The Media has Become its Own Darling

In 1982, I recall a Time magazine article touting a new 24 hour network called Cable News Network. At the time, I thought it was a great concept. No longer would a viewer be tied to a 6:30 pm schedule; no more only 22 minutes of news; and no more sound bites of the most salacious nature to titillate the viewer. Now it would be for sound, in depth analysis of the events of the day for serious people who wanted to keep abreast of what was happening in our world.

Fast forward to 2010, and what do we have? A 24 hour news cycle with several  cable "news" networks, comprised of political partisans with little or no journalistic background: Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, talk show hosts; Lawrence O'Donnell, former Congressional staffer; and Keith Olbermann, former  sportscaster. But news networks are a business whose mission is create profits, and that is done by giving people what they want. Let's face it: the geopolitical considerations of transnational terrorism and economic indicators can be boring. People want to be entertained. When your programs are competing against "Two and a Half Men" and "Survivor," you better bring something more than an analysis of home mortgage sales. Circular coverage has become standard now: Fox criticizes media for its purported biased left wing coverage, and MSNBC criticizes Fox for its coverage of the media. Each network's core audience is entertained, ratings remain high, and you never have to worry about a slow news day when you can cover what the other guy says. However, when the people who are to bring you the news become the news, then it is something to be concerned about, if for no other reason than their self-indulgence.

Particularly frustrating is the media's fascination with itself in how they cover themselves. Want to know what Bill O'Reilley, Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck are up to? Watch MSNBC where they regularly report what those commentators are saying that happens to offend them (which is often). This has been officially recognized as a feud between the two networks. Funny, I don't recall Walter Cronkite feuding with David Brinkley, or reporting what some talk radio host in Bismarck, North Dakota said on his show. Instead, all they reported on was the Cold War, nuclear freeze, and the economy. But MSNBC's target market are liberals, and skewering conservatives make for entertaining television. They have become a more serious version of Jon Stewart's Daily Show. It's disingenuous to complain Fox News is the media arm of the Republican Party by becoming the media arm of the Democratic Party by espousing its causes.

Another facet of media saturation is how media can feed on themselves and make situations worse. Don Imus made the comment of "nappy headed hos" on his show about a female college basketball team, and the constant onslaught of 24 hour coverage made the comments more exponentially embarrassing for the victims. The event reached its nadir when then New Jersey Jon Corzine (and subsequently injured on his way to the meeting in a car accident) was scheduled to mediate a meeting between the team and Don Imus because of the comment no doubt helped in part by the coverage. Another example was when an otherwise obscure Arkansas school board member made a homosexual slur on a Facebook page, and garnered lead coverage on Anderson Copper's CNN show. We are now on notice that any offhanded comment made or written about could be fodder for media scrutiny. Those zoning officials in Keokuk, Iowa better watch what they say from now on.

Today, no one who espouses a contrarian viewpoint is safe from media outlets who want to take a stand on their own issues, and create higher ratings as a result. The ironies of constant coverage is that it legitimizes offenders who otherwise would have no outlet, and may give them sympathy in some quarters and make them become a martyr for their cause.The other irony is that in a media universe of diverse viewpoints is that free expression is decreased. In an effort to be politically correct, and not incur the wrath of the media, (and subsequent boycott by sponsors and protests of interest groups), people are more apt to be less candid in expressing themselves and ideas, and more along the line of Orwellian group think. That would be worth covering.

Sowing your seed of discontent

As a follow up on my post on the prosperity gospel, it seems some preachers turn God into a huckster, or morning drive deejay, by some of the methods they use. For instance, a preacher will say: "be one of the first 300 callers for your anointing when you sow your seed of a thousand dollars." I like the term "sowing your seed." It sounds so much more easier to digest than to say "Give me your money!". After all, they say, this for only those people with big dreams, so you losers out there don't bother sowing if you enjoy poverty. Don't worry if you don't have a thousand dollars to "sow," either. Apparently God accepts payment plans. And if you want to truly enjoy God's blessings, then it will have to be THEIR ministry, not the Salvation Army, Mother Teresa's order, or Catholic Charities, where real street level ministries are taking place. Theirs. The one where you get no financial statement or know who the board of directors are ( in other word, no accountability, which is supposed to be a big word in Christian circles). What's worse is they prey on the vulnerability of those who have real needs and areal faith to back up giving in large sums. The ironic thing is that sowing only works one way for them. If it really worked, they would sow and become financially wealthy as they are now. And it helps to be a tax free entity, even though schools, police and fire departments are deprived of revenue. So forget about talk of giving to Caesar what is Caesar's, and helping those  agencies carry on Gods' work in their own way, of protecting and teaching.

It's classical cause and effect for these preachers. Donate your money to their ministry, and you'll prosper, just like them. But they prosper on the backs of those who give to them. They'll wear fancy suits and live like sultans paid for by offerings, so they can tell people God has blessed them, because look at how well off they are, and so you should donate to them, and then the cycle starts over again. And that's the climax, donating your money, at the end of the "revival." Nothing about the mercy of Jesus Christ, and how he forgives and changes lives. Just sow your seed and get wealthy like me.

If I were an atheist, I would turn lost people to these programs to gain converts. These teleministries feed into the stereotype of the slick television preacher, and embarrass true ministers of the Word.

False Hopes and Theology

The preaching is loud and earnest, the music is uplifting, and everything is ethereal. And in the finale, you are asked to “sow your seed,” a euphemism for giving your money away. Not to the Salvation Army, a soup kitchen,  or Catholic Charities, but this particular teleministry. I guess sowing your seed is more palatable than asking to send your money in. Everyone on stage seems to have a (self-anointed) title: doctor, prophet, and bishop. They work a crowd that would be the envy of a pro wrestling manager.

It is called “seed faith” theology, and many people are strong advocates of it. Perhaps after giving away your money, or seed, you need to justify it having done it, maybe in the hoped of finally becoming rich, or trying to salvage some dignity for have given away so much money.

I don’t know how many unbelievers are turned off by this if they are tuning on for the first time, or how much these telecasts feed into the stereotypes of televangelists, or Christians in general. But I wonder how much money that is raised by these methods could have been more efficiently spent on giving them to missionaries, church planting, native ministers, soup kitchens, and medical clinics. Why does every mega ministry have to create their own empires? If you look at the lifestyle of these preachers, then you have your answer.