The
The church is known for picketing at funerals of homosexuals and of American soldiers. Because of the group’s protests, many states have passed legislation prohibiting protesting at funerals. According to the church’s website, 41,226 such protests or demonstrations have taken place since June 1991. Of the 71 confirmed members of the congregation, 60 are relatives of Phelps.
In April 2006, Phelps’ daughter, Shirley Phelps Roper, appeared on Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes to defend the church’s protests. During the show, Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes repeatedly attacked Roper for the protests.
Two months later, Roper appeared again on Fox News, this time with Julie Banderas. The family of a soldier killed in
BBC’s Louis Theroux has also produced a documentary about the Phelps family entitled, “The Most Hated Family in
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6507971.stm
The home page of the church’s website contains, almost exclusively, information about picketing. There are eight pictures of picket signs on the main screen. No other information about the church’s theology, or even Christianity in general, is available on the home page. Picketing and protesting is what the church is known for and what it thrives on.
In both Fox News broadcasts, the subject matter was not treated as an informational interview. Hannity, Colmes, and Banderas all had pre-conceived notions about Roper and the
I am also appalled at what the church does and that it does so by passing it off as their God-sent religious duty. However, I do not see the journalistic value of interviewing a church leader for the sole purpose of arguing and condemning her. The church is so small and insignificant that I do not think it warrants a serious, unbiased consideration on national cable news, but I also do not think that any movement or organization deserves to be ridiculed by the same. Leave that to Jon Stewart and the Daily Show on Comedy Central. It is not journalism, and therefore does not belong on news channels that should be devoted to sound journalism.
In this case, I do not think there is any real interaction between the media and the religion. The religion is only addressed when Roper appeals to the Bible to defend her church’s actions. The media only interacts with the actions of the religion, which only have religious undertones.
Do organizations (like the
Interesting post. I'm surprised I never caught wind of this while it was happening. I am also surprised at the journalists for becoming emotionally involved and having no self-control.
ReplyDeleteWas the motivation of the story to make people aware of the issue, or was the motivation to condem the church for their actions? Probably both. I don't think this is the right venue. A talk show may have been the right outlet to have this kind of discussion. Fox News proves that their reporters bring bias into discussions. In this case, their bias is probably the same as most Americans, but it leaves me to wonder about their lack of bias in other stories.
As for religion in the news outlets, I think it is important to have it incorporated when a story is worthy of publicity. I don't think it should be a platform for reporters to discuss their religious views, or to dwell on the radical views of cults like this.
I think in most cases it’s a natural human tendency to want to be noticed. It’s the idea that the more attention you get, the more valuable your existence becomes. Television is synonymous with attention. To me, this is why reality stars have become like an innumerable plague of locusts. Everyone is looking for their 15 minutes of fame.
ReplyDeleteOddities have always been a source of reader fascination and consequently journalistic interest. This is especially true when the story is one that attacks the morals of the majority. Terrorists attack their enemies for media attention. Killing is secondary to their ultimate goal of splattering fear across newspaper headlines. I would venture to say that the Westboro Baptists are a breed of domestic terrorists who thrive on even the most negative attention.
Yes, the Westboro Baptists are lunatics. So why do we listen? Why do we give them the attention they desire? My best answer is that we feel justified in comparison. We have the urge to disapprovingly watch their protests with disgust and to squash whatever may threaten our fundamental moral principles so that we can settle back into our happy notions that we are the normal ones.
woah, what an extreme group of people. I found this post very interesting. The way that this family shows their beliefs, was absolutely mind-blowing.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the question at the end of the post, I believe that this story did deserve some air time. It is affecting people outside of their religious group in a negative way, and is therefore newsworthy. But, I do not believe that it was appropriate for the interview between the Westboro baptist, and the reporter to become so personal and heated.
There was obvious bias in the news reports, and the reporter seemed to attack quite aggressively. The news should not be about this, but instead be solely informational.
I grew up in Kansas about 45 minutes away from Topeka and this group protested at my school school when it hosted a performance by the BYU traveling dance team my freshman year. My school had previously done a short play called "The Laramie Project" which is a play about a gay guy in Wyoming. The fact that my school would do a play about a gay person as well as allow "the Mormon's" come dance there really upset this group. They stood outside of my school all day long with signs that were very obscene and explicit towards gay's and Mormon's.
ReplyDeleteIt was actually a neat experience for me to see a large amount of the student body go out and confront this group and argue with them for doing what they were doing. Many of them new that my older sisters and myself were Mormon and this made them all pretty upset. They were all much more worked up about it then any of the LDS families that came to watch the dance team as we are pretty used to such behavior from different groups like this one.
As far as media coverage goes, I think it is wise to not let our emotions get carried away to much when we see behavior like this. I do believe that it is better to just ignore it and not confront them. However, I don't see a problem with some of these news icons such as Hannity and Combs call her out on her behavior. Yes they share their personal opinion while telling about the news and it's biased but anyone that watches Fox News knows that they are going to get that type of coverage. I also do not think the size of the group matters at all. I think it is fine for them to call this "church" out just like it is alright for them to call out things that political leaders do that hurt our country. Once again, this isn't how I would try to handle the situation but it doesn't bother me that these news programs did.
Wow! 10 points for Fox News' beautiful display of balanced journalism. In today's world of profit-driven, ratings-seeking Media, perhaps I should not be surprised by the amount of head-to-head combat set up by news organizations like this. But If I wanted combat, I would watch UFC on Versus or Celebrity Death Match. Is it so wrong to expect at least one source of true, bias-free news that may actually be useful to someone seeking to be a responsibly involved citizen?
ReplyDeleteIt is disappointing to me when organizations who claim to be gatherers and distributors of the nation's news focus this much attention on conflict and disagreement between individuals or groups of Americans. I think we understand that different people have different opinions, but why not promote pieces that lead us all to seek compromise and to promote the good of our nation in a healthy, democratic way- instead of calling out any dissenters and attempting to publicly humiliate them for their differing opinions (as radical and ridiculous as they may be).
Why does religion only appear in the news when it is crazy and different and breeds shouting matches? Is that really how we want to represent religion- as a source of contention? Or can we support and appreciate a general belief that we should be kind to our neighbors?