The Journalist and Faith

Why isn't religion talked about in the news? I think the answer comes in two parts:
1. Readers/viewers don't want to read/watch news about religion.
2. Journalists don't want to cover religion.

Readers and viewers don't want to read or watch news about religion. Religion is very personal; worship is very personal. Most people of faith in the United States are not publicly religious. We may be quick to question whether they are at all religious in the first place. Part of the presentation stated that 81% of Americans say prayer is important in their lives. When I think about where I grew up in Indiana, everyone on our street knew that we were LDS. I knew our neighbors across the street were Catholic, but I did not know the religious affiliation of anyone else. But, I would guess 81% of the people on our street considered prayer an important aspect of their lives. Many people who consider themselves religious and who pray, do so in private, and their neighbors may not even know their religious affiliation.
News, on the other hand, makes everything public. We can read or watch the news privately, but it is in a public forum and we are really joining thousands of others who are reading and watching the same thing we are. I think many people are uncomfortable with religion in this public forum because they prefer to keep it in their own private setting.

The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states that journalists should Seek the Truth and Report It. Journalists know they should find the facts. They should report the facts, and leave the opinion to their sources. It is difficult to reconcile religion with this standard. Often times, a journalist will write or say that a person or group of people "claim" or "believe" something, which then casts doubt on their belief. While this may seem derogatory towards that religion and its faith, it is a journalist doing his or her job. A journalist can not prove a claim of faith. In truth, that religion claims or believes something. A journalist can not state the claim as fact, even if it is in line with his or her own religious conviction. This inability to prove a faith as a fact makes it difficult for a journalist to cover religion.

Journalists as Ideologues

I have thought a lot about Anderson Cooper and his role as a journalist and as a human being. In this bio he says about covering the Rwandan Genocide: "On the side of the road [Cooper] came across five bodies that had been in the sun for several days. The skin of a woman's hand was peeling off like a glove. Revealing macabre fascination, Cooper whipped out his disposable camera and took a closeup photograph for his personal album. As he did, someone took a photo of him. Later that person showed Cooper the photo, saying, "You need to take a look at what you were doing." "And that's when I realized I've got to stop, [...] I've got to report on some state fairs or a beauty pageant or something, to just, like, remind myself of some perspective." I think this experience explains why Anderson Cooper is the type of journalist he is. This video of Cooper in Haiti has over 300,000 views on YouTube. I don't see a problem with journalists appearing human. You must stay objective and removed from your story and sources to some degree, but I don't think being a journalist should ever trump being human. In his case, I think he was able to be both a journalist and a human being.

Because of his experience in Rwanda, Cooper put down his camera and helped this Haitian boy. I have no doubt that his intentions were pure; he didn't care whether or not a camera was rolling on him. At that moment, he took off his journalist hat and put on his human hat and did what anyone should have, and hopefully would have, done. This didn't affect his credibility as a journalist, nor did it make him a less objective reporter. If anything, it helped him understand the post-earthquake Haiti better than if he would have stood by and filmed it.