| Date Entered: |
2008-03-06 |
| Details: |
 Washington Post managing editor Philip Bennett spent Monday, March 3 at UC Irvine addressing in two different talks the challenges journalists - and the media in general - face when reporting on Islam.
Invited as a guest lecturer for the Chancellor's Distinguished Fellows Series and the Center for the Study of Democracy, Bennett's afternoon discussion focused on the importance of words when used to label and identify people - in particular, Muslims and followers of the Islamic religion - and the need for more journalists with expertise and experience on the topic of Islam.
"The U.S. news media has failed to properly address issues of Islam," he said, explaining that when September 11, 2001 happened, there were only a handful of journalists who were able to report accurately on Islam. "Our limited knowledge base was not what the moment demanded."
He added that since the tragic event in 2001, coverage from many media outlets has gotten better.
"One-third of all Post reporters have worked in Iraq," he said. "Wider coverage, however, has come at a terrible price," he added, noting the loss of lives among reporters and journalists and the large monetary price tag embedded reporting carries.
The cost, he says, has been high, but necessary as he views the press - both in the U.S. and worldwide - as a central player in holding governments accountable to free speech. He went on to discuss the importance of independent Muslim media in voicing their free speech rights with true, open stories of what is happening in the Middle East, and emphasized the need for more Muslim youth to pursue careers in journalism in order to get these stories out to the public.
After concluding his afternoon talk, Bennett joined Jen'nan Read, UC Irvine sociology associate professor, and Tim Kelly, director of the DePree Leadership Center Public Policy with the Fuller Theological Seminary, in a panel discussion focused on understanding the religious voter. The panel was moderated by Stephen Burgard, director of the School of Journalism at Northeastern University in Boston.
Bennett kicked off the discussion with talk of the current Presidential election season, calling the frequency and high level of debate among the candidates of both parties "just about as close to heaven as a journalist can get." He focused on the "God gap" that has so far played out in the primaries, explaining that most voters and journalists expected Romney to pull religion into the debate - more so than other candidates - through a need to explain his Mormon faith. Huckabee, however, was able to pull religion into the race much more effectively and took a "clean sweep" with religious voters, pulling in three Evangelical voters to Romney's every one. He noted the rising number of evangelical voters with an interest in this year's election as one of three trends taking form; the other two being a rise in the number of secular and ethnic voters. Bennett ended with comments on the increasing, albeit inaccurate "buzz" that "Obama is the Manchurian candidate for Muslims," saying that he expects these rumors, which have no basis in fact, to soon die out.
Jen'nan Read focused next on the role of the Muslim vote in this year's election, explaining that their ethnic affiliation has little to do with voting. "Muslim voters don't vote because they're Muslim," she said. "They vote for issues." She explained that the small population of Muslims in the U.S. - estimated between 1.2 - 6 million people - vote very predictably with the wealthy population voting in support of tax breaks and the regular mosque goers voting against gay marriage. "Overall," she said, "Muslims have very mainstream views that put them on the left for foreign policy and on the right for social issues."
Last to speak in the panel discussion was Tim Kelly who focused on the Evangelical voter and what he sees as a shifting profile within this large constituent group. "We are seeing more and more young Evangelicals not committing to one party or another, but who are instead focusing on specific issues," he said. He attributes the move toward more central views based on values and principles rather than parties - a move he calls "principled centrist" - to voters being "fed up with the far left and far right" political extremes touted by those who occupy the extreme wings in both parties.
Follow up questions from the audience raised discussion from the panel about why the media seems to play up the contentious divide between the far left and far right if voters are in fact moving toward center. Bennett responded that he doesn't feel the media is "pulling wool over the eyes of the people" by reporting more on the heated exchanges views of the far left and right, but the fact is that more stories exist in the margins of disagreement. Kelly agreed, saying polarizing issues are always a bigger story and in the past, religious organizations who have led their voters in one distinct direction or another only contribute to that divide. |
|
