I don’t have Cable TV. I don’t have Satellite TV. I don’t have any regrets about that.
Because of the facts that I just placed into evidence, I’m certainly not the leading authority when it comes to the Fox News Channel. We do have Sirius/XM Radio in one of our vehicles, and I’ve listened to Fox News before while driving (although my children and I much prefer “Forties on Four” and “The Message”). I sometimes visit family who have Cable TV or Satellite TV, and I’ve consumed some Fox News programs there. We once had Dish Network TV, and the Fox News Channel was a part of our package. Indeed, it was the appearance of Ashley Madison advertisements during an FNC program that hastened the end of my business relationship with Dish Network. I’m thus not entirely ignorant of the Fox News Channel and its lineup, but many of you probably have much more extensive, much more current knowledge of FNC than do I.
The Fox News Channel has become a target for the scorn and ridicule of many of my friends. I see it on Twitter. I see it on Facebook. Even tonight, as people are reacting to the suspension of NBC News Anchor Brian Williams, I see a lot of people using the occasion to criticize Fox News instead of NBC and Brian Williams.
I’ve got to say: I just don’t get it.
Is it because the Fox News Channel features mostly people on the right wing of politics offering their opinions on opinion-based programs? For which network is that NOT true, whether for the right or the left? Editorialists, opinion columnists, talk show hosts, and advocacy guests find their way into print media as well as every corner of the broadcast spectrum, from what I can tell. A news department’s credibility doesn’t rise or fall on what the opinion shows say.
Is it because the Fox News Channel blurs the lines between news journalism and opinion journalism? I’m not sure that’s a valid charge. I can tell the difference between Chris Wallace and Sean Hannity, and I see no reason to believe that Fox News viewers are any less astute to the distinction than are the devotees of Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert.
Is it because Fox News viewers are so strident that we’re sick to death of them? If that’s the case, then why aren’t my friends also tweeting out daily derision for the Huffington Post or Slate?
I think one of two reasons is most likely. First, the Fox News Channel is not generally associated with cultural elites. Few things are more hoi polloi than FNC (and Roger Ailes is so wealthy because there are a lot of polloi out there). To the degree that we are elitists (or wish that we were), we are likely to want to flash our “intelligent” or “reasonable” credentials by subjecting the Fox News Channel to a little public flagellation.
Second, the Fox News Channel represents just the kind of Conservative Republicanism that engenders feelings of betrayal among many Southern Baptists. The FNC agenda is not a values-based agenda. Apart from Mike Huckabee, the network’s lineup seems mostly to represent a fiscal conservatism that is willing to say what social conservatives want to hear in order to keep the coalition moving toward lower taxes and decreased federal spending.
Even if that perspective about the Fox News Channel is accurate (and Ashley Madison, Shepard Smith’s boyfriend, and I think it probably is) does that make FNC any worse of a media company than MSNBC or the majors? Not in any way that is obvious to me. Why do so few of us find a middle ground between “Fox News = Truth” and “Faux News”?
We’ve read a lot of warnings in past years about letting our political views displace the gospel in our lives. We’ve heard that letting our churches become the local field office of the GOP drives people away from what really should be our message of spiritual deliverance. OK. Point well taken.
But Fox News Channel had nearly 1.9 million viewers this week. The station is routinely the highest rated channel on Cable TV. Is it just a little possible that constantly bashing the Fox News Channel might ALSO be an instance of letting our political views displace the gospel and drive people away?
I’ll just report that, and then I’ll let you decide.
I think there are a couple of FOX commentators who irritate people. Of course, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity are incendiary. Then there’s Todd Starnes who often lets his passion color the facts on issues related to religion.
But I think your point is well taken. FOX tends to at least label its opinion as opinion.
I’d certainly rather watch it than the networks, MSNBC or CNN.
Frankly, I don’t watch any of them much now.
Every time O’Reilly speaks on religion, I cringe. We also have to take in to account that most prominent conservative commentators come from a Catholic theology, including O’Reilly and Hannity
I agree with you on the O’Reilly speaking on religion Cringe Factor.
(see what I did there?) LOL
MSNBC is completely laughable. But, I do not run into people in the South who conflate MSNBC with what the Bible says on most things. There are a lot of Christians in our churches in the South who have their views regarding culture and politics shaped more consistently by Fox News on issues of importance than by Scripture. The networks are all the same and they all promote one agenda or another. Fox is no worse than the rest of them. But, the hold that is has on many people that we share pews with and churches with is what causes many other Christians to give out a warning and say, “You know, Fox News is not necessarily the Bible and maybe you shouldn’t let it shape how you see the world.” I think that is the reaction – not people trying to be elitists. That’s my take, anyway.
That’s a pretty good point.
I don’t get as much of that up here – the idea that FOX is somehow a Christian news network?
I strongly agree with Alan’s response. I have been concerned on several occasions by the apparent devotion and blind trust that some of my Christian brethren have for Fox News. MSNBC is a joke, and frankly, with the exception of election nights and huge news events I consider MSNBC and FNC to be predominantly entertainment channels. CNN at least tries to appear non-partisan but their left leaning orientation isn’t hard to see.
Still, the concern for me is that many Evangelicals, at least in my part of Texas, have hitched their wagon to FNC as the trusted source whose honesty and integrity shall not be questioned. You can say that these people are simple-minded folk but that is not what I see – these FNC disciples cover the whole socio-economic spectrum. In my opinion, if we consider that FNC and MSNBC are to news as the WWE is to wrestling then we will be pretty close to correct. They can all be very entertaining in the correct context, but let’s be careful about allowing any of the three to shape our worldview in any meaningful way. We have the Church and the bible for that.
I read a LOT more snarky tweets against Fox News than against MSNBC. If, in my anecdotal experience, there were some symmetry here, this post would not exist.
I live in one of the most Republican counties in Texas. I have a few members who treat the reports on the Fox News Channel as gospel. I also have a few Yellow-Dog Democrats. Finally, I have a few devotees of the Daily Show.
And then I have an enormous number of people who are watching NCIS and ESPN, not ANY news channel.
Perhaps my experience is somehow out of the ordinary, but the percentage of people I encounter who accept without question everything they hear on the Fox News Channel is well below 20%.
Do you have access to my DVR? NCIS and ESPN pretty much describes my viewing precisely.
In fact, if I could subscribe directly to ESPN, I’d get rid of cable entirely.
Watch for SlingTV from Dish Network. That ability is coming.
What? No Blue Bloods?
My problem with Fox News is similar to Allen’s. I don’t know if Christians identify it as a “Christian” news network, but if not it is close. I have a circle of church friends who I love dearly, but what comes out of FNC is almost Gospel. Bill O’Reilly says it, I believe it, that settles it. When I hear people use the term “mainstream media” I just cringe, because it seems like they’ve bought it, lock stock and barrel. But really FNC is just proxy for rabid right wing conservatism. My friends hooted and hollered when Rand Paul berated a news reporter who pressed him on some anti-vaccer statements. They think Mark Levin is almost Moses coming down from the mount. One of the most troubling things I hear is people still saying that Sarah Palin is smart and would make a great president.
It all boils down to this: The far-right conservative media exists to keep people angry and dissatisfied all the time. And that simply doesn’t square with a Christian worldview. Conservatism and Christianity can overlap, but it isn’t a perfect fit. Sometimes it’s not a great fit at all.
Sorry, Alan, not Allen
Alan,
I have to agree and disagree with your point. Like Bart, I don’t see that great of a percentage of folks who accept without question the things they hear on Fox News. I do notice some folks who are like that. I won’t disagree that Fox News shapes folk’s views regarding culture and politics. For some it may be “more than by Scripture.” But what I think I see most often is that folks “find a friend” in Fox News because Fox is saying and supporting what they already believe (which may or may not be what the Bible teaches). I guess I’m making a fine distinction. Fox will shape them by refining and tweaking what they already believe. But I don’t think many Christians in the South are blank slates forming their views based on Fox. In the long run, this may not be much different from what you mean.
Disclaimer: I seldom get any news from television, Fox or otherwise. Most of what I get is in a local newspaper (yes, they still make these and my mother subscribes to one), on radio (while driving to and fro) — but mostly on the internet, from a broad range of venues from far left to far right, and maybe some even a little wacko. I find it often, regarding news and the opinions about it, that if you look left and look right you might find the truth somewhere in the middle (though not always). Often news reporters are like commentators (and sheep) — they follow one another and all go astray.
1. Yes, Fox News does obviously have a political bias…as does MSNBC and CNN. This is how our “journalism” operates today. It’s like the Monopoly game. You get all of the blocks with your color and just wait..you get a monopoly on the ideological issues and just wait for the viewers.
2. Fox is a target because they are crushing the competition (in business and ideology). If you’re “king of the mountain” you can expect attack.
With that said, I check out Fox news (website) regularly. I know they have a certain bias and can definitely recognize it in the articles. I also listen to NPR and stop by CNN (website) as well. They both definitely have their major bias, but I can recognize them also.
What I would consider unhealthy would be watching only one part of the slanted media (only Fox, MSNBC, or whatever). I believe that will actually make you dumber, not smarter. I listen to many and can use my own brain to recognize what each are trying to sell me. It keeps me on my toes and from being a “fan” and just listening to the channel that enjoy listening to (read “agree with”).
I listen to more NPR than anything else. I never give them money, though. They always appeal along the lines of “You’re listening to this, so shouldn’t you support it?” They totally misunderstand me. My listening to NPR isn’t patronage; it’s espionage.
You’re not a “sustainer”? Me neither.
You support NPR through your tax gifts to the feds.
Dr. Howard Hendricks used to say that if we only read (this was the era before 24 hour news cycles and cable TV) those who agree with us, we will only confirm our biases.
I guess I need to watch that Rachel Maddow from time to time, but my blood pressure goes up.
I can’t do MSNBC. I just can’t. I’d recommend NPR. More “hard news” than opinion. It’ll definitely teach you a lot about nuance and subtlety.
Funny, I find NPR the most unashamedly biased.
It is.
Yes, it is biased…as much as Fox and MSNBC. The conversation here is about how just listening to media that you agree with creates confirmation bias.
That is where my recommendation would be coming from.
Quick rundown:
* Fox has an undeniable bias (spin) that skews far right.
* MSNBC has an undeniable bias (spin) that skews far left.
* CNN has an undeniable bias (spin) that skews far sensationalist.
* WorldNetDaily has an undeniable bias (spin) that skews far crazy.
Most of my news comes from NY Times (which has its own left bias but typically stays in the opinion pieces) or BBC News (which generally does a good job of staying neutral while reporting more news from around the world, often missing from other news sites). Then there’s the impeccable reporting of Jon Stewart (PBUH) at The Daily Show, which, alas, will soon be coming to an end.
I keep up with the BBC World Service quite a bit myself. You can’t keep up with what’s happening in Africa any other way besides the BBC and the Internet.
Oh and I vehemently avoid TV news. I don’t care which network, it is all so very annoying. (despite my reference to The Daily Show, I don’t even watch it, other than the occasional youtube clip (which I admit I typically enjoy))
I am in that camp as well. News seems to be more about editorial direction, than immediate facts. It is getting increasingly difficult to get to the facts these days. I take most everything with a “grain of salt”, and patience.
What I have found myself doing the last few years, is depending upon folks in those local communities where the “news” springs up. While getting to travel abroad somewhat during the past 10 years,….it is those folks that give me a better view of facts on the ground, or more local sources.
I get most of my news from the CNN website. Whether it leans left or right, I don’t know. But it seems the least biased one way or another. I look at the Fox News website, but frankly it looks like a supermarket tabloid, especially below the headlines.
“I look at the Fox News website, but frankly it looks like a supermarket tabloid, especially below the headlines.”
…So you read CNN…?!
You think CNN is more tabloidy than Fox? I don’t see it. One thing that has infuriated me about finding a news website is the switchover to tablet format. I can’t stand tablet format. CNN has switched too, but I’m tired of changing news sites.
Well I pretty much never visit the Fox website so I don’t know how tabloidy it is, I just know that CNN used to be my source and I left it specifically because it became tabloidy.
I agree that I want to find a middle ground between bashing Fox News and equating it’s often advocated issues with biblical truth (on immigration, for example).
Fox put out the best news product on TV – as far as professionalism, production quality, on-air talent. O’Reilly and Hannity are frustrating at times – they’re right often too.
Bret Baier at 6pm is the best 1-hour TV news available, taking into account it’s emphasis on Washington politics and editorial decisions that reflect a center-right perspective. But it’s way closer to neutral, straight news than what is available anywhere else.
I’d have a hard time finding someone who take a more balanced tact and asks tough questions of people on both sides than Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.
Alan basically said what I would say. That’s my concern with Fox News.
I also agree that all news channels have biases and agendas. That’s the day we live in. Marty Duren’s new podcast (shameless plug) deals with this subject regularly.
I would also like to add my advocacy for listening and reading across the spectrum. I read USA Today every morning for headlines and check HuffPo, Fox News, NPR, and local news sites for other articles opinions. I generally read articles from The Atlantic on Saturday mornings for some longer more insightful articles as well as Christianity Today, Patheos, and Relevant.
I’m also not very likely to watch news programs- even local- and prefer to read or watch clips or listen to podcasts.
Good article Bart. Interesting discussion.
I am sure I will excommunicated from Voices but my favorite news personality to watch is Erin Burnett on CNN. Her background and strength is in economics and she is Roman Catholic. She seems to be somewhat of right leaning personality working for CNN.
Most of my news comes from my personal newspaper on my homepage when I turn on my cpu in the morning and from my feedly subscriptions, which by the way is an annoying topic because something happen to bloglines about a month ago and I am having to find my favorite resources and re-subscribe to them using feedly.
Erin does a pretty good job IMHO as well. I don’t watch her often, but when I do, I think she shoots fairly straight with the facts.
I agree about Erin – but I do not find that there is another CNN anchor or reporter that I can say that about.
I can’t ever under any circumstances stomach MSNBC – EVER!
As for Fox – I despise the FOX website. News is hard to find – but doggoneit one can easily find what Miley Cyrus, Beyonce and Kim Kardashian are *not* wearing…I Never go there.
As for real news on FoxNews on I like Chris Wallace (Fox News Sunday), Brett Baer (Special Report) as they are the only real journalist anchors on Fox News. Other “hosts” are just commentators and there are some of those I like and some I do not – one must understand what they are – they are opinion commentators not journalists. Fox does have some good “field reporters” IMO, though – they usually appear on the shows mentioned above.
Honestly, I think reporter the most distance away from “soap opera” on CNN is Jake Tapper.
Yea, and when Jake Tapper is the only “voice of reason” over sensationalism – that makes the point that the Network is sensationalistic.
Bart, I agree with your sentiment here…. FoxNews formula seems to be popular within the media it competes. No reason to hate them…but, probably more of a reason to test them.
Some of their competitors are easy tested, and found to be completely absorbed in the protocol, ID10T.
Perhaps some hate FOX News because they think it is the “intellectual” thing to do.
I read a report a while back that pointed out FOX “News” is indeed balanced. This is in reference to their strictly news program. On the other hand, the FOX “opinion” shows, are, well, opinion.
Criticize the opinion shows all you want. But it seems to me much of the criticism of FOX “News” is unfair.
While I had basic cable for a while, I haven’t in several years.
I’d love to see the regular, free FOX channel at lease broadcast Sheppard Smith’s World News program. I think it would complete well with ABC, NBC, CBS. (Anyone at FOX listening?)
On the subject of bias – the major network’s bias is seen not only in the one-sided way they report the news (for example, abortion and same sex marriage), but also in what they choose to report.
Often the major networks simply ignore conservative news, opinion, authorities; or news items that would make the liberal agenda look bad.
Everyone has a certain amount of bias, but it seems the major networks have a little more than they ought.
David R. Brumbelow
Propaganda. It looks different in a society that at least still nominally embraces free speech than it does in a totalitarian regime like Nazi Germany, the old Soviet Union, North Korea today, or many other countries or societies throughout history and today. Propaganda in a society like the United States requires the employment of visceral fallacies against detractors since there isn’t a legitimate way of forcibly silencing them. What it generates is a cultural divide marked with distrust, hatred, and isolated violence that takes the attention off of the real social engineers and power brokers. It’s kind of like what happens in churches when grumbling and self-interest replaces forgiveness, reconciliation, and selfless giving for the benefit of others.
Boom. on the money right here.
I don’t really watch news on TV very often, and when I do, I prefer local news, and sometimes, if I’m switching through channels when it is on, I enjoy PBS news.
That being said, I think Fox’s “fair and balanced” byline raises the hackles of a lot of people. If they would advertise themselves as “obviously biased,” I, for one, might have a little more patience with what they put out. Of course, the same thing can be said for most of the other major news networks as well.
Another reason for me is, I don’t really enjoy the mixture of news with entertainment that seems to be the common fare on most American news networks, and it seems Fox (though not alone) is especially egregious on this point.
Finally, I think a lot of theologically conservative Christians are growing tired of the conflation of theological and political/fiscal conservatism, and see Fox, and a number of Fox sycophants who like to post frequently on Facebook and other social media, as prime purveyors of this mindset. It’s not that they think MSNBC, for instance, is any more innocent with regard to obvious bias; it’s just that Fox hits closer to home for most conservative Christians.
WOW, learned more from this than I usually do from FOX. Now I know what Ashley Madison is and that Smith is gay. Who knew?
I do not own a TV—
I watch everything thru IPTV
Some of my favorites Singapore TV, Australian Broadcast Corporation,
Russia Today,and TWIT(leo laporte)
I am not really a huge sports fan but this allows me to watch real “football” all around the world in high def and Nebraska football.
As far as Fox news goes I agree its right wing but I think that Christian faith demands some form of conservative values. Its not the Gospel but its part of the Christian Faith.
I find about a half an hour of Fox and CNN to be helpful on a “real news” day. I don’t linger long for their entertainment days.
I find Twitter to be more useful. Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, and others. If I twig to an interesting item I go online to check it out. For example, I find it interesting that a battalion of mainland China troops are being stationed in South Sudan where there are already thousands of UN Troops. Didn’t even see a mention of that on the US networks.
And, of course, I come to Voices to get myself straightened out.
My personal observations concerning the news programs is that CNN will give both sides of the story. Faux News will give only biased opinions.
I have also observed Christians who watch Faux News to be more critical of others, and are not nice to those who differ from them. They are quick to anger just because of party differences.
I think if we zero in on a particular network that don’t give both sides of the story, it proves to others and ourselves how small minded we are. We should never be afraid of the truth. Faux news in my opinion is a democracy hating group of opinionated people, it’s their way or no way.
I do not watch FOX news anymore, and I’m a much happier person because of it.
President Obama once said that Fox news is not a legitimate news network, I have to agree with him whole heartedly.
We don’t have cable, but Fox News isn’t one of my go-to news sources. My perception, which may not be entirely fair, is that if I see a negative story on Fox News related to the president or democratic favored policies, I need to go check it out on another network to find out the rest of the story. As someone else said above, promoting themselves as “fair and balanced” when they clearly have a slant turns me off. Their web page also looks tabloidish, which reinforces my negative perception.
Our favorite local station is an ABC affiliate, so we watch their local news and the ABC evening news. I like to check in with BBC news, PBS, and CNN. I get the NY Times latest news delivered to my Kindle, and I also read Time, the Atlantic, and National Review. I like getting a variety of sources and perspectives.
I have a new station on ATT U-Verse; OneAmericaNews. It is pretty good and I watch it from time to time. My FoxNews is pretty much limited to the morning news and that’s about it. I get most my news from websites.
When I first saw One America News, I thought it looked interesting, and on the whole, a bit more serious in their approach to news than some of the other networks. I thought to myself, “This could be good.” But after watching it for a while, though, I began to pick up a marked anti-immigrant, and at times borderline xenophobic, and even racist, slant to their programming.
Some of the rest of you may be able to stomach that, but I could not, and got tired of it, and decided not to ever watch that channel anymore.
Just my story.
I’d like to bring everyone back to the question I posed at the end:
So, let’s say that next time around it’s Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee in the general. That’s highly unlikely, but let’s speculate for a moment…work with me, here.
Are there specific problems with Hillary Clinton that Mike Huckabee does not have? You bet there are. And yet, we would hear a (needed) warning that filling our Twitter feeds and Facebook pages and church bulletins and hallway talk with scorn for Clinton, justified or not, is a bad idea because it politicizes our witness, downplays the gospel, and drives away people who need to know about Jesus.
Even if there are a few legitimate criticisms you would like to make against Fox News—and I could make some, too (for example, sometimes back years ago when I was watching they used to just beat a story to death with over-coverage)—I thought the whole idea is that you sometimes set aside even legitimate criticisms so as not to distract people from what you have to say about the gospel.
I’m just wondering why that somehow doesn’t apply at all to a steady stream of anti-Fox-News snarkiness that, by the way, often is phrased in ways that makes it sound like we’re saying that Fox News viewers aren’t as intelligent as the rest of us?
Bart,
Not catching the connection between Hillary vs. Huckabee, and snarky comments towards Fox and Fox viewers.
In any case, either I don’t have all the same FB friends and Twitter feeds that you do, or somehow I am more oblivious to the constant stream of anti-Fox snark. What I see–especially on FB–is a lot more pro-Fox snark.
Maybe I just have a more conservative set of friends. 😉
🙂
Personally I like Fox news. I learn what is going on in the world. With every thing that is brewing with ISIS et. al., CBS lead story is the snow in Boston. I don’t’ live in Boston and frankly don’t give a hoot or a holler abut their snow. I live in Montana. Why would I be interested in snow in Boston…..just saying
Well, for one thing I’m more sensitive to snarky critique against an individual than snarky critique against a news channel.
Secondly, the anti-Fox/”faux news” comments I see coming across my FB and Twitter feeds are generally from non-Christian friends. Maybe there are a lot of Christian conservatives out there blasting Fox news, but I haven’t run into them. I hear a lot more complaints about the “liberal, biased media” than I do critiques of Fox news–and I’m not sure that’s a helpful level of discourse either.
I’m also not sure if we are called to set aside “legitimate criticisms” to keep from distracting people from the gospel. Sure, in certain circumstances. VBS is probably not the place to criticize government environmental policy. And it’s wise to give some thought to the secondary messages conveyed in our FB and Twitter streams, if that’s what you’re getting at. But I think we can offer legitimate criticisms–whether of people, organizations, or news media–if we do it thoughtfully and respectfully. And really, that should be our standard whatever and whoever we’re speaking about.
I think people critical of Fox News are thinking of Fox News Channel, and not just the news portion
I must admit that I am amazed at the balance of perspectives presented by various respondents. Very few seemed inclined to buy any outfit, hook, line, and sinker. It must frustrate the dickens out of the manipulators. However, with the exception of Mr. Pemberton who seems to have somewhat of a handle on the fact there are some real manipulators behind the curtains, not many seemed directly aware of this reality, something I hope to address on another blog in response to what had been written thus far.
Thanks, Dr. Willingham. It would seem reasonable to most to view one group against another to get a balance. However, I don’t do that. I have a small network of missionaries and trustworthy international contacts that give me an idea of what’s going on from the underbelly of the world scene. It’s interesting what none of the US news media broadcasts. Many things that would interest us simply don’t fit the needs of the social engineers. Oddly, I know more about what’s going on around the world than I do what’s going on in the US. I can only sum up that God is doing amazing things and we have every reason to be excited. In the midst of all the evil in the world, God is raising up his Church mightily and we get to be part of it. Take heart, brothers and sisters, Jesus truly has all authority among the nations despite news to the contrary.
Dear Brother Pemberton: It seems like you would be an interesting person to engage in conversation. One of my strong points in my examine for becoming a school counselor in North Carolina was multiculturalism. However, my response, hopefully in the near future, will be couched in terms of a matter almost virtually unacceptable with most people today, namely, a conspiracy. And with that I will cease for the time being.
I like Fox News. On election nights, they’re sad when they’re supposed to be sad and happy when they’re supposed to be happy. They represent my political views, and those of my red state, quite well.
Apart from politics, as television personalities go, they appear more “alert” and “normal” to me. Those on CNN, MSNBC and other more liberal stations always seem a bit cynical, distrusting of regular Americans, overly trusting of Obama, the ACA, foreign policy, global warming, and so on. I really can’t stand pseudo-intellectual snobbery, and that’s the vibe I get from the liberal news channels.
Why the hate for Fox News? Well, in some Christian circles there is considerable effort to undo the post-1970s evangelical consensus that moral issues were legitimate areas for Christians to voice their political opinion. When Jerry Falwell got John R. Rice’s mailing list, the Moral Majority was born and millions of politically disaffected Christians found a way to participate in the secular political discourse. However, taking stands on political issues will always result in making someone angry. The question of whether or not it is worth sacrificing our witness for political reasons is a reasonable debate. But, I’d argue that people are going to be offended by everything a Christian believes because it scandalizes the world to see anyone animated by the moral standards handed down by God and shown to us by Jesus Christ. That is what many Christians urging a pullback from politics fail to understand. It isn’t advocating against abortion or gay marriage that drives people away from responding to the Gospel; it is that darkness hates light. We can try to be all things to all people, but complaining about politics is just one excuse—there are far greater stumbling blocks than politics that prevent Christians from reaching the lost.
I’m a frequent reader at this blog but this is (I believe if memory serves me well) my first comment here.
I watch Fox News primarily for news and I find that I get the liberal perspective from Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, Tamara Holder, Allan Colmes, Geraldo Rivera (liberal on some issues), and various other guests on their shows, so the idea that you can’t get a liberal perspective on Fox News I find to be without merit. I also find some fairly non-partisan analysis from Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, Bret Baier, Howard Kurtz, Sheryll Atkinson and others. So the idea that you can’t get non-partisan analysis there is also lacking in my view. In other words, the idea that Fox News is a far-right propaganda channel does not hold up just because conservatives (and not-as-conservative establishment Republicans) find a voice there that is difficult to find in most other media venues. Sure, I wouldn’t go to Bill O’Reilly for a theology lesson but who watches Fox News for theology anyway?
Scott, the fact that your comment went into moderation would indicate that this likely is your first comment. Now, you should have unfettered access (unless like certain people, you misspell your email address – hint, Tim).
inget my news from SBC Voices. So where does that leave me?
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
inget my news from SBC Voices. So where does that leave me?
I always put troublemakers like you, Guthrie, on moderation – just to keep an eye on you.
On the other hand, if you could learn to spell your email address correctly, you’d have an easier time!! (hint Eklund has NO m in it).
Bart,
Great post. I don’t have cable so I rarely see any of the news shows. I get my news from the internet and that requires a little work. The media in general has a huge impact on the church by determining what is being discussed and the parameters of the discussion. Christians should have the discernment to know the bias that exists underlying each topic that the media brings to our attention. When this is not the case Christians become as susceptible to “group think” as easily as unbelievers. Personally I like the BBC and NPR ( national proletariat radio) because it is easy to discern their worldview and get to the underlying issues.
wilbur
In evaluating the media, I find it helpful to remember Michael Crichton’s so-called “Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect”:
Today, America trusts Fox News more than any other news source. http://bit.ly/1GEkKUP
Based on a poll of 1286 registered voters, conducted by an obscure university in Connecticut. Not sure that’s the greatest source to substantiate the claim. The poll results by political party and age are telling. 58% of Republicans favor Fox the most while only 3% of Democrats do. Younger voters (18-34) favor CNN over Fox while it’s the 55+ crowd that favors Fox by 2-1 over CNN.
A similar poll conducted by Public Policy Polling in January 2014 was quite enlightening. Fox was the most trusted network (35% of Americans) while also designated the least trusted by 33%. The political breakdown there was even more telling. 69% of Republicans identified Fox as their most trusted news source. Democrats on the other hand split their votes among multiple networks (PBS – 21%, CNN & ABC – 18% each, CBS & NBS – 12% each).
What seems apparent is that Republicans have only one choice of a network that curries their political favor, while Democrats have several options. That undoubtedly says something about bias in reporting, likely contributing to Fox being both the most and least trusted network in this other poll.
Yep. Pretty clear.
Those who desire a conservative slant to commentary have one option and one only in traditional media – FOXNews.
Those who desire liberal slant to commentary can choose between any of the rest of the cable networks, traditional networks, and almost all the major newspapers and news magazines.
The fact that many people “desire” ANY “slant” and corporations oblige shows me that journalism is nearly as dead as the brains of the consumers.
It’s like arguing over whether my lawyer can beat up yours. They’re still lawyers.
Did you notice I said commentary?
I came to realize a long time ago that there’s no such thing as simply reporting the news anymore – it always comes with commentary. It’s just the way it is.
Of course when I watch shows or read articles that are admittedly commentary – I certainly prefer conservative commentary. I admit that.
Conspiracy theory is that they (the conspirators, the wizards of Oz behind the curtains) use the dialectic in an attempt to manipulate the masses. This worked so well for about a 100 years; it is how they produced and managed World Wars I and II along with the police actions of the cold war. The dialectic, i.e., liberal vs conservative, along with some very effective brainwashing techniques enabled the rulers (not the public ones, folks) to be very effective, but the whole thing is beginning to fail as the reading of most the views expressed in this blog; they have learned to be careful, cautious, and candid, distinguishing biases as they see them. That will transmit to the people who are also beginning to wake up to the fact that this government, be it Democrat or Republican, is a wagging its way to a dictatorship, on purpose. It is meant to satisfy the inner itch for security, and the only way to relieve it is to get control of everything and everybody. The parties are fronts for those folks who fear a popular awakening, a real one. The last two almost blew them out of the water (First and Second Awakenings and the launching fo the Great Century of Missions as Latourette called it.). One can catch a glimpse of why we had such agitation over beliefs for the past two centuries; they infiltrated and beguiled with their theology of pluralism, set in context in Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, the Primer that gives away the secrets of the conspiracy, gives away the store. And there are more from a wide variety of sources, Male, Female, Black, White, literary figures, historians, denominationalists (Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptists, et. al.), who have also written perceptively of the real problem. Remember how Blacks marched, kept their political efforts going for the past 60 years? We need to start doing that, if we are going to preserve religious liberty (one of our basic Bible beliefs) and etc. Wake up folks. You are almost there. You have started to think. Now start to get together, organize, agonize, and become active. We should have had a whole group of religious folks to produce a backlash in favor of the Fire Chief who got fired in Atlanta. Now we have towns passing laws that require churches to register, be licensed, and pay fees, never mind their contributions to the life of the communities, etc., or that Christians were the original participants in the American Revolution. One correction we need to make; we need to make the Supreme Court elective, taking away their secure positions from which they can undo everything elsewhere and elsewise, and they make life expensive and unbearable. Someone needs to remind the president that the decision to tax is through the House, and we need to limit the terms of all elected officials, put a clamp on the corporations, get rid of the Federal Reserve (which is the fulfillment of the Rothschild’s statement in the 1800s, “I care not who governs. Just give me control of the money.” All of this needs to be done deliberately, carefully, by people who want the American dream of freedom and will not allow other systems of law to replace Constitutional Law, i.e., Sharia replacing constitutional rules in local communities.
I’m not a big conspiracy theorist, but various kinds of propaganda have been well-known tactics since ancient times. Instigating a dialectic is a common one where counter propaganda is used to cause strife between people within populations to keep them from rising against rulers. I think the dialectic they have been using in recent decades is reaching a head and stands a chance of turning into another American Civil War. In a way, burgeoning populations can be threatening and I can see many policies as attempts to curtail and diminish populations. Some of them may see a civil war a just the thing to help accomplish the task. The fact that not everything is working to that end is evidence that the propagandists are not all on the same page.
The answer to the folks who run things is found in Dan.2. The conspirators are the iron and the clay, whereas the stone cut out of the mountain without human hands represents what we preach, the Gospel of the Kingdom, the Good News of the visitation of our Lord and Savior which is actually going on now. Jesus of Nazareth said, “I am coming to you,” that is the present tense in John 14:3,18,23,28, which the KJV renders as future, probably due to the fact that the reference to our way of thinking and experiencing things is of that nature. However, the original could be stated in this manner, “I was coming to you, I am coming to you, I will come to you.” The present tense is linear, an ongoing, unending process. Every day His coming to us grows greater and more impressive, while the power of that coming becomes ever more significant for all of its invisibility and indiscernibility. Suddenly, overwhelmingly, His spiritual coming will become manifest, and the blows of it given to the forces of evil will be utterly devastating, reducing them to dust and chaff of the summer threshingfloors which the wind carries away. Then that stone cut out of the mountain without human hands will become and even now is surely becoming the great mountain which will fill the whole earth (Dan.2). That is why the persecuted church increases by the millions in China, and it will, indeed, already is occurring in Islam. Ravi Zacharias tells of one Moslem who dreamed of Jesus every night for several years (I don’t remember the exact time). He was advised by his mother to leave before his relatives found it out and killed him for converting. How many in those lands now dream of Jesus, of the Messiah of the Jews? How many have an experience like I had in my days of Atheism, an experience in which the Savior appears in a vision, knocking at the door of heart.
Now before my Calvinistic friends write and say Rev. 3:20 can’t be used as an evangelistic text (even Spurgeon had said as much, but he did make a reference to it as occurring in one of his sermons), permit me to call attention to a whole book of sermons on the text, evangelistic sermons no less, by the Puritan John Flavel. I also call attention to another Puritan who had an evangelistic sermon on Rev.3:20, one David Clarkson. His sermon ran to about 80 pages in close set print. There is at least two evangelistic sermon outlines on Rev.3:20 in the sermon notes of the Calvinist, Basil Manley, Sr., the founding father of Southern Seminary. And there is a reference to Boyce preaching an evangelistic sermon on Rev. 3:20 in Broadus’ biography of his friend. I do not have to tell you J.P. Boyce’s views as he left no doubt about them in his Abstract of Systematic Theology. I have preached five or six sermons on the text, and the text as to man’s inability and unwillingness to be converted is easily explained in Rev.3:17. That is why Boyce in his sermon is said to have described the door at which our Lord knocked as bound fast by years of disuse and overgrowth, bound so tightly that no mere human hand could open it.
In any case, the Great Awakening is coming upon us as it did in 1741 and again in 1801, allowing for a twenty year overlap either way and for it to continue in Southern states, producing the Bible belt. One catches the feeling that the thing is nearer and drawing nearer everyday. When I began praying for a Third Great Awakening, there were no large churches in downtown New York City. Now, I understand, there some five or six, all with blocks of each other. I know of only a couple, but have read and heard of others. Remember Ps.102:13-14, 22.
Might as well light a fire to the tail of the fox and set it loose in the fields of wickedness, using it for far better ends, the spiritual transformation of all the souls on earth in one generation and continuing for a total of a 1000 generations.
Well said, Dr. Willingham. I’ve been teaching through Tim Keller’s book, The Reason For God, at church on Wednesday evenings. He starts out the book talking about whether the camp of faithlessness or the camp of faithfulness is growing stronger these days. He points out that both are growing stronger. Even as we see the darkness rise to alarming heights throughout the world, we should know that the light is as strong. It’s simply not reported through the secular news channels. I’ve accompanied the lessons with the videos he has released for studies. At or near the end of each I noted that he touched on the gospel in some way and my observation to the class has been that that should be our method of talking to doubters. I explained a couple of simple philosophical concepts to them that inform people’s delusions about Christianity and explained that many doubters will have sophisticated philosophies that they don’t understand but will be persuaded by them to doubt Christ. Every errant philosophy is answered in the Bible and is culminated in the gospel.
But as for the rise in darkness we hear so much about, we have countless brothers and sisters in the Middle East hidden by the activities of Islam of late. Their numbers have grown as the power of Islam over the people has diminished rather than grown with the increase in violence. The same is true in most places in the world right now. The reason I know is because my church has contacts and is involved in activities all around the world. But we also have activities here at home. My wife is the Ministry Coordinator for the local CEF chapter that is hosted by our church. We are still working on getting Good News Clubs in all the elementary schools in five counties. But of the ones we have placed clubs in over the past five years approximately 900 children have professed new faith in Christ. Most of them don’t come from Christian homes. Also in the area is a group called Power Cross that works among the most at-risk children. They have impacted hundreds of other kids in the past few years of their ministry. Christians in the area have set up mentorship in the High Schools and have done crusades for and at each of the schools. I can’t tell you how many young people have come to Christ at those efforts. I’ve served as one of the sea of counselors at some of them. I can’t agree more that it seems like we are on the verge of a Third Great Awakening and I think the generation in the schools right now might be the first wave of it and that it might be accompanied by a similar one worldwide. Keep praying for it, brother.
Many will doubt the news that the gospel is making great strides in the world today. The reason is because we see how uncomfortable life is becoming for us here and now. This is hardly the first time life has been difficult for Christians and I dare say that we have been too comfortable for too long. The Christian life is not working hard through the week, paying the bills on time, going to church every Sunday, raising your kids to be winners in life, and saving wisely for retirement. If that’s our goal then we stopped growing spiritually after our conversion, if indeed we were converted, and have failed miserably in our sanctification. We can see that the ability to achieve that goal is slipping away from us in our present world. However, the working of the gospel in our lives following conversion is far greater than seeking our own comfort. Once we realize that then we can see the deadness of too comfort for what it is and find our place in building the kingdom as part of the Body of Christ, yet not the kingdom on Earth, for that will pass away. There will be no Great Awakening if our purpose is to use it to return to the vomit of our own comfort. We need to be jarred out of our slumber and I think the time is drawing near for that to happen.
Some of us are old enough to remember when we only had 4-5 channels and 3 of them had a news hour. Being “informed” was pretty much decided for you. In my city, the 2 daily papers were owned by a rich and very liberal family. They positioned themselves as arbiters of civil rights and equality for blacks and most believed it. However, years later their daughter wrote a book and made it clear that was hogwash. I remember one story about how as teens they invited the black gardener’s son to swim in the pool with them. Their parents were furious and ordered the pool to be drained and sanitized.
That is how I think of the way the news was delivered for decades. Sanitized for us with a particular bent. If Conkrite said it, it was gospel.
It is still that way with thousands of news sources sanitizing it to their bent. This is a VERY good thing and we should all be grateful. And if we are wise we will read quite a few sources when an issue interests us. I would rather have too many sources then a few decided for me.
There is no such thing as purely objective news. Everything from word inflection, body language to choice of words and placement employs influence.
My reason for turning my back on FNC, and placing them in the waste bin with all other sources of mainstream media is simple. All of the talking heads on there, Hannity, Beck(at the time), O’Reilly, et al.. claim to be Constitutional Conservatives. They say that we need to get back in step with the founding documents of our country… OK, agreed. I found this all to be in vain, mainly because of their dismissal of Ron Paul as a viable contender for POTUS. Ron Paul isn’t perfect by any strecth, however he represented the best hope for getting a POTUS that respects and understands the Constitution and what a Republican form of government should look like, BUT because he doesn’t bow down at the feet of Israel he is black listed. FNC is no better than any other propaganda machine out there, they just do their part in controlling the other side of the false choice paradigm that is the Left/Right political narrative. All mainstream media is designed to keep you existing in a pre-designed, intellectual box that both sides of the aisle control, which is why the same Godless idiots keep getting elected every 4 years, and Americans think that their voice is heard. What’s the definition of insanity again?