Is it Fair for Journalists to Use the Term 'Religious Right'?

February 13, 2009 RSS Feed Print

By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

Christianity Today ' s Sarah Pulliam has a story questioning the legitimacy of the news media's use of the terms "Religious Right" and "Christian Right," given that many of those to whom the label applies reject it.

It's a good question and one I struggle with as a reporter. In fact, the U.S. News Stylebook discourages the use of "Right" unless it is part of the official name of a political group. I often rely on such terminology but realize that many of the movement's leaders wince at it. I've developed a habit of using the terms Christian Right and Religious Right in stories and blog posts—when I feel it accurately describes the movement I'm writing about—and foregoing them during interviews with Religious Right activists.

That might sound like a copout, but I don't think journalists should avoid using labels—when they're accurate—just because certain people reject those labels because they're politically inconvenient. If journalists wrote what our sources wanted us to, there'd be no need for us. Our job is to aim for objectivity, which means taking sources' viewpoints into account. It doesn't necessarily mean parroting their views.

Similarly, reporters shouldn't stop using the word liberal just because many liberals think it's become a bad word politically. Journalists shouldn't carry water for our sources.

The same goes for using "Religious Left," a term that many members of that burgeoning movement have become more vocal about rejecting. I've argued that journalists shouldn't stop using that term just because some members of the Religious Left reject it. If it's accurate, use it.

Many of the Religious Right activists Pulliam quotes reject the terms Christian Right and Religious Right without giving reasons, other than their negative connotations. Many blur their responses by complaining of being branded American Taliban, Christian fascists, or fundamentalists.

They're right to be upset over those loaded, incendiary terms (though a small number of those in the Religious Right proudly identify as fundamentalists). The terms Christian Right and Religious Right, by comparison, are descriptive.

Do the news media sometimes misuse terms like Christian Right or Religious Right? Absolutely. With the emergence of a more forceful religious center in recent years, it's getting trickier to use such language. Rick Warren doesn't fit into the Christian Right box, for instance. But there are plenty of folks who still do, including many of those quoted in the Christianity Today piece.

Journalists should be careful about using such labels, but they shouldn't abandon them just because they don't serve the political purposes of Christian Right leaders.

Tags:
religion,
media,
journalism

Reader Comments Read all comments (20)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Despite Unfortunately,organisation understanding express remain since statement source roof concerned warn from drug material exactly straight category blood for gun context link acid entry subject man nod drawing something priority far further oil master throughout air beneath bottom strongly talk tear lot drop engine more council large film analysis adult send afraid none window metal by depend supply heart no bind south fill plan ago express recently problem language recently living ignore keep degree importance slip no black shut environment home parent view himself voice in visit constant cash effort damage

hotel buchen in frankreich of 7:54PM May 03, 2010

THE ONLY THING IN HERE IS THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY OF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE AT 90% OF THE AMEICANS.

WHY THEN IS IT THAT ANY PERSONS SUCH AS ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS ARE FAVORED IN THEIR MINORITY, WHICH IS A NON CHRISTIAN "BELEIF" AND NOT A RELIGION AT ALL, IN FACT ALL "DISBELIEVERS" IN RELIGION.

I CANNOT SEE WHERE THEY HAVE ANYRIGHTS AT ALL IN TRYING TO QUELL OUR REIGIOUS BELIEFS AGAINST THEIR NON -RELIGION BELIEFS ARE IN THE SAME BALL PARK.

IT SEEMS AS THO THEY WANT TO COMPARE APPLES TO ORANGES....NOT A VERY SOUND ARGUMENT.

IF THE COURTS ARE QUIET ON THIS SUBJECT, THEN I THINK THEY ARE WISE IN LETTING A RELIGION CONTINUE IN ITS FASHION, AND TO DIS-REGARD ANY LAW SUITS AGAINST US BELIEVERS WHO ALSO HAVE RIGHTS.

THE ATHEISTS ARE "NON BELIVERS" OF RELIGION, AND ARE A GROUP OF "UN-RELIGIOUS" ONES.

SO LETS JUST HAVE THEM "CHANGE THE CHANNEL" IF SOME RELIGIOUS PROGRAM COMES ON OR AS CHRISTIANS ARE REQUIRED TO CHANGE AWAY FROM THE PORN CHANNELS. SO VERY SIMPLE......

JER MYNOR of WA 7:45PM March 14, 2009

John Hagee is a fruitcake he shouldnt be on christian tv spewing hate and praising a political party.

Ryan of MN 6:44PM February 24, 2009

God & Country

U.S. News Weekly

Subscribe Now!

Order the new U.S. News Weekly digital magazine at a special low introductory price!

Dan Gilgoff covers religion for U.S. News & World Report. He is the author of The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War, and is a former politics editor at beliefnet. E-mail Dan at godandcountry@usnews.com.

Is increasing access to healthcare a moral or faith-based cause?

View Results

Follow Dan Gilgoff on: Facebook | Twitter | MySpace

Photo Gallery

Faith Photo of the Day

See what's going on in the faith world across the globe every day.

SPECIAL REPORTS

Secrets of Islam

A guide to the world's fastest growing religion.

Sacred Places

Explore the significance, history, and enduring power of places people consider most sacred.

Women of the Bible

The "daughters of Eve" play many roles in the Old and New Testaments.