As the new Australian Federal Government, freshly painted in Labor colours, busily abolished a whole range of laws and practices deemed discriminatory to homosexuals, the issue of gay marriage was never on the table. High quality ethical argument may be rare amongst western journalists, but two of the worst responses I heard made me shake my head.
On the airwaves: “If people don’t agree with gay marriage, the solution is quite simple: don’t marry someone who is gay”.
In print amongst the dailies: “Wouldn’t it have been simpler to have changed the Marriage Act, thereby granting equal rights to gay couples across all areas? Or is that too much like common sense?”
The first evidently believes that a person’s ethics does not belong in the public domain, but what you believe is simply to be applied in your own backyard. Ethics (should you choose to adopt them) are personal and private. It is fine to have them for yourself, but why foist them upon another? This is classic individualistic relativism.
The second takes the high ground, claiming ‘common sense’ was on her (as it happens) side. On this view, ‘marriage’ is simply something that gets you things, and if the definition of marriage means that some people aren’t getting the same things, change the definition. This is classic unprincipled (or anti-principled) pragmatism—or even functionalism.
Neither opinion can even spare the time to enter into a discussion of any principled objection. In fact, principles are ruled out from the beginning by simply being ignored.
But is it even worse than that? To ignore something means that you are aware of it being there, but you choose not to take any notice of it. The real worry about these two representatives of our intrepid ‘talking class’ is that they don’t show any sign that there may be good, well-thought out, principled objections.
If they are choosing to ignore ethical arguments that have been integral to western (and other) society for centuries, then this is certainly irresponsible journalism. Surely debate should be stimulated, not just shut down. But, if they are just oblivious to ethical argument, as they appear to be, have they any ability to think ethically at all?
And if our journalists can’t, can anyone?
Journalists, especially opinion writers, crystallise public thought. If their responsibility is to reflect the culture they live in – ie. one of relativism, pragmatism and rampant individualism – then they are very “responsible” to their calling.
But if we choose to define the responsiblity of the media as one of a higher calling – ie. to infuse debates with principles and morality, no matter how anachronistic they seem today – then they often, though not always, failed to act responsibly.
I don’t think they set out to do this in the first place. A media lecture I went to in my uni days was entitled, “Why moral posturing is ruining public debate”. I think that says it all. In short, we need more christians in the media.
-Sophia (a journalist)
I’m not certain that the 2 examples cited were intended to reflect current culture as much as they were ‘posturing’ to represent political correctness.
I definitely agree with Sophie – we need more Christian Journalists who will express a Christian-Worldview based opinion. I realise that’s hard though because it WILL come at a price (usually loss of job, image etc).
But there’s a role for the “Gordon Cheng – type Christians” too. i.e. those that write letters to the editor etc.
I wonder though, sometimes at the personal cost to non-Christian and Christian journalists/writers/etc of the dualism (nice word for hyprocrisy – sorry) they have to maintain. When you speak with some of them “off the record” the views they espouse so passionately from behind the microphone or word processor often contradict what they truly think/feel about the matter. Reflecting the culture you’re communicating to is one thing, but omitting to provide honest analysis compromises their ethics and integrity.
(ok I’ll get off my soap box now or else my comment will end up longer than Peter’s article.)
Is it possible for theological commentators to write clearly anymore?
If a journalist wrote about the views of christian commentators in the same way that Peter Bolt writes about journalists, there would be pulpit rumblings.
Peter cites someone “on the airways”. We don’t even know if they are a journalist. Its like reporting the views of a “prominent preaching identity”. We don’t know if it is Brian Houston or Phillip Jensen. Both might be offended.
Peter cites a female commentator – from the dailies. Still don’t know if she is a journalist , or the context. Perhaps a comment piece on an oped page?Journalists or not, commentators in the papers, contra Bolt, expect contradiction, whether in the letters page or the column of a rival. They are part of a flow of comment, and objections principled or not are bound to be raised.
Unlike preachers, they can expect public feedback.
Judging by strength of argument this part of the sola panel appears to be operating at low power.
A NOTE FROM (ONE OF) YOUR FRIENDLY MODERATORS
Thank you everybody for your comments so far!
Just a friendly reminder to everybody that we would like you to use your full name when you post comments (that is, first name and last name).
We’re pretty relaxed about this at the moment, and we are even letting spammers sell their wares on site until I notice and delete ; -) , but as we get through our early teething problems we would like people to follow these guidelines.
We are still tossing up things like comment moderation (which would help defeat the evil spammers), and will keep you in touch with where we head on such questions. If you have feedback that you want to give us at any time then one of the best ways is to e-mail us on briefingATmatthiasmedia.com.au, replacing the ‘AT’ with an @.
[update: currently comment moderation is turned on]
Those are some excellent insights, John. If Christians wish to improve the standard of journalism, they would do well to set an example first. I’ve seen enough Christian journalism to demonstrate to me that it is not merely the secular media that are to blame.
It’s worth pointing out that considerable debate exists about the role that journalists play in the reporting of the news. Should they be impartial observers, or is it actually beneficial for the journalist to write from his or her own perspective. Is such a thing as neutrality even possible? Personally, I’d suggest not, which is why independent media and differing perspectives from within the same publication is necessary.
Sadly most of the media are trapped by their own self-deception of political correctness. Like the Emperor’s
New clothes, they are afraid of departing from the ” correct”line.