in areas of social concern. Yet further on he reinforces the so-called "straw man" when he confesses that abortion and homosexuality are central concerns of religious conservatives:

In our own time, issues of life are prominent in our politics, especially since Roe v. Wade. Religious conservatives did not create this issue and did not seek it out to benefit the Republican Party; indeed, most of them were Democrats until the 1980's. But the nation's conscience is unsettled by one out of every three pregnancies ending in the death of an unborn child, and people of faith should address it persistently and prominently. And when the courts began to impose a redefinition of marriage, people of faith were right to speak out consistent with their beliefs and values.

This obsession with a small number of narrowly defined 'moral' issues is not the creation of a sensationalist media. It reflects the active agendas of the majority of religious right organizations. The Christian Coaltion, led by Reed from 1989 to 1997, is a case in point.

According to the Coalition's About Us page, the organization's primary focus involves representing the "pro-family agenda", ending "Partial Birth Abortion" and lowering income taxes. "Pro-family" of course is code for anti-homosexual. A glance at their 2006 legislative agenda shows the same priorities along with conservative judicial appointments, tax-exemption for partisan political advocacy, increased media censorship and eliminating the constitutional separation of church and state. No mention of hurricane reconstruction, foreign aid or other "works of compassion outside the prevailing stereotype."

Let's see if other religious right organizations have a broader focus. Take Focus on the Family, for instance. FOTF's five guiding principles includes two broadly social objectives, namely support for traditional marriage (#2) and opposition to abortion (#4). The "hot topics" for families are listed prominently on the home page: Divorce, Military Families, Single Parents, Internet Safety for Kids, P-rnography, Homosexuality, Abortion, Worldview and Culture.

A search of the Focus website turns up 2,199 results for the words "homosexual" and "gay" (more than the number of mentions for "Jesus"), 1,355 for "abortion", 411 for "abstinence", and 363 for that 'p' word my web hosting service doesn't allow me to use...

On the other hand, there are 553 references to "discipline" (the term that made James Dobson a household name), 342 to "compassion", 254 to "mercy", 232 to "minimum wage", 154 to "poverty", 203 to "AIDS", 81 to "Katrina", 39 to "tsunami" and a mere 12 to "Darfur".

I could go on with more examples from other organizations on the religious right, but the data makes one thing clear: media coverage of religious right reflects the movement's own stated priorities. They are obsessed with issues like homosexuality and abortion to the general exclusion of what many mainline Christians would consider other equal or more weighty "moral issues".

August 31, 2006

Propaganda

The US military plans to spend more taxpayer money in an effort to influence media coverage on Iraq. The Washington Post reports that the military command in Baghdad has issued a request for bid on a two-year, $20 million public relations contract.

Apparently the incumbent PR firm, the Rendon Group, isn't doing a good enough job.

There is a concern that existing media coverage does not adequately present the official perspective on events in the Middle East. And apparently Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is none too happy about that. As the statement of work asserts,

Therefore, it is essential to the success of the new Iraqi government and the Coalition mission that both communicate effectively with our strategic audiences (i.e., Iraqi, pan-Arabic, international, and U.S. audiences) to gain widespread acceptance of their core themes and messages.

The successful contractor will be tasked with providing

the full range of strategic communication, media relations, communication research, and public relations services required to meet Coalition mission, monitoring and reporting Arabic and Western print and electronic media, including gathering raw data, analyzing and reporting effectiveness of communication programs, developing and staffing communication plans, developing and providing public relations products, and identifying methods for applying products to improve MNF-I’s mission performance.

The services provided by the contractor(s) have a core objective…engage and inspire targeted audiences.

The project is expected to require a team of 12-18 PR professionals, who will monitor US and international news sources and develop "product placement" that supports the Bush administration's "core themes and messages" on Iraq. Product placement will include preparing press releases, developing talking points and FAQs, writing op eds for publication, providing media training to officers, etc.

The worse things get on the ground, the more the administration spends ramping up the propaganda machine. And with with that machine in full force, the specter of media intimidation and censorship cannot be far behind.

As the Washington Post reports,

The monitors are to analyze stories to determine the "dissemination of key themes and messages" along with whether the "tone" is positive, neutral or negative. The media outlets would be monitored for how they present coalition or anti-Iraqi force operations.

What will happen to those outlets who are perceived to be too negative in tone or not sufficiently appreciative of the administration's "core themes and messages"?

August 12, 2006

Why Katie can't be trusted

Wolf in grandma's clothingFred Clarkson at Talk to Action links to a provocative article posted at Media Transparency by Rev. Dr. Andrew Weaver on the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). If you care about religious freedom or the state of democracy in this country I encourage you to read this real eye-opener. If there ever was a conspiracy in this country to undermine the American way of freedom, then the IRD and its cohorts are surely at the center of it.

Dr. Weaver, a United Methodist minister, reveals the influence of powerful neoconservative Catholics, led by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, who drive the IRD agenda "to neutralize and overturn the social justice tradition of mainline Protestant churches". These aims are carried out through public attacks against mainline Christian and Jewish leaders, and through funding and support for so-called "renewal" groups within Protestant denominations whose fundamental purpose is to take over the leadership and assets of those denominations and eliminate their involvement in liberal and progressive causes.

As I noted in a prior post, the Star Tribune's resident neoconservative social commentator Katherine Kersten was (until very recently) a member of the IRD's Board of Advisors. Her views on every social and politcal issue — from environmentalism and immigration to same sex marriage and welfare — mirror exactly those of the IRD and its wealthy sponsors.

Continue reading "Why Katie can't be trusted" »

June 24, 2006

Kersten's IRD connection highlighted in Strib

Kersten in a previous lifeOne of those questions that bugs the hell out of me is why the Star Tribune retains a theocrat like Katherine Kersten to write ostensibly 'local' commentary that is little more than thinly veiled rhetoric for the extreme religious right.

Kersten has written a number of pieces like this one, highly critical of mainstream religious efforts to promote diversity. This should come as little surprise to anyone who knows from whence this poisonous woman hails. Kersten sits on the advisory board of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), a right wing political action group dedicated to undermining and destroying the social witness of mainstream denominations such as the Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians and United Church of Christ. The IRD privately funds and supports fundamentalist splinter factions in each of these churches, in much the same way that Tehran funds Islamist groups in moderate Arab nations.

So bravo for a the group of retired United Methodist clergy who responded today with a sharp expose of Kersten's tactics.

June 19, 2006

The faithful middle

The Star Tribune published quite a good piece the other day on the resurgence of progressive Christian voices in the public sphere.

Nationwide, new books and websites are raising the flag of the religious left. In Minnesota, the trend has been evident in such arenas as the legislative debate over a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Evangelicals and Catholics who back a ban faced church activists who argued that godliness was on their side. The chorus of liberal religious voices also has been heard on poverty, immigration and taxes ...

"People of faith have to help govern," [director of the Joint Legislative Religious Coalition, Brian] Rusche said. "The religious right tends to quote the Bible, while the left is moved by the longer narratives in which God calls people to do works of justice.

"People should use their beliefs to assess policy, but once you enter the civic realm, you have to honor religious pluralism," he said.

Rabbi Michael Lerner, author of "The Left Hand of God" and founder of the nationwide Network of Spiritual Progressives, said the religious right rose when it "addressed the spiritual void people felt when the dominant values were selfishness and materialism."

Liberals trying to keep talk of values out of the public sphere "only succeeded in keeping talk of their values out," he said. "The Constitution doesn't ban values in the public sphere. It only says the state should not impose a particular vision of God on us."

Of course, the mainstream media likes to characterize every issue in terms of binary opposites, and so spiritual progressives are represented as the "left" in counterpoint to the religious right.

In reality, Christian progressives represent the faithful middle ground between fundamentalism and secularism. In an e-mail sent today to friends of United Theological Seminary, Jaime Meyer put it this way:

It’s important to remember that what the media likes to call “left” or “liberal” is, actually, the middle of the road theologically. Religious liberals or progressives have long sought to articulate a view of God, Christ and the scriptures that is deeply rooted in the bible and tradition, and that finds a middle way between literalism on one hand and secularism on then other.

The media likes to portray “the fight” as between the “Religious Right” and “Religious Left.” But really, the two poles are literalism and secularism. Radicals from both poles like to portray those in the middle as occupying the opposite pole from themselves. Progressive Christianity is the heart-felt and deeply considered prayerful middle way between literalism and secularism. “The Faithful Middle is Finally Getting a Chance to Speak” might be a better headline!

Amen to that. 

April 9, 2006

Censorship and the church

This weekend's news provided two examples highlighting the conflict conservative religious academic institutions face when confronted with issues related to academic and journalistic freedom.

The University of Notre Dame will continue to allow controversial arts programs—including a GLBT film festival and performances of 'The Vagina Monologues'—on campus in spite of the fact that they may be construed as contradicting the Roman Catholic church's teachings on sexuality.

Although university president Rev. John I. Jenkins had earlier questioned the appropriateness of allowing events such as 'The Vagina Monologues' to be performed on campus, after listening to students and faculty he admitted that there was "no reason to prohibit performances" and that student discussions of the play were "serious and informed." He added,

"I am very determined that we not suppress speech on this campus. I am also determined that we never suppress or neglect the Gospel that inspired this university ...

"If I didn't learn anything from all this, ... I'd be very disappointed and surprised. What I learned was we do really need to find ways to advance discussion about issues that have to with women."

Kudos to Notre Dame for common sense and a mature approach to academic inquiry and free speech. While Notre Dame is within its rights as a private institution to determine what views and values might be sanctioned within its walls, it recognizes that the gospel and free speech perhaps need each other to flourish, and that one does not need to be championed at the expense of the other.

Not so at North Central University, a Twin Cities campus operated by the Assemblies of God, a conservative Pentecostal denomination. The university's administration was apparently upset over the April 4 issue of the student newspaper 'Northern Light', which included coverage of the Soulforce Equality Ride and an op-ed piece critical of the denomination's teaching concerning 'speaking in tongues'...

Continue reading "Censorship and the church" »

April 5, 2006

Implausible denial

'Outrageous' is the word that immediately comes to mind.

Breaking News: "Viacom, NBC-owned cable channels become next to reject UCC's ads"

Now a bunch of cable networks owned by NBC and Viacom have rejected the UCC ad: USA, Telemundo, Nick@Night, TV Land, MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, Bravo and even the gay oriented LOGO network! Independently owned Discovery and Univision have aslo decided not to run it.

Reasons provided include that the ad takes "a position on controversial issues or may be deemed as disparaging to another religion" or is of a "political nature".

Funny how the commercial and cable networks will run ads from the Swift Boat Veterans or the Mormon Church. Funny how some of these networks run religious programming that is disparaging of virtually all religions and viewpoints other than conservative fundamentalism. Funny how these networks will give unlimited time on their Sunday morning boradcasts to representatives of right wing religious organizations with extreme political viewpoints...

Funny how the cable networks will run comedy programming with liberal references to negative stereotypes of 'fags', 'wetbacks', 'niggas' and Scientologists and endless vulgar references to every imaginable body function... Yes Comedy Central, I'm referring to you. How can the network that runs The Daily Show, Chapelle's Show, Mind of Mencia and Southpark (all of which I enjoy, by the way) reject something as wholesome as a humorous UCC ad on the grounds that it is too political or controversial?

Here's what UCC representative Ron Buford had to say today about the networks' "heartbreaking" rejection:

"This is `sorry, cable trouble' all over again," said Buford, who is African American, harkening back to the 1950s when some television stations refused to run network news that positively portrayed the Civil Rights Movement.

"There could not be a more concrete example of what happens when our media is in the hands of a few corporate elites who simply don't agree with you. They can simply turn you off. Click, goodbye," said Buford, who insists that the UCC's commercials are neither "political" nor "advocacy," but a sincere attempt by the church to address the oft-ignored feelings of rejection and alienation that many people say they have experienced from organized religion.

Oh, this makes my blood boil. Hat tip to the UCC's Chuck Currie again, writing this time on Street Prophets

March 28, 2006

And in other media news...

The so-called 'liberal' television media has banned inclusive religious advertising, again. The United Church of Christ's new ad, scheduled to air on cable starting April 3, will not be screened on ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX due to those networks' position that such advertising constitutes controversial issues advocacy.

The new 30-second 'Ejector Pew' ad features several people — a black woman, a gay couple, a Middle Eastern man, an elderly man in a walker — who are ejected from their church pews at the press of a button. This is followed by a voiceover which says, "God doesn't reject people, neither do we."

What a remarkable world we live in, when the American Family Association or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints can run ads on network TV, but a mainline church cannot — because its message of welcome is considered too controversial or political. Considering the filth and smut that gets passed off on FOX as news and entertainment, this is absurd in the extreme.

Or as the UCC asks, "Mainline churches should be silent while right-wing extremists get to speak their mind? Do you care?"

Some related links:

March 27, 2006

Star Tribune comes clean

I wonder if it's directly in response to the flood of complaints the Star Tribune must have received following Katherine Kersten's recent columns against 'gay marriage'? Anyhow, they have come clean with an admission (of sorts) of bias — or at least of inadequate and inaccurate coverage of the issue.

This admission appeared in the reader's representative section (Kate Parry), not the editorial, but the message is pretty loud and clear:

The newspaper needs to do a better job fully describing the scope of legislation to ban same-sex marriage and its legal equivalent...

It's the job of journalists to sniff out spin and do their best to expose it and neutralize the language... But the Star Tribune has done poorly so far this session neutralizing spin on legislation to put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and "its legal equivalent" on the fall ballot...

Those words mean the amendment would "clearly include domestic partnerships and civil unions" as well as same-sex marriage... It also allows for judicial interpretation of other rights often associated with marriages that could be banned... This has potential impact on adoptions, inheritance and many other issues facing gay couples...

The newspaper has not made this clear, allowing the language to spin in a direction favoring those who want to see the amendment on the ballot. It's more likely to get there if lawmakers and citizens believe it applies only to marriages. But that's not the case, and the newspaper needs to quit implying that it is, through the language it uses -- not to defeat or support the bill, but to make sure everyone knows exactly what's up for a vote...

Continue reading "Star Tribune comes clean" »