Report on prayer amendment: fair or biased?

July 30, 2012 By

YouTube Preview Image

The lead story on the front page of today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch — right there beside coverage of the Olympics — is an in-depth examination of a proposed Missouri state amendment related to prayer.

The story, written by Godbeat pro Tim Townsend (a recipient of frequent praise from your GetReligionistas), treats readers to a variety of voices and angles — pro and con — as that state’s voters prepare to go the polls next week.

The top of the 1,500-word report:

A proposed amendment to the state Constitution that supporters say would protect Missourians’ right to pray in public will pass by a mammoth margin if numbers from a Post-Dispatch poll hold until Aug. 7.

That’s when the so-called “right to pray” ballot measure — known as Amendment 2 — will go before voters.

The measure’s champions say it better defines Missourians’ First Amendment rights and will help to protect the state’s Christians, about 80 percent of the population, who they say are under siege in the public square.

Its opponents say that the religious protections Amendment 2 would offer are already guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution, and that it will open the door to all manner of unintended and costly consequences including endless taxpayer-funded lawsuits.

Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, who opposed the original legislation, called Amendment 2 “a jobs bill for lawyers.”

At first glance, the story impressed me as a straight-down-the-middle handling of a controversial issue with strong opinions on both sides. But as I kept reading — and then read it again — I couldn’t strike the feeling that the story was weighted in favor of those who see the amendment as unnecessary and troublesome.

So I counted the named sources: Five people are quoted in favor of the amendment. Ten people are quoted either in opposition to the amendment or as outside critics with concerns about it.

I also counted the words: Less than one-third of the story was devoted to support for the amendment. Roughly two-thirds focused on opposition and concerns.

Certainly, skepticism is an admirable attribute for a journalist. According to the Post-Dispatch poll, 82 percent of state voters support the amendment. The journalist’s job is not to rally support for a political measure. The journalist’s job is to report fairly and accurately on the measure and let voters decide for themselves.

Thus, the question becomes: Is this a fair and accurate report? All the smart people (those with important-sounding affiliations after their name) come down on the opposition side in this report, including a “senior scholar with the nonpartisan First Amendment Center” and “the programs and policy director for the National Center for Science Education” and “a political science professor.” I wonder: Are there no experts with important-sounding titles who support the amendment? That’s certainly the impression given.

To its credit, the story quotes Baptist and Catholic leaders who support the amendment. It also reports on opponents in the religious world, including the state’s Episcopal bishop, a Jewish official and an Islamic leader. While certainly Baptists and Catholics make up a higher percentage of Missouri’s population than the other groups, giving a voice to minorities is an important function of quality journalism.

The story ends on a negative note:

For language that will be enshrined in the Constitution, the most cherished document in a democracy, even Amendment 2′s supporters are less than enthusiastic about its wording.

“Every constitutional amendment drafted is drafted by people,” said Bahr. “We’re dealing with imperfect people who do everything they can to make the best language possible.”

Hoey, of the Missouri Catholic Conference, made it clear that “we didn’t write the amendment.”

“It was presented to us as something to consider, so we looked over the language and didn’t see anything that would create a problem,” he said, adding, “I would have written it differently.”

So, after all that, I’d love your feedback: Is this a biased story? Or is it a fair story about a bad idea? Must a story give equal time to both sides to be balanced? By all means, read the whole thing and weigh in. Please remember, however, to keep the focus on journalism. Political comments and statements will be spiked.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Baptists, Catholicism, Islam, Journalism, Politics, Religion
  • Jerry

    it will open the door to all manner of unintended and costly consequences…

    A door was opened with that comment but not explored. And that unexplored door troubled me more than the pro versus con fairness issue.

    I wanted there to be some discussion about what would happen if a minority religious group claimed the same rights for prayer whether it be Wiccans, Muslims or Hindus. Proponents and opponents of the amendment should have been asked that question.

  • sari

    I read the article and found it unbiased, though light on the nuts and bolts specifics of the bill. Perhaps that’s what’s alluded to by those who expressed opinions on the quality of the wording.

    The events which precipitated the bill are missing from the article. Were individuals denied their right to public prayer? They should have been identified and interviewed. Or, is this a preemptive bill, designed to become whatever the individual wants to make it? That’s the impression.

  • Eric

    I saw the article as reasonably balanced (a fair story about a bad idea), except that maybe it would have been better to wait a day or two for publication to see if further efforts would result in contacting the measure’s sponsor. It’s a hole in the story that his only comment isn’t current and that it doesn’t respond to the complaints by opponents.

    My main concern with the story is that it fails to give concrete examples of what is illegal now but would be legal if the measure passes. The closest things to examples in the story were praying in study hall or before a City Council meeting, and those actions are already legal under the U.S. Constitution as long as they aren’t government-sponsored.

  • http://getreligion.org Bobby Ross Jr.

    Jerry, sari, Eric …

    Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. Much appreciated!

  • Mark Baddeley

    I was expecting to say that it was fair before I read it. Having read it, I’m not so sure.

    If the experts quoted really are representative of expert opinion in their domains, and moving from the sponsor of the bill to his pastor is the most representative window you can give to arguments in favor of it, then I agree with the earlier comments – fair report of a bad ammendment.

    But if that’s not that case and better arguments for its constitutionality can be offered (and I have no idea), then this is possibly an attempt to gently flag dissent from the ammendment without alienating the overwhelming majority of consumers/readers, i.e. it’s less fair.

  • http://www.biblebeltblogger.com Frank Lockwood

    Religion coverage isn’t a two-sided coin. It’s a rubics cube — and sometimes it’s really hard to unscramble the puzzle on deadline.

    Ideally, your quotations should reflect a little more closely the sentiments of the voters. If you’ve got enough time and if enough quotable, well-informed people return your calls, everything falls into place.

    But some days, Murphy’s Law catches up with you — even if you’re as good as Tim Townsend. Time runs out. Deadlines near. And you’ve got to do your best with the material you’ve been able to gather.

    That may be what happened here.

  • http://getreligion.org Bobby Ross Jr.

    Ideally, your quotations should reflect a little more closely the sentiments of the voters.

    I tend to agree, Frank. But since this is the kind of real journalistic discussion I enjoy, let me play devil’s advocate a bit: Are you saying that 80 percent of the quotes should be favorable if 80 percent of the voters support the measure? Does reflecting the sentiments of the voters mean equal time or that you include their voice? What I mean is, do you need to quote eight people saying the same thing if one expresses the sentiment adequately?

    In this story, more space was given to the minority religious voices than the majority supporters. Then again, it takes space to explain the individual positions.

  • http://www.biblebeltblogger.com Frank Lockwood

    Bobby, I didn’t say the quotes should mirror public opinion with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

    It’s alchemy — not algebra — so I can’t give you a precise formula.

    This story, for example, would probably be fine if roughly half were on one side and roughly half on the other.

    But if 4/5 of voters favor the measure and 2/3 of the people in the story oppose it, that is a big red flag that the balance may be off.

    A couple of caveats — It does get trickier when you’re interviewing so-called experts. Sometimes, an idea is plausible to voters but implausible to lawyers, law professors and legal scholars.

    A measure, for example, to ban flag burning would probably pass in most states if it were put up for a vote. Finding people who would favor the ban would be easy. Finding legal experts who could defend the constitutionality of the measure — in the face of past Supreme Court precedent — would be a lot harder.