Christians Suck at Politics

At least, that’s the conclusion of Bob Robinson:

We Christians are complicit in this demise of political public discourse in the media.

Instead of taking the time to read deeply and widely about policy, we watch the claptrap that the media serves and parrot it back to each other. We rarely seek to understand the opposition’s arguments. Instead, we act like simpletons, watching only the shows that we think we already agree with so that we don’t have to think too deeply.

Instead of debating with civility with others about issues, we mimic the talking heads on our favorite cable talk shows by attacking the opposition’s character. We take this easy route since it is so much easier to dismiss those we disagree with by portraying them as utterly evil.

Instead of demanding that mass media coverage dive deeper into public policy issues, we continue to watch the junk the media shows, providing them with high ratings and little incentive to change their ways.

via VanguardChurch.com: How the Media Wastes Our Time During Political Campaigns.

http://www.sparksandashes.com Paul

Hear, hear. It is a sad day when the follower of Jesus are a political punchline rather than a potent, non-partisan force for genuine renewal.

A good collection of essays on this topic: http://www.amazon.com/How-Pick-President-ebook/dp/B006LDCFZI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336073717&sr=8-1
Michael Jordan

Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Thank you for pointing your readers to this post.
Curtis

Two well-documented dynamics are at work.

1) There is no such product as “News”. Rather, the product is the viewers. The viewers are sold by news broadcasters to advertisers for dollars. The more people with the right demographic tune in, the more money the broadcasters make. The only incentive broadcasters have to provide news is to entice more viewers to tune. News is not a product. Eyes and ears of people with disposable income is the product. The only purpose of news production is to get the right people to tune in.

2) 24-hour news cycle. There is no incentive for deep analysis. The only incentive politicians have is to make sure their name gets mentioned in the next 24 hours media cycle in a positive light.

If you want to solve the problem of crappy news, you’ll have to solve these two well-known issues. Or turn into public radio, BBC or Radio Canada, which don’t have these constraints.
jc

this isn’t just christians-this is everyone. christians happen to go along with the culture on this.
- Evelyn
  
  I agree with jc. The only thing that is related to Christianity in the article is the one sentence that make Christians partly responsible for the “demise of political public discourse in the media”.
- http://www.winter60.blogspot.com Lausten North
  
  I agree, there is no reason to focus on Christians as being guilty of this. If it said that Christians have some special reason to not act this way, that would have made more sense. Saying Christians are a certain way makes about as much sense as saying Texans are a certain way.
http://www.ststephenslondon.com keith nethery

As a former broadcast journalist, I concur completely with what others have said. But it goes a little deeper than just the media companies. I would suggest, and this is an over generalization, that those in the media world tend to be overly ambitious and have healthy (sometimes sliding to unhealthy) egos. Attract attention – you move up. Do vanilla stuff – you stay were you are. So you need flash and dash to attract attention to get promoted. Thus the story is no longer the goal, it is the means to the true goal.
I think we are seeing this trend in the world of blogs. Many places I read (and I am very thankful this blog is not this way) consist of highly inflammatory statements, with absolutely no facts to back them up. So we end up yelling at each other. Thank you to Tony and those who comment here that this is a place of intelligent discussion. I’ve only been visiting for a couple of months, but it’s become one of my first stops each day
Scott Gay

It is true about what Curtis says about “news” people (1) and politicians (2). It’s a Marshall McCluhan perspective. Did you see the Dateline NBC presentation of kid’s cheating. The only reason a parent would even participate in the first place, taking the chance that their child might cheat on national TV and the subsequent huge negatives, is 15 minutes on TV. What if something happened to your family, and the TV stations with all their satellite trucks parked outside your door- why do people feel it necessary to talk to them?
I don’t vote and I don’t want to talk to or be on TV. I’m retired now- its natural to move to the city. Switching to a bike, glorious groceries compared to rurally, unique gardening opportunities, opportunities for rural/urban hybridization, opportunities for volunteering, social gatheries in bars and older citizen centers, mission oriented ministeries.
You think this has nothing to do with media and public discourse. I think that if I can interact with more people I can help put media in a more proper place. Because I’m tuning much of them out. It may be like the story of walking the beach and throwing starfish back in the water, but it’s what I’m about I love blogging. It is so much more democratic. If the discussion is about civility with others about issues, reading and personal transformation, and actively listening to others- then your talking discourse, be it political or any otherwise.
Patrick S

What a bunch of sanctimonious, holier-than-thou silliness. It amazes me that people say “I’m better than the masses because they read/watch/listen to garbage that I don’t.” Usually what a person that says that means is they just don’t agree with the viewpoint the masses share. The idea seems to be if a lot of people like it, it is trash. Or that there is only one way to receive information.

Even worse is the idea that only certain media outlets are purveyors of ‘real’ news. NPR and BBC may not have the shouters but they are no more trusted to tell the full story. Daily reporting is now and always has been a horrible, unreliable first draft of history.

As for the “demise of public discourse” I would love the author or anyone else to tell me when public discourse was better? During the Red Scare of the 50s? The protest of the 60s? The Clinton or W. Bush Eras? The yellow journalism of the 20s and 30s?

Public discourse has always been strong in America because we don’t have a state-run media source telling us what to think. We have very different ideas and the arguments prove that. Who wants to avoid strong, passionate arguments?
- http://www.winter60.blogspot.com Lausten North
  
  Are you familiar with Walter Cronkite? The public discourse was better before the 24-hour news cycle, before putting two people with opposing viewpoints on screen and claiming it is discussion passed for news. There were many reasoned people speaking on both sides of the debates in the 50′s and 60′s, that’s how we improved how we treated minorities and women in this country. There hasn’t been much progress on human rights lately, because it requires some compromise, some mutual understanding, willingness to listen.
  
  This is reflected in politics too. It was common that after debating in political chambers, members of either side of the aisle would sit down over meals and have friendly conversations. Now they sign pledges saying they won’t raise taxes and are seen as weak if they even talk to anyone about it. People have grown up seeing leaders who are obstinate and cut people off in mid-sentence and are acknowledged for being good at insulting, not being good at formulating a reasonable argument. That used to be valued in the media as well as in politics.
  - Patrick S
    
    Very familiar with Cronkite. I simply don’t prefer having my news spoon fed to me from one person’s perspective. Which, as a human, is often wrong. A quick glance at the ’50s gives us Joseph McCarthy, Alger Hiss and the Rosenberg spies. Pretty darn strong opinions during those episodes. As for the ’60s, I’m not sure lots of folks would agree they were the hallmark of reasoned discussion…
    
    As for elected members having gotten along swimmingly in the past, there is a long history of pistol fights, canings, etc. on the floor of various bodies. If anything, that part has gotten better over time.
Colleen

Thank you for mentioning that lovely story, Scott. I loved it. As for the whole, stale, unoriginal media argument, I don’t have a problem with them (media) regarding politics. This is the information age…how many alternate news sources are out there? It would be an understandable issue if all we had were television and radio. Honestly, people and politicians need to step up and take responsibility (deciphering articles and learning how to think on their own, owning up to what comes out of their mouths) rather than looking to place the blame elsewhere.