If You are Facing Divorce A Certified Divorce Coach can be a Valuable Resource

The uncertainty of divorce invokes emotional responses. Denial, anger, fear, insecurity, and numerous other emotions are typical. However, these reactions interfere with making decisions that have far-reaching impact. If you are facing divorce, you may feel like you are venturing blindly into the unknown. However, there are resources to help you chart your course. One such resource is a Certified Divorce Coach. A Certified Divorce Coach is a professional, who has completed an intensive training and mentoring program and achieved certification.

Working with a Certified Divorce Coach helps you tear down the barriers hindering you from thinking clearly and making the best choices. Divorce coaching helps you to be your best 8you will “win” the case. You will, however, be more prepared and empowered. A Divorce Coach is not a substitute for legal counsel, a financial advisor, or a therapist. A Certified Divorce Coach complements the services provided by other important and necessary professionals.

You need to safeguard yourself, your children, your assets, and your future. Empowering yourself, through resources such as divorce coaching enables you to deal with the issues more effectively with the least amount of emotional and economic damages. The Certified Divorce Coach can be an invaluable resource for you, from the earliest stage, when you are just considering divorce, through the divorce process, and adjusting to life after divorce. Your Divorce Coach helps you to make decisions. The coach does not make decisions for you. Divorce is stressful and exhausting. The Certified Divorce Coach helps you tackle the tasks and work through the process.

Working with a Certified Divorce Coach begins with an initial meeting or discovery session. After the initial session, the coach will work with you to establish a coaching plan that best meets your needs. I prefer to develop a personalized plan based on the particular client. Coaching sessions can be in person, by phone, or video-conference. The frequency and the number of sessions vary. Each client is an individual with their own particular needs. Therefore, coaching plans vary.

There are multiple resources available for someone going through a divorce. The information in the resources is not legal advice. The facts and circumstances of each case differ. What you read on the internet, in articles, or in books, may not apply to your case and it is not legal advice. The Divorce Coach cannot give you legal advice. Only a lawyer licensed to practice law in the state where your divorce occurs can give you legal advice. The Certified Divorce Coach can help you make the most out of your relationship with your attorney and other professionals. As a result, you can focus on your efforts to make the best choices and to take action needed to reach your goals.

To schedule a session or to learn more, I can be reached by telephone at 561-713-1197 or by email: clively@livelylaw.com

Cathy L. Purvis Lively, Esq. is an attorney,    Florida Supreme Court Certified Mediator,  and CDC Certified and CDC Certified Divorce Coach.

 

 

 

Our Responsibility as Consumers to Become Media Literate

We live in a time where we have real time access to news. The majority of us get our news on social media. If we don’t get our news on social media we turn to facebook to check the accuracy of information we got somewhere else. The danger in this instant gratification-social media driven – information world is the human tendency to believe what is written and the comments made to what is written. Each of us as a part of the audience that various media enterprises are trying to reach, has a responsibility to be a smart audience. Smart in our choice of sources. Smart in our discernment of differences in the same story from multiple sources. Smart in our refusal to let fear drive us. We have to become responsible consumers of the information we receive.

That means first and foremost understanding that: just because it is written, does not make it so. I am old enough to remember Walter Conkrite’s sign off, “that’s the way it was….” and we all went to bed knowing that it was. Today, we miss that comfort as we all have our mobile devices next to our beds and scroll through our favorite news sources for information at the end of a day filled with constant input on what is happening in the world. It is not difficult to find conflicting sources on just about anything in the moment.

 

We each have a responsibility to make sure that what we interpret as news is accurate. Politicians have learned to manipulate the media, particularly social media, for their political gain. In our age of instant news, news agencies pick apart each other’s stories and make that news. The ability to comment on news articles and commentaries real time seems to have opened a whole new sensitivity to news. The comments somehow make what we read more personal which makes us react more emotionally to things we like and things we don’t like. It has led to violence and even death as the emotional reactions have fed off of each other. I am always amazed at the comments following articles that give birth to whole discussions on things that are not even related to the original article. The hate crimes against minorities in this country after the Trump election are examples of the violence that can be fed, unknowingly, by the news media.

The other responsibility that we as citizens have is not to let our favorite news entities be the only source of information we have on a particular topic. When we do that we limit our ability to have the information to think critically about current events. While responsible news organizations report on the facts, most lean one way or the other on political and social issues. That bias comes across in their reporting in spite of attempts not to allow it to do so.

For example, the media/social media has instilled in many otherwise reasonable people a fear of anyone who appears mid-eastern or who practices Islam. I had more than on friend who expressed concern when I mentioned that I had visited a mosque. They were concerned about sleeper cells at mosques and Islam taking over the country.  Before we allow ourselves to look at those of mid-eastern descent with fear, we should educate ourselves on the source of the fear. There is more than one problem with the analogy. Perhaps the two biggest are the hate crimes that have occurred because someone is assumed to be Muslim and therefore a threat and the threat to freedom of conscience or religion that comes from those who believe we should make an exception because Islam is such a threat. Have we allowed the media to feed our fear of something that is different? Have we let the association between terrorist and Islam take precedent over our belief in first amendment freedoms? The latter is accentuated by the Christianity first posture of the current administration.

So, it is each of our responsibility to educate ourselves to become responsible consumers of the news. We have instant access, but we must analyze and evaluate what we read and apply it to our own particular circumstances. We create news when we share news with our own words on our social media pages. It is our responsibility when we do that to share an opinion on the news, not to tear down someone who may have a different opinion.

Transatlantic Hate Speech

This week in the News and Religion class I’m taking, we explored Hate Speech. The Ethical Journalism Network has a A 5-Point Test for Hate Speech for Journalists. We’ve been asked to write about “one country in which the media have reported on religion and hate speech and discuss the issue.” The problem is that hate speech cross professional and political boundaries.

President Trump provided an opportunity to explore this recently when he retweeted Jayda Fransen, Deputy Leader of Britain First. Fransen had posted VIDEO: Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches!. This immediately became a large news story with articles like FactCheck’s Trump Spreads False Anti-Muslim Tweet, Anne Applebuam’s opinion piece in the Washington Post, President Trump is now a troll, the NewStatesman’s article, What Donald Trump retweeting Britain First reveals about the UK’s far right.

The Guardian reported British Prime Minister Theresa May condemns Trump’s retweets of UK far-right leader’s anti-Muslim videos. The article went on to list other dignitaries including the archbishop of Canterbury who said, “It is deeply disturbing that the President of the United States has chosen to amplify the voice of far-right extremists”.

There is an old saying online, to the extent that anything online can be referred to as old; “Don’t feed the trolls”. This is easier to do when the troll is your crazy uncle whom you can ignore or even block online or a mostly unknown pastor in Florida. It is a much greater challenge for journalists when the troll is the President of the United States.

How should journalists cover this issue?

The five point test from the Ethical Journalism Network provides some guidance. The first point is to examine the status or position of the speaker.

When people who are not public figures engage in hate-speech, it might be wise to ignore them entirely. A good example is Terry Jones the Koran-burning pastor in Florida who was an unknown person with marginal influence even in his rural backwater but who became an overnight global media sensation. On reflection most ethical journalists might say he was entitled to no publicity for his provocative threats.

The same could perhaps have been said about Jayda Fransen. The NewStatesmen puts it this way:

Jayda Fransen, whose content was picked up by the US President on Wednesday, has been arrested numerous times, and was convicted of religiously aggravated harassment towards a Muslim woman in a hijab last year.

Her tweets, now retweeted to Trump’s 43.6 million followers, contain misleading and unsourced video clips.

The Guardian describers her this way:

Fransen, 31, is deputy leader of Britain First, a minor anti-Islam party with an estimated 1,000 followers that has had no electoral success. Fransen lost her deposit when she stood for parliament in a 2014 byelection, receiving just 56 votes.

She has been charged with using threatening or abusive language following an appearance at a far-right rally in Belfast this summer. She is due to appear at a Belfast court next month.

The Ethical Journalism Network sums things up with:

Even when people are public figures media have to make sure they do not draw undue attention to politicians and other influential people whose only aim is to create a negative climate towards people whose rights should be respected, particularly those from vulnerable and marginalised groups.

The Ethical Journalism Network’s second point is to explore the reach of the speech. They talk about the impact of speech distributed via the internet. The NewStatesmen addresses speaks about with the tagline to their article, “With the decline of ‘traditional’ street fascism, white nationalist groups gain traction online.”

The third point is to explore the objectives of the speech.

Normally, ethical journalists and well-informed editors will be able to quickly identify whether the speech is deliberately intended to attack or diminish the human rights of individuals and groups

Prime Minister Theresa May’s spokesman put it this way: “Britain First seeks to divide communities by their use of hateful narratives that peddle lies and stoke tensions.”

Point four examines the content and form of speech.

Journalists ask themselves: is this speech or expression dangerous? Could it lead to prosecution under the law? Will it incite violence or promote an intensification of hatred towards others?

The article in The Guardian provides some pretty clear answers on this.

[Fransen] has been charged with using threatening or abusive language following an appearance at a far-right rally in Belfast this summer. She is due to appear at a Belfast court next month.

The final point of the five point test for hate speech explores the “economic, social and political climate”.

Speech that is dangerous or controversial arises particularly when times are hard, social tensions are acute and politicians are at war with one another.

By the standards of the Ethical Journalism Network, it sure appears that the videos posted by Jayda Fransen constitute hate speech and that President Trump acted unethically by retweeting them. While we may not be able to undo the damage of his actions, having serious discussions around the ethics of reporting on hate speech may provide a silver lining of getting people to think more seriously about when speech is helpful and when speech is harmful.

Hate Speech – No Place in the Religious Press

According to an article originally posted on religionlink.com in 2015, hate speech masked as journalism is all too common in many parts of the world and does a disservice to both readers and society. Sometimes it merely reinforces unpleasant stereotypes; other times it contributes to evils far worse. That is a sobering statement. The media has a responsibility not to play an unintentional role in promotion of hate in our society while reporting. That unintentional role can be played when we forget the balanced part of reporting of issues or topics that are cultural or religious in nature and there for not always understood across those boundaries. Free speech is a privilege and not an excuse to hide behind for irresponsible acts of the press.

In this commentary, I am going to focus on Islam, not because it is the only example of irresponsible reporting or where the reporting on a subject has led to hateful actions, but because it seems to be the one that is most pervasive in the US today. As I have been writing it, I have been constantly reminded of the comment of a local DC Imam when I visited his mosque last year, that American Muslims relate more to American Christians than to the Islamic faith as it is practiced in the Mideast or Indonesia. That statement tells me that social setting and cultural context matter significantly in this conversation.

There are many examples of how the media’s reporting on Islam has been a contributing factor in public distrust and even violence against Muslims. The US media is quick to use the phrase, “radical Islamic terrorist,” in relation to some act of violence in this country. If the perpetrator of the crime does not turn out to be Muslim then all of a sudden it is no longer being called an act of terrorism. Yet, the misrepresentation further sends the message that terrorists are Islamic. In fact, Muslim and terrorist are so linked in the minds of some that when we think of terrorist, we think, “Muslim.”

There were two acts of terrorism in Europe in recent years that I want to highlight as an example.  They showed a lack of understanding of Islam or a careless disregard for inflicting harm on those who practice Islam.  However, censorship of the relevant publications would have stained free speech. The first attack was in Paris and was directed at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a magazine that publishes satire. They had republished cartoons in 2013 depicting the prophet Mohammed that were originally published in Denmark in 2005.  The second attack was in Denmark a month later.

Jyllands Posten, the Danish newspaper mentioned above, has been in the news several times since a 2005 publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed. The general sense in the Muslim world was that the cartoons insulted their faith.  These cartoons spurred a backlash across the globe that was ultimately resulted in the deaths of over 200 people. In 2010 authorities thwarted a terrorist attack against the newspaper that was linked to the earlier cartoons.

After the February 2015 attack in Denmark, Jyllands Posten, said after the attacks in Denmark, “Unfortunately, it is difficult to claim surprise at the attacks in Copenhagen.” Terrorism, it added, was “not a question of if, but when.” My question is if the editors of the daily newspaper believed that, then where was the responsible reporting to try and diffuse the situation. If they could see the impact of their earlier publication then why did they not counter the cartoons with balanced reporting on Islam?

What occurs to me as I studied the attacks in Denmark and the impact of other terrorist acts in Eastern Europe is that the religious media has the responsibility to educate their reporters beyond the basics of journalism. The religious media has the responsibility to educate their reporters on both the faith traditions they will be covering and the history of that faith in the part of the world they are covering. A rudimentary course in world religions does not qualify anyone to be a reporter covering Islam in Europe (for example).  Also, reporters should learn the responsibility that comes with free speech and being the voice that is the source of world events.

In the US, reporters covering religion have an even greater need to ensure they are well-educated. All too often the privilege that comes with being a US citizen clouds our perspective. We believe we know all that we need to know about something happening in another part of the world. When the subject is religion, as Americans, we would do good to remember that according to a Pew Research Center study we are pretty religiously illiterate. The attacks in Paris and the attacks in Denmark a following them are perfect examples of hatred that is fueled by media who “publish” things without really understanding (or caring) how it will be received by the subject of the reporting. In this particular case, the media had almost 10 years to watch the escalation of violence that republishing the original cartoons spurred. There was a responsibility to respond that was ignored.

There is another perhaps conflicting responsibility here. That is the protection of the freedom of speech. The Atlantic published an article in January of 2015 called Charlie Hebdo and the Right to Be Offended. In it, Karl Sharro said, “By seeking to present religion as a form of cultural identity that should be protected from offense and critique, Western liberals are consequently undermining the very struggles against the authority of inherited institutions through which much of the Western world’s social and political progress was achieved.” He went on to say that the demands to Censor satire such as that in the Charlie Hebdo cartoons was not driven by a uniquely Muslim sense of outrage. This conflict between responsible reporting and freedom of expression is one that all reporters should pay attention in developing stories, creating satire, producing videos, etc. We live in a world where, “fake news” is in the headlines on an almost daily basis. It is easy for freedom of expression to stray into sensationalism. Satire should be labeled as such and not reported on as if it were factual.

Denmark and France mentioned above show, reporters should consider how the messages they are conveying will be received in developing it. When the subject is controversial, then efforts should be made to ensure that the reporting is balanced. Stories should be told that include those impacted.

The privilege and responsibility of freedom of speech mean that reporters must pay more than a passing attention to the impact of their words in the various social settings where they will be seen. Media companies have the responsibility to educate reporters or other contributors before publishing their material. Responsible reporting strikes a balance and corrects itself when that balance is missed.   This self-correction might prevent the next violent reaction.

 

 

 

 

Safety Pins and Favorite Verses from the Quran

Shortly after the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, I started wearing a safety pin to show my desire to provide safe spaces for people around me, especially people who might be targeted by rising anti-Muslim sentiment. Some of my friends got together a group to provide safe spaces like this online.

A few months earlier, the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) released a report, Confronting Fear: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States. Among other things, the report found:

In 2015, there were 78 recorded incidents in which mosques were targeted; more incidents than ever reported in a single year since we began tracking these reports in 2009. Incidents in 2015 have more
than tripled compared to the past two years in which there were only 22 mosque incidents reported in 2013 and 20 incidents in 2014.

This August, CNN provided an update:

We mapped 63 publicly reported incidents from January to July 2017, where mosques were targets of threats, vandalism or arson. On average, that comes down to nine every month and at least two a week.

It is a disturbing trend that raises a very important question. How do we address Islamophobia in the United States? Some might look to the news media as a possible solution.

The CAIR report presents a “Vision Regarding Islamophobia in America” which includes this goal:

Islam has a 75% or higher favorability rating among the general public. In July 2014, the Pew Research Center reported that Americans rated Muslims at a mean of 40 on a scale of 0—100. Zero was the groups respondents felt “coldest” toward while 100 was “warmest.” Muslims generated the coldest feeling of all the religious groups.

One approach might be more positive articles about Islam.

In 2011, 31.3% of mainstream religion news coverage was devoted to Islam according to The Pew Research Center on Religion and Public Life’s analysis, Religion in the News: Islam and Politics Dominate Religion Coverage in 2011. Yet Muslims only make up 1% of the U.S. population.

In contrast the article Getting Beyond Stereotypes on Israeli TV News reports:

Arabs with Israeli citizenship account for roughly 20 percent of Israel’s population, but comprise just 3 percent of interviewees on leading news shows. Several Israeli non-profits are trying to change that

While it is important to understand that not all Arabs are Muslim and not all Muslims are Arabic, the difference in coverage is still striking. The underlying issue fear and lack of information about Muslims remains.

Perhaps more explainer articles and less fear-mongering articles are what is called for. Yet fear-mongering sells newspapers and given the issues of confirmation bias, especially in the United States today, we may need to look at different avenues.

Carla Powers’ article, Reporting on Islam provides a helpful example. She talks about a six minute video, “The Use and Misuse of ‘Allahu Akbar’ to get people to better understand the phrase.

It seems as if addressing the perception of Muslims in the news media just scratches the surface. We also need to address the perception of Muslims in our popular culture. Christianity is so intertwined that many of us make reference to it often without even knowing it. If you make a reference to St. Paul or the Beatitudes, many people will know what you are referring to. However, if you make reference to Al Ghazali, few will know what you are talking about.

This led me to a little experiment in social media. On Facebook, I asked the question, “What is your favorite verse from the Quran?” At last count, it had received twenty-six direct comments and many of these comments led off into long discussions.

I have many Muslim friends on Facebook, and my highest hopes for my post was that many of them would post their favorite verses from the Quran; verses illustrating Allah’s compassion and mercy. I hoped that people would explain that the word “Allah” is simply the Arabic translation for the word “God”; that the God of Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah is the God of all of us.

Yet much of the discussion ended up being around comments from two Islamophobes. I was gratified to see many of my friends speak up eloquently against Islamophobia and all in all, while I didn’t get to hear as many great quotes from the Quran as I would have liked, I did get a chance to see a wonderful response against Islamophobia by many of my friends.

While the lack of understanding of Islam is a major issue that news organizations must face in reporting on Islam today, the lack of a common cultural context, and the downright fear and hatred of Muslims by a growing percentage of the population further complicates the matter.

Perhaps we must all wear our safety pins, but physically and virtually and make it safer and more acceptable to bring more elements of Islam into the American cultural mainstream.

 

The Media and Hate Speech: Rwanda 1994…U.S. 2015

An extreme example of the proliferation of hate speech was demonstrated by media executives in Rwanda in 1994. The media’s actions in Rwanda illustrate the power of words spoken through the  media and the devastating consequences.

The BBC reported that “hate media” contributed to the genocide in which approximately will always work. Now you can send it in 800,000 were killed in 1994. (Impact of Hate Media in Rwanda, December 3, 2003). Ally Mugenzi, a BBC reporter stationed in Rwanda at that time, attested to the detrimental influence of the media. In this instance, the media did not just report other’s rhetoric. In Rwanda, the media actively participated in the dissemination of hate speech, hence the term “hate media.”

The principal perpetrator was the privately owned Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines (“RTLM”). RTLM actually gave the names of individuals who should be killed and provided details of how to find the individuals. Mugenzi reported the activities to the BBC while he was in Rwanda. Although questioned by the radio station, he escaped punishment.

The activities of the media did not go without consequence. At least two RTLM executives were prosecuted at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. One executive was sentenced to life in prison, and the other received a 35-year sentence. The media executives were not the only ones punished. As a result of the actions of the media, specifically, RTLM, others were punished by the subsequent absolute control of the media by the government. The proliferation of hate speech through the media and the resulting massive loss of life led to excessive government control of the media in Rwanda.

Without a doubt, RTLM disseminated hate speech. Consider the speech in light of the Ethical Journalism Networks Five-Point Test. Point One: The speech was dangerous. Providing information that encourages killing incites violence and intensifies the hatred. Point Two: Given the economic and political climate in Rwanda at that time, significantly exacerbated the intensity and the danger of the speech. Point Three: Undoubtedly, the broadcasters and publishers were “indiscriminate megaphones.” Although the source of any statements is not identified, RTLM freely disseminated the statements and directives. Point Four: RTLM was well aware, that the remarks were repeatedly broadcast. RTLM made the repeated publication possible. The explicit purpose was to further incite violence. Point Five: In this instance, the intent was obvious- death and destruction.

The example from Rwanda also meets each of the five factors set forth under the Five-Point Dangerous Speech Test as set forth by the Dangerous Speech Project. (1) As previously noted, it is not clear that the speech was directly attributable to an individual, such as  General Kagame. However, as a result of the broadcast, the violence and genocide escalated. It is, therefore, logical to presume individuals who heard the speech were influenced by the speaker. (2) Rwanda was in the midst of a violent rebellion and massive genocide. There can be little doubt that the audience had both fear and grievances which would be exacerbated as a result of the speech. (3) The speech, particularly instructions to kill can only be understood as a call to violence. (4) There was an existing conflict which would only be exacerbated by the speech. (5) The predominance of RTLM in that market at that time was influential enough to have a significant and devastating impact.

We must not dismiss the impact of words spoken through the media. Consider for a moment, the following words from a news broadcast, “We need to kill them. We need to kill them, the radical Muslim terrorists hell-bent on killing us.” “You’re in danger. I’m in danger. We’re at war and this is not going to stop.Were these words hate Speech? Yes. Were these words dangerous Speech? Yes.  Were these words spoken on a recording from RTLM in Rwanda in 1994? No. These words were broadcast on an American News Station in January  2015 (Jeanine Pirro on Justice).

 

Religious Intolerance in Brazil

Brazil is a country of over 200 million people. The dominant religious group, Roman Catholics, are declining in numbers as the evangelicals have increased to over 20 percent of the population. The shifting religious landscape in a country known for its corruption and police brutality begins the conversation about religious hate crimes against Afro-Brazilian’s.

In the September 13, 2014, America Aljazeera article, Followers of Afro-Brazilian religions feel under attack, by Zoe Sullivan and Lyndia Borros, “In the wake of Brazil’s changing religious demographics, intimidation of and violence toward Candomblé and Umbanda worshippers have increased”. Both religions have a history of being ridiculed by Catholics. To avoid persecution, the African slaves in Brazil assumed Catholic saints as representatives of their own gods and goddesses. This is one reason the Candomblé religion is seen by Catholics as devil worship. Perhaps it is the evangelical movement that has had the most negative impact on practitioners of Afro-Brazilian religions.

With the rise in the evangelical movement and its main church leader, Edir Macedo, who has described the Afro-Brazilian religions as “diabolical,” prejudice continues. According to Forbes, the second-largest broadcaster Rede Record is owned by Macdeo; a resident of the United States and Telemundo affiliate owner in Atlanta. His church, Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, has over 8 million followers which perpetuates the intolerance. In his 1997 book, Orixas, Caboclos and False Gods or Demons, Macedo claimed Afro-Brazilian religion prohibited eternal salvation. More than three million copies were sold before it was ban in 2005 for its religious intolerance, according to a news report in Cotidiano.

Sullivan and Borros report, “In May a judge in Rio de Janeiro ruled that Candomblé and Umbanda were not religions. He was forced to retract that decision when it caused an uproar, but the sentence revealed that hostility to Afro-Brazilian religions permeates all levels of society”. However, this sentiment is wildly popular among the growing Evangelical politicians. Robert Muggah reports in his November 2, 2017, article, In Brazil religious gang leaders say they’re waging a holy war, “Evangelical lawmakers currently hold 85 of 513 seats in Brazil’s lower house of Congress, meaning that the religious right is shaping the national debate on gay rights, racial equality, women’s reproductive health, education and other social issues.” With the growing number of people being incarcerated and the influence of evangelicals converting drug lords in the overcrowded prisons, those living in the poorest areas of Brazil are being directly impacted.

Muggah continues to report that a few gang leaders in favelas across Rio are on a mission to “stamp out, one terreiro at a time” and to “cleanse the community” of Candomblé and Umbanda practitioners. According to Muggah, this attitude has escalated with “a small group of evangelical preachers in the favalelos and in the over-crowded prison system.” According to the Institute for Public Security 1,486 reported homicides in the state of Baixada Fluminese, the poorest township in Rio, has occurred so far in 2017. The impact of religious intolerance from religious leaders, to law breakers to everyday practitioners gives law-abiding evangelicals a bad reputation.

Brazil’s Constitution protects against hate speech but newly elected official are testing the limits of those protections. According to Monnerat in his article, Press freedom violations increase in Brazil by 65% in 2016, says Abert report, “Brazil remains one of the most dangerous countries in the world to work as a journalist.” Eight journalist were killed in 2015 and two were killed in 2016. Monnerat continues, “most of the aggressions generally come from public power, both in the form of police officers and security officers, as well as politicians and civil servants.” Judicial decisions, such as breach of telephone privacy, increased from 2 in 2015 to 18 in 2016. However, higher courts later corrected judges breach of freedom of expression. As Brazil works to improve the safety and unlawful conditions facing Brazilian journalist, work toward correcting religious intolerance continues.

To help combat this issue a newly formed Commission on Combating Religious Intolerance website was constructed to help educate the public about religious intolerance. An annual religious intolerance march on Copacabana beach has taken place since 2007 with over 50,000 marchers from many faiths participating this year. In Rio, a dedicated police station has been set up to help investigate religious hate crimes. According to Gandra’s, August 4, 2017 article, Rio will have specialized police station to combat racial crimes and intolerance, hate crimes have risen 119 percent since 2016.  Efforts by the United Nations including the launch in January 2017, the report ‘Religious Intolerance in Brazil’ will be used to monitor and tackle discrimination. “Worldwide, there is a growing wave of intolerance and restrictions imposed on the exercise of the right to freedom of religion or belief,” said the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Ahmed Shaheed. Let’s hope that Brazil’s, International Decade for People of African Descent 2015-2024, will produce an end to Afro-Brazilian religious intolerance.

References

Gandra, A. (2017, August 4). Rio will have specialized police station to combat racial crimes and intolerance. Retrieved from http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/direitos-humanos/noticia/2017-08/rio-tera-delegacia-especializada-para-combater-crimes-raciais-e

Judge suspends sale of book of Bishop Edir Macdeo. (2005, October 11). Cotidiano. Retrieved from http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/ult95u115122.shtml

Monnerat, A. (2017, February 22). Press freedom violations increase in Brazil by 65% in 2016, says Abert report. University of Texas at Austin, Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas. Retrieved from https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/00-18048-violence-against-journalists-brazil-increased-65-2016-says-abert-report

Muggah, R. (2017, November 2). In Brazil religious gang leaders say they’re waging a holy war. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/in-brazil-religious-gang-leaders-say-theyre-waging-a-holy-war-86097

Profile, Edir Macedo & Family. (2017). Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/profile/edir-macedo/

Sullivan, Z. & Borros, L. (2014, September 13). Followers of Afro-Brazilian religions feel under attack. Retrieved from http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/13/prejudice-againstcandombleworshippersincreasesinbrazil.html

 

Assessing the difficulties the U.S. news media has in covering Islam fairly, accurately.

Annie Besant provided an excellent summary statement on assessing the difficulties the U.S new media has in covering Islam fairly and accurately. In the statement she said, “There is far more misunderstanding of Islam than there is, I think, of the other religions of the world. So many things are said of it by those who do not belong to that faith.” In summary, the difficulties the news media faced with covering this particular religion is the lack of knowledge of the religion which creates stereotypes and assumptions. The misunderstandings and interpretations has caused American to place a labels on this religion that we know little about. “Islamophobia remains a national problem thanks to a cottage industry of anti-Muslim groups working to conflate terrorism and Islam in the minds of the American people”.

For example, in the article entitled Reporting on Islam the author eluded to two frequently used words “Allahu Akbar” that tend to continue to have misunderstandings of the meaning. With the little knowledge I have of the Islamic faith, I had no clue of the meaning or the importance of the phrase. Honestly, due to the media coverage and stereotypes painted by the media and other outlets, I would feel uncomfortable around an individual that fits the profile uttering these words.  However, after reading the article and understanding the phrase as it’s translation as “God is greater”, that uncomfortable feeling decrease. I consider this as a simple step, reading an article and learning a piece of the Islamic faith. A step that I feel is necessary for everyone especially the media.

In order to cover Islam accurate and fairly, the media must become literate with a clear understanding. There are several ways to dismantling the stereotypes and labels placed on Islam. New outlets should serve as bridge builders with experts within the Islam faith to disseminate accurate information about the religion as a whole. In addition to developing partnerships with experts or individuals that are knowledgeable, the media can also change their language in reporting. Instead of seeking the negative and scandalous information, look for ways to re-introduce Islam to America.

 

How do the U.S. news media address religion in the Black Lives Matter movement and why it matters.

According to the interview, conducted by NPR, the Black Lives Movement originated from a frustrated Facebook post after the George Zimmerman’s case. The founders, Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi, and Patrisse Cullors, developed this international activist movement that campaigns against violence and systemic racism towards blacks. In the interview, The Founders of the “Black Lives Matter” movement described the movement as a “paradigm shift”. It’s considered a turning point to redefine the black community and develop truth and reconciliation within our communities. The founders stated that it was not developed to dismiss other lives but to bring attention to say that black lives matter also.

Most media sources first addressed the Black Lives Matter movement like every other scandal or breaking news without understanding the depth or meaning behind the moment. In my opinion, it was reviewed as an attention getter, headliner, and what most of Americas were talking about within the confines of their homes. But did the media honestly research or even grasp a complete understanding of this movement before covering the different stories? No, and that is not to fully blame the media as the movement continued to evolve as new events transpired.

This is why it’s not surprising that most of the coverage included little too no religion. Or if religion was mentioned, its due to some type of attachment of a religious leader or including some type of challenge of the church’s influence. Honestly, religion and spirituality is rarely mentioned in any of the media coverage unless it involves something else. Realistically speaking, religion is a hard subject to cover, especially without a clear of understanding of the influence, meaning or transformation.

I would suggest that this lack of coverage of the “traditional” religion is due a huge shift from the traditional religion that Americans are accustomed too. With a complete understanding of the Black Lives Movement, I would even argue if the traditional religious communities,  had a place in such movement. This statement is not to minimize the role of religion and the faith communities but to bring attention to the importance for faith and religious communities to redefine its role.

Rahiel Tesfamariam stated in the article, Why the modern civil rights movement keeps religious leaders at arm’s length, The front lines of the fight for civil rights are no longer “manned” by the traditional leaders of the black community: well-dressed, respectable clergymen. Today’s movement has dismissed these criteria, operating without centralized leadership and accepting as many straight women and LGBTQ people on the front lines as straight men. I would argue, that although there may have been some resistance in addressing religion in the Black Lives movement coverage, the church or faith communities were not fully prepared to be included in the story as they attempted to define their role in such moment. This was a liberating movement and if the religious communities were not on broad with liberation, transformation, and reconciliation then the coverage would have done more harm than good.

Again, my statements are not to dismiss any particular religion or faith communities. But I think this movement ignite a call to action for not only individuals outside of the African American community but also individuals within, especially ones that have influence.

 

 

 

 

What role does the audience play in becoming media literate and why does it matter?

What roles does the audience play in becoming media literate? Let’s think about it this way, if the audience becomes literate and start understanding the importance of its role, what change would we see in the media?

The audience has a huge impact on the media! Despite this huge impact, the roles of who carries the power have been reversed. The media has the power of influence. Due to our inability or lack of “fact checking” the source or sources, we have become a society that relies heavily on the media to provide information on all areas of our life. But we, the audience, consume the responsibility to become literate.

During this week’s reading we reviewed several cases that involved newspapers or media outlets that provided accusation and fascinating information regarding particular communities and person. The Near v. State of Minnesota (1931) case involved a newspaper that published accusations about public officials that they were “Jewish gangster” and other anti-Semitic remarks. Near v. Minnesota became a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that recognized the freedom of the press by rejecting prior restraint on a publication. Imagine the front page of the newspaper with the title, “Public Officials the New Jewish Gangsters.” Immediate speculation and assumptions would arise without any researching but solely based off the words of the reported article, log, or post.

Now that we have an understanding of the importance of becoming more literate, let’s tackle some practical methods to get started. First we must have some sense of awareness that will allow us to vet and discern the information covered by the media. We must consider and carefully investigate the source of the information. It would be realistic to expect the audience to conduct a thorough background investigation but at least consider the source of information, the information presented, and consideration of the ultimate goal of the writer. The implementation of this very basic and practical step will allow us as the audience to become more literate.

 

What role do the media play within faith communities and how does it compare with secular media?

In the article entitled, Most Americans Say Media Coverage of Religion Too Sensationalized, published by the University of Akron: School for Communication and Journalism, displayed survey results that showed less than one-fifth of reporters called themselves “very knowledgeable” about religion. The overall census of the challenge of covering media, ranged in three different categories which included: religion more challenging to cover, lack of knowledge a challenge and knowledgeable about the religion. The survey reported, “One-half of reporters say the biggest challenge to covering religion is a lack of knowledge about the subject. Only a fifth of reporters say they are “very knowledgeable” about religion, and most of these are mainly familiar with their own religious traditions, not the wider array of faiths and practices”. These survey findings can be very problematic when we considered the role of the media within faith communities.

When we compare the role of the media play within faith communities and the secular community we see a higher difference. One may ask, if America is even interested in coverage of religion? The media has shifted to a social outlet for marketing political change or acceptance, social evolutions, and attention-grabbing scandals. The secular community, use the media to its full advantage, to disseminate information regardless of the context or ultimately goal. With the decrease of importance of religion and faith communities, one would assume that the faith communities with take advantage of the media and its role.

Despite the lack of coverage and lack of knowledge on religion, a large majority of Americans are interested in religion coverage in the media, which is supported by the findings in a survey conducted by Diane Winston and John Green published by The School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Akron. So, how can we bridge the gap and increase media coverage on religion? What actions are required for the media to become more involved within the faith communities?

The first step is to build the trust within the faith communities. There is a visible notion of the lack of trust in the media, especially by faith communities. It is true that, “religious communities are particularly sensitive to characterizing language”. By developing the trust and rapport within the faith communities, religious groups will become more eager to allow the media, in what most people insider their safe space. Likewise, faith communities must also understand the role of the media and equip the media with the knowledge and tools needed to accurately report on religion. I see this as a two-way street, there is a responsibility and level of accountability on both. John Dart and Jimmy Allen published in Bridging the Gap: Religious and the News Media, that religious leaders must become more accessible to the press and if the press does a bad job on reporting religion; say something!

As a whole, we understand and are aware of the role of the media and the impact it can make on a community. With an ever-changing, evolving, and transforming society, its essentials to re-define the role of the media within the faith communities. We must develop a partnership, that will educate individuals on religion and inform society on what’s happening within the different faith communities.