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.

 

 

 

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).

 

The U.S. news media coverage of Islam…Can it be fair and accurate?

Fair and accurate coverage of Islam by the U.S. news media is impeded by the public, the Muslim community, and extremist from both Jihadist perspective as well as Islamophobia. Fair and accurate coverage is also hampered or skewed by a lack of information and understanding.

Television news reflects the fear of society. As suggested by Dror Zaraski, the “media follows the masses.”  Hence, if the public holds a perception of a Muslim connection to acts of violence and terrorism, media coverage reflects this perception.

Reluctance of those within the Muslin community to educate and to provide insight and information likewise creates a barrier for fair and accurate coverage. Janan Bsoul, a Muslim reporter who grew up in Israel believes that there is a tendency within the Muslim community to not speak out. However, Bsoul’s perspective is challenged by the findings of the L.A. Times report that explored the significance of the words “Allahu Akbar” within the Muslim community. In conducting research and interviews, the reporter found that Muslims were eager to talk and “bridge the disconnect.”

As reported in The Neman Report, fair and accurate reporting of Islam by the news media is also negatively impacted by extremist, Jihadists, and Islamophobes. These self-proclaimed experts do not accurately present the principles of Islam.

The cumulative effect of the above results in a lack of information and more significantly a lack of understanding.  In the 2014 commentary, In Tenn. mosque fight, religious freedom trumps Islamophobia, Charles Haynes optimistically proffers that Islamophobia will fade as American Muislim become more visible. However, it is also essential that the visibility is in a positive light or at least a fair and accurate light. Haynes also makes the comparison of a history of the anti-Catholic hatred to the status of the American Muslim. History documents the anti-Catholic rhetoric. Yes, the perception and sentiment have changed. However, consider how long it took.

 

The most prevalent portrayal of Islam is through a negative lens with a narrow focus on violence and terrorism. A 2014 report in the Journal of Communication found that television viewers see significantly more images of Muslims portrayed as domestic terrorists than is supported law enforcement statistics. In fact, the report showed that eighty- one percent of suspected domestic terrorists were identified by the media as Muslims while the FBI reported that only six percent of the suspects were Muslim. The question is glaring, how is it that the representation portrayed in the news media is so different than reported by the FBI?  A report of Media Tenor in 2015 found that news coverage frames Muslims in a negative light. Roland Schatz of Media Tenor noted that notwithstanding the need for better understanding within religious groups, the news media is not helping to build compassion or tolerance. In contrast, the media is is working against cultivating compassion or tolerance. (Islamophobia and Its Impact in The United States | Confronting Fear).

The Council on American-Islamic Relations suggests that both Islamophobia groups and the media are asserting that the Muslim community has not denounced terrorism. It is reported that the media has chosen to disregard information showing that the Muslim community has denounced violence. It is disconcerting that the Muslim community has provided documentation denouncing violence and terrorism that the media ignores when covering violence and terrorism. Hence the question why is that newsworthy information ignored?

Schatz’s opinion is also supported by the Neiman report, discussing the coverage of the Arab community and the Israeli news noting that when Arabs appear on Israeli television, it is related to conflict or crime. The Neiman report also noted that the news failed to present experts in their various fields and that whenever Muslims or Arabs were interviewed, it was related to their faith but not to their professions or their community efforts.

There is also support for Schatz’s opinion as found in the Neiman report on reporting on Islam discussing the significance of the words “Allahu Akbar” within the Muslim community.  It is significant to note that within the Muslim community, these words do not signify a battle cry. The words “acknowledgment of humankind surrender to an omnipotent deity.”  The words mean “God is great.”  Hence, one must ask why does the media only connect these words to violence and terrorist acts?  The narrow focus on violence and terrorism obscures the ability to consider the broader meaning.

The 2013 quantitative study conducted by Media Tenor also supports Schatz’s view that  media coverage works agsint compassion and tolerence. The study considered 7,000 Islam related stories broadcasted by ABC, CBS, and NBC from 2007 to 2013. Seventy-five percent of the stories had a negative focus. The U.S. media is not alone. A 2008 study of British Muslims that reviewed one thousand articles, showed that eighty percent of the articles were associated with claims of Islamic threats, problems, and opposition to British values.  (Reported in Neiman report).

Is there a solution?  Certainly, consideration of the concept of solution journalism a is one such consideration.  Consider Islam principle of being a benefit to humanity and averting harm to humanity, as discussed in Islamophobia and Its Impact in The United States Confronting Fear.  How often is this principle ever represented in the news media?  Publication of this type of information requires collaboration between the media and members of the Muslim community. The prevalence of negative coverage may be changing. The Nieman Reports article,  Reporting on Islam, discussed the emergence within the mainstream media outlets of American Muslim commentators and writers taking a proactive position to discuss and to open a dialogue as to what it means to be Muslim. The commentators are shifting the focus from limited negative coverage to a broader fair and accurate representation.

The burden is the media, as suggested by Hassan Hassan author of “ISIS:  Inside the Arm of Terror, the media must change the focus and consider the “people” and their motives. It has also been suggested that in order dispel fears and reaction, it is beneficial to consider more local coverage of individuals within the community as “push back against specious narratives.” This will lead to a decreased fear within the community and help to present Muslims within the community as ordinary citizens whom themselves are concerned for their safety.

Media coverage and reporting of Islam is problematic. There is not an easy solution. The solution cannot rest solely within the industry. Media professionals, covering Islam and related stories have a responsibility to educate themselves and to gain a better understanding of the Islam religion.  It is also incumbent upon members of the Muslim community to speak to the news media and to provide a resource for fair and accurate representation of their faith and community. The public likewise has a responsibility. The public must fairly and accurately consider the information.

 

 

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

 

Media coverage of the role of religion within the Black Lives Matter movement has not been a focus of coverage. Is the void in reporting on religion the direct result of the media ignoring or dismissing the role of religion in the Black Lives Matter movement? Is the absence of the coverage of religion based on a rejection of the traditional role of the faith-based community within the movement? Consider the 2015 op-ed by Rahiel Tesfamarian in the Washington Post, written from the activist’s perspective. Tesfamarian suggests that the movement “rejects the identify politics, conservative roles, and traditional tactics of the church-led movement of the 1960s.” Such internal fracture from the faith-based community is one explanation for the absence of media coverage of an interplay of religion within the Black Lives Matter movement. Tesfamarian also suggests that the movement has become more confrontational than the “non-violent resistant strategies” advocated within the fundamentals of the 1960s civil right movements. Such perception could further explain the void in the coverage. The resistance to such confrontational stances are exacerbated by the traditional media focus on problems and the coverage of symptoms and causes of social ills as compared to the more recent movement of solutions-based journalism.

Notwithstanding Tesfamarian’s argument that the young activists within the movement have shifted away from the traditional foundations of the faith-based community within the civil rights movement, he also noted that Black millennials are connected with the church. In fact, he proffered that seventy-six (76%) percent of Black adults under 30 are affiliated with the church. Such a significant percentage coupled with the historical role of churches in “Black liberation theology” and that Christianity is a tool for empowerment, calls for media attention to the role of religion in the movement.

Tesfamarian references examples of faith-based communities and churches that have been addressing the same core social issues highlighted by Black Lives Matter. As such, would it not be advantageous for the news to consider such sources for potential solutions in their reporting? An example is the faith-based Live Free Campaign wherein 1,000 clergy members and people of faith sought political action to stop racial profiling and to address the conduct of law enforcement. This is an example of action and potential solution.

The shift from reporting on problems, with the focus on the symptoms and causes, to solutions is a reason for expanded media attention on the role of faith-based communities related to the movement. Such coverage would be advantageous and provide potential solutions. Support for this premise can be found in David Bornstein’s argument for solution journalism, “For journalism to help society and self-correct, it is not enough to be a watchdog to increase awareness or produce outrage about problems.”

The survey conducted by the Solutions Journalism Network in collaboration with the Engaging News Project at the University of Texas concluded that readers responded favorably to reading “solution stories” compared to stories that focused only on problems. The results of the survey concluded that solution stories were met with favorable responses and readers are more apt to share the story. Hence, it is conceivable that coverage of the actions of the churches and religious organizations in support of the changes sought by Black Lives Matter may have the same positive response.

Finally, support for the argument is found in the Nieman reports, making Black Lives Matter in the news. Specifically, from the view expressed by Steven Smith Richardson. The media coverage of race issues often focuses on one level and reinforces stereotypes. Richardson points out that the stories are often associated with poverty, crime, and increased racial animosity hence reinforcing racial lines within society.

Accordingly, if we are to consider that much of the news focuses on the stories that reinforce stereotypes and negative aspects which increases a racial divide, it is clear that the focus of the reporting is on symptoms and causes rather than solutions. I would argue that a focus on confrontational aspects serves to increase negative responses. Coverage of the actions taken by the faith community that seeks to achieve the same goals can provide or at least lead to potential solutions.

The Media Literate Audience? A Responsibility of the Consumer and a Benefit to Society.

The audience, consumers of news and media, bear the responsibility to become media literate. Accepting this responsibility requires some basic effort. However, the efforts will benefit both the individual and society. The process begins with simple awareness and vetting. The audience must consider the source and the purpose of the information, such as a satirical posting versus serious news. This does not mean that the individual consumer needs to conduct extensive research or to be educated in the nuances of the law as it applies to freedom of the press. It means that the individual, should at the very least, consider the source of information, what information is being presented and the purpose of publishing or disbursing the information.

The various applicable laws refer to the “reasonable person” standard. Exactly what defines a reasonable person is often a subject of discussion and debate. However, to make it simple, for this argument, consider the reasonable person as an average media or news consumer. I will refer to the reasonable person collectively as the reasonable audience.

A good starting point for the reasonable audience is to ask, what is the source of information? Is it a reputable news source? Is it a news report or is it an op-ed.? This inquiry becomes more critical when you consider the ever-expanding sources of information. The source is relevant not only to vet fake news but also for assessing bias. The media literate audience is better able to differentiate and either disregard or inquire further.

The reasonable audience must also consider the actual content presented. One of the elements of defamation is whether a reasonable person would consider it true. It is therefore logical that the media literate audience, considering the source and the content will ask the simple question if it is “reasonably understood as real facts?”

There must be a consideration on the part of the reasonable audience as to whether the information disseminated is fact or opinion. This is particularly important when the opinion presented is from a source with a specific agenda or platform. Does the audience know or even care that there ever was a Fairness Doctrine that was later repealed? A news publication or other media source may present an opinion without any rebuttal from the target of the expressed opinion or presenting the opposing side of an argument. The audience must understand and appreciate that this does not mean that there is not an opposing side or a rebutting argument. The media literate audience is aware of this reality and the consequences, i.e., that they were not provided with “fair and balanced information.”[1]

Appreciation of the context in which the information is found is also significant. Consider the example of Jerry Falwell v Larry Flynt. This case should illustrate the need to consider the context of the information. As seen in the rulings in the case, the published parody was considered so outlandish that the reasonable person would not have believed it to be true. The media literate audience can fully appreciate this concept and to act accordingly.

I am not suggesting that imposing responsibility on the audience to become media literate, in any way lessens the responsibility of reporters, editors, or publisher. Both sides have an obligation to act responsibly. Both sides can benefit society through the dissemination and management of information and both sides can play a role in harming society through irresponsible handling of information. The media literate audience is better able to appreciate what is heard or what is read and to use the information for their own benefit and for the good of society. After all, the audience determines the success of the publication. The media literate audience who has vetted the source and the content will ultimately determine the success of the story. Furthermore, the media literate audience is in the best position to hold reporters, editors, and publishers responsible.

 

 

[1] http://www.lincoln,edu/criminaljustice /hr/Speech.htm

JOUNALIST AND WATCHDOG: A NECESSARY CATALYST FOR CHANGE

            The journalist who conducts an unbiased and thorough investigation has the potential of not only providing a good news story but of exposing a problem or wrong, prompting action, facilitating needed change, and benefiting society. It is important to consider if not the journalist then who will start the process? The journalist is in a unique position to conduct this type of investigation. Many issues may not immediately draw the attention of law enforcement or other regulatory agencies. Furthermore, when the issue at hand is that of potential criminal activity or other regulatory violation, law enforcement and regulatory agencies are acting under a different set of restrictions or parameters that may inhibit disclosure.  There are also instances where the issue may not involve actual criminal or regulatory action but may equally harm others. There is also the possibility that a change or overhaul of a practice or procedure is warranted. If the problem remains internal, there will be no change. However, watchdog reporting may lead to a needed change. The movie spotlight provides an excellent example of watchdog reporting that exposed an egregious wrong, prompted action in the religious institution as well as law enforcement, and facilitated changes. As a result, there was a benefit, including, but not limited to, the aggrieved victims

            There is a need for journalists to act as watchdogs. I would even argue that there is a responsibility on the part of investigative journalists to act in this capacity, particularly when a victim or whistle blower gives the journalist pertinent information. In the context of religious institutions, it is not unexpected that those who have leadership power within the institution may be inclined to exercise self-help or self-regulation and to take specific action to avoid exposure outside of the walls of the institution. Particularly within a religious organization, there may be the perception that it is necessary to protect the institution from persecution from the secular world. This may, unfortunately, lead to internal cover-ups of blatant wrongful acts and criminal activity. Accordingly, the investigative journalist may through an arduous process uncover and expose what the organization secreted. Such investigation should not be viewed as a secular attack on religion. To avoid such perception, it is important for the journalist reporting on the religious institution, individual or group to remain focused on the wrongful act, and the responses to the act, including but not limited to, any efforts to avoid exposure.

            We see this played out in the movie Spotlight. What must not be forgotten, is that information regarding the pattern of sexual abuse of children by multiple priests in the Boston area had been reported years before the 2001 investigation and 2002 story. The information was provided not only by the victim but also by an attorney. Accordingly, one must ask why it was dismissed? As the story unfolds, we see the deliberate and far-reaching efforts on the part of the diocese to attempt internal management and regulation of the offending priests, efforts to confidentially settle complaints, and very deliberate efforts to avoid any exposure whatsoever. But for thhe insntance of a new editor and the concentrated efforts of driven reporters, the pattern of abuse and cover-up would have continued.

            We must not dismiss the personal impact of watchdog reporting on the reporter. Considering the significance of religion to many individuals, it is not unexpected that reporting on such atrocities as the rampant sexual abuse of children by priests and the subsequent mishandling and cover-up of the acts would have a profound impact on the reporter. Consider for a moment the scene when Rezendes and Pfeiffer are discussing their own personal faith and practice. What is poignant is the reference to how difficult it was for Pfeiffer to attend services because she was angry and kept thinking about the victims. Yes, the story centered on the acts of individuals and not on the foundations of the faith and not the foundations of the actual belief. However, when faced with the reality of a far-reaching pattern of behavior within the individual’s faith that resulted in grievous harm to innocent children, it is easy to understand the impact this would have on the individual’s faith. There is also the consideration of whether the individual journalist’s faith may cause them to view the information from a more defensive lens. Perhaps, causing them to dismiss information given to them or bury the story where readers are less likely to notice. In Spotlight, the reporters were all raised Catholic, yet in covering the story, all appeared to remain focused and fair. The question does remain, as to Walter Robinson’s earlier dismissal of the information and his burying the story in the Metro section. Was this because of his Catholic faith or were there other reasons? In the end, the individual journalist’s ability to be fair in their reporting depends on that individual.

            Watchdog reporting should not be limited to religion. Watchdog reporting in the secular context may also result in exposing a problem or wrong, prompting action, facilitating needed change, and benefiting society. The erected walls seen in the religious context, exist in secular organizations, both public and private. Those in power in the secular context may be just as likely to exercise internal regulation and concentrated efforts to avoid any exposure of wrongdoings. As an example, the watchdog reporting of a local journalist exposed serious problems with Guardianship within the judicial system that had a significant negative impact on the individual and families. The series of reports prompted action in the court system and led to an overhaul of the guardianship procedures.

            Yes, some individuals will be harmed even by responsible and ethical reporting. Indeed, the individuals who commit the wrongdoing and their families will suffer consequences. However, this is not caused by the reporting but caused by act. Likewise, the organization or institution will suffer harm from a public relations standpoint as well as from the fall out to members of the organization. Again, it is the wrongful acts of the individuals within the organization and the management or mismanagement of the situation by the organization that is the cause of harm. The real question is what is the alternative? Certainly it is not to ignore a situation that warrants corrective action. What about the victims? Do they not deserve vindication?

            There is, of course, a risk harm or danger resulting from watchdog reporting would result from irresponsible and unethical reporting. However, this risk exists in any reporting. It is therefore incumbent upon the profession and editors to take steps to assure that they do not become the subject of watchdog reporting by another news entity.

            The need for watchdog reporting in both the religious and secular world is necessary. 

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

A large majority of Americans are interested in religion coverage in the media. This conclusion 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.

How the American public views the impact of religion in the context of news coverage demonstrates a sharp divide.  One side, 52.6%, viewed religion as a source of good in the world. In contrast one side, 43.6%, viewed religion as a source of conflict in the world. Notably absent were those with a middle of the road viewpoint. Less than 4% considered religion as both a source of good and conflict. Interestingly, more than half of the reporters reported having a mixed view of the impact of religion that is a mix of good and the conflict. The unwillingness or the inability to move from an absolute may be a result of a strictly myopic focus, religious illiteracy, or a combination of both.

The public considered that reporting on religious experience, spirituality, practices, and beliefs ws of the great importance in religious coverage. From the reporter perspective and the coverage of religion, spirituality, practices, and beliefs were not the priority. Consumers who consider religious coverage as very important reported a corresponding importance of religion in their daily lives. Religiosity directly correlates with the significance given by the public to religious coverage. This finding is not surprising given that the majority of the public considered reporting on spirituality practices and beliefs to be of significance.

Tension exists between the media and the faith community. There is an irony in the fact that each benefit from the freedoms afforded by the First Amendment. Although both media and religion share the same umbrella of coverage, each has distinct obligations and expectations. Dart and Allen described the misunderstanding and distrust between the media and the faith community that result from what they describe as alien cultures. The secular media is grounded in the search for facts. The faith-based community, in contrast, is in search of “faith beyond fact.”

The consumer who desires coverage on issues such as spirituality may well be viewing this from a personal perspective, seeking actual spiritual guidance as compared to media coverage of current events such as religion as it intersects with politics or world events. Consideration of the new source is important. The expectation of coverage focused on religious experiences, spirituality, beliefs, and practices is more reasonable in religious media. Rather than the secular media such as newspapers or TV. However, the overwhelming majority of those who considered religion as important turned on their television as a source of news 20% more than the general public.

However, reliance on TV news for coverage of religion may be disappointing. As noted by John Dart and Jimmy Allen in Bridging the Gap: Religion and News Media, the secular broadcast executive may avoid coverage of religion issues based upon a philosophical disagreement with the moral position taken by the religious organization or a fear of viewer reaction to the coverage of religious issues.

Those in the media, may have little to no formal religious education. The reporters surveyed cited lack of knowledge as a primary challenge in reporting on religion. Even those who reported that religion played an essential role in their life identified that the information gained from coverage of a religion and their own faith teaching as their primary source of knowledge of religion. Considering the diversity of religions in a pluralistic society and the nuances of the various beliefs and practices, it is understandable that the media may be hesitant to go beyond scratching the surface when reporting on religion. In response, the faith-based community is critical of media coverage deeming the coverage to be superficial, inadequate, biased, and even hostile. To some degree, the perception is valid. However, for the most part, it is a result of ignorance versus bias.

Lessening the tension and decreasing the divide between the media and faith-based communities requires efforts from both sides. The faith community cannot sit back and simply expect media coverage of complex religious issues. The faith community must accept responsibility to communicate with the media, assure accessibility, provide information, and correct misunderstanding misinformation. Furthermore, religious leaders and adherents must accept that coverage by the media is ideally based upon neutrality, presenting at least two sides or viewpoints. As a result, a position that is opposite and perhaps offensive to that of the faith community may be included in the coverage. The media also must take responsibility for educating its executives, producers, editors, and reporters who cover religion, faith-based communities, and any story involving religious issues. The media must also be responsive to its audience by allowing for coverage of issues the consumer considers important, including religion.

The majority of the American public is interested in media coverage of religion bold in religious media as well as the secular media. As such, it is incumbent upon the producer to provide coverage in an ethical, responsible, and unbiased manner and for the consumer to consider the new source, secular versus religious news as to the expectation of coverage. Both the media and the faith based communities must respect and protect the rights afforded under the First Amendment.

 

Challenge of Fake News and how to combat it, as it relates to news about faith and values?

“Fake news!”  The term has become a catchphrase. However, it is often used indiscreetly by labeling news that the recipient does not like as “fake news.” It is a natural defensive reflex to consider anything offensive to our belief system as incorrect or fake. It is much easier to dismiss a criticism or a challenge than to confront our actions or beliefs. However, mere disagreement does not in and of itself render the news fake.

However, there is fake news. There are innumerable examples of stories published that are factually inaccurate and even fabricated. Nigel Barber in “Fake News Has a Real Audience” compares fake news to “propaganda” and malicious gossip and suggests that malicious gossip is a precursor for fake news. This analogy makes sense. As Barber points out to some, believing the false information makes some readers feel good.

Fake News is detrimental to society. The dissemination of fake news leads to a further distrust of any legitimate news. When reading or hearing a news story, one is left with the lingering question of what is news is real and what news is fake?

The proliferation of social media as the primary source for news exponentially increases the amount of fake news. According to the Digital News Report 2016, 51% of those surveyed used social media for their news source and 49% used Facebook for “finding, consuming, and sharing news.”  As stated by Gabriel Snyder in “The New York Times Claws Its Way into the Future,” people are getting their news from a platform wherein the news may very well be fake.

Social media provides immediate and convenient access for receiving news. Social media also provides immediate, convenient, and even anonymous access for publishing news. It should be obvious that in such an environment, there are many news sources. The actual source may be unknown. Today anyone can become a news source by posting on social media sites. Anyone who sees a posting, including fake news can spread the story to a vast number of others with a simple click. In a matter of seconds, the fake news spreads around the globe.

 

The ability to manipulate the news has dramatically evolved with technological advances. Manipulation is as simple as using a green screen to make it appear that the individual is speaking from another setting. The use of a green screen is rudimentary when considering technology that enables manipulation of voice and facial expressions in real time.  Emily Bell, of the Columbia School of Journalism, presents the reality that even if able to debunk fake news we cannot stop it from spreading.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to learn how to spot fake news. The YouTube video, How to Spot Fake News provides simple pointers for spotting fake news such as considering the source and asking if it is legitimate. A cursory review of various news stories posted on social media sites such as Facebook should alert the viewer about the legitimacy of the source.

Another pointer is to read the text before sharing the story. It is easy just to read a headline and immediately hit share. However, the headline misrepresented the actual story. As an example, a headline posted on Facebook on Sunday, September 24, 2017, read, that a dam had burst in Puerto Rico. However, the actual story was from two days earlier. The headline grossly exaggerated the facts. There was structural damage to the dam, and an evacuation was ordered. However,  the dam has not burst.

Notwithstanding the ability to check the validity of a story, confirmation bias or confirmatory bias prevents some people from even considering the accuracy of news before believing or sharing. Confirmation bias occurs when people interpret information to support their personal view and hence give more weight to a story that supports their own beliefs while dismissing information that conflicts with their views. Individuals unwilling to accept conflicting views seek shelter in an echo chamber and use confirmatory bias as a shield.

Fake news is not unique to the political arena. Fake news stories arise in almost any area, stories about celebrities, Queen Elizabeth abdicating the crown to Prince William, natural disasters, and the end of the world. Religion is not immune as a target of fake news.

 

If the motivation for gossip is to damage the target and discredit the target’s credibility, and if gossip is a precursor to fake news, we can see where this could be directly applicable to fake news as to religious matters, especially as there are diametrical differences between the religious beliefs. Contrasting beliefs and values is a source of divisive conflict and has been so throughout history.

In the context of religion, there are strongly held beliefs within the various faiths that conflict with the other faith’s beliefs. Adamant adherents are confident that their own faith is the only genuine and correct faith. Any other faith with conflicting beliefs is wrong and presents a threat. Religious conflict provides an impetus for unyielding adherents to publish, read, believe, and spread fake news.

It is unrealistic to attempt to stop the publication or the dissemination of fake news. Has any society actually stopped gossip? We can mitigate the damage of fake news. The first step is to acknowledge that a differing viewpoint is not necessarily fake news and to stop labeling anything that does not comport with personal views as fake news. The second step is to exercise diligence by checking the credibility of the source. Not sharing fake news or even better publishing and sharing accurate news is a start.

However, confirmation bias remains an obstacle. Those who do not agree with the content even if based on accurate and correct facts will dismiss it and often label it as fake news. On the other hand, those who want to believe that misinformation is true because it supports their ideological view will believe the story, even if based inaccurate and erroneous information will believe and will proliferate fake news.

The role and the value of religion in today’s news media environment

The role and the value of religion in today’s news media environment is subject to the perception of the reader or listener. As with other topics, the perception will change depending upon the lens of the individual viewer.

The subject of religion is reflected in editorials, commentaries, and opinions. The news coverage often connects religion to controversy, violence, politics, and divisiveness. Coverage of religion intertwines with political acts such as travel bans, violence within a place of worship, or violence and hate crimes targeted at specific religions such as desecration of Jewish cemetery or an attack on a synagogue,

An obvious example is the coverage of issues related to Muslims. In the news coverage, the Islam religion is often tied to terrorist acts and to politics. Depending on the foundation of the news source, religion is used as either a shield or a sword in what is more a political issue than a religious concern. In many instances, the coverage serves to incite further rhetoric.

What is notably missing from most coverage is accurate factual information as to the particular faith. Religion still plays an important part in the lives of many citizens. The significant role that religion plays in the lives of many members of society seems to have been eclipsed by more sensational coverage of religion in today’s world. If we consider the significance of religion in the founding of the nation and significance of religion in the lives of citizens throughout history, to a degree the news media has devalued the role of religion in American’s lives.

The perception of the role and value of religion is influenced by the individual’s particular faith. One may understand and interpret the coverage as minimizing the value of a particular religion. The reader or listener who disagrees with the tenants of the particular religion in the story may perceive the story to be of importance in supporting their individual view.

The individual’s level of involvement in their particular faith impacts their perception of religion in the media. The devout adherent may view the coverage as being insufficient, erroneous, or even bias against their own belief. A more secularly inclined individual view differently.

Religious beliefs are of tantamount importance in the lives of many individuals. Accordingly, we must not discount the role or the value of religion in today’s news media environment.

 

Can you have religious freedom without freedom of speech and press? Why or why not?

At first blush, freedom of religion without the right of freedom of speech and freedom of press enumerated in the First Amendment may appear to be sustainable. That is if we consider this question in a vacuum. However, we do not live in a vacuum.   Eroding one freedom erodes the remaining freedoms. These three rights can be viewed as a triangle, each supporting the other two. The removal of either the right of freedom of speech or freedom of the press causes the collapse of all of the rights.  

As an illustration, consider a situation where the adherent is permitted to exercise their religion, albeit behind closed doors, without any outward display, and no right to speak about the religion. Without the right of free speech, the adherent could not make statements. The religious institution could not display messages on signage on its property. Without the corresponding right of freedom of the press, the ability of the religious institution to publish information on their services or their activities is diminished. Ultimately free exercise is detrimentally impacted.

Now, consider the situation where a religious institution is doing something good for the community. Publication of the information about the activities will inform others who may offer aid. By way of example, consider the recent natural disasters, three major Hurricanes, Harvey, Hurricane Irma, and Maria and the earthquake in Mexico that caused devastation throughout various parts of the Caribbean, the United States, and Mexico. If a religious institution is providing relief efforts, but the press is not able to publish the information, what is the impact? There is the obvious loss to those who benefit from the relief efforts. There is also a loss to the adherents, who exercise their own religious belief through providing the relief services.

Another detrimental effect on freedom of religion, if there is no right of freedom of speech and free press, relates to televised religious services. The availability of the telecast of religious services provides an opportunity for those unable to attend their place of worship to be a part of a religious service.

            Educational information, including news and information about religion  is provided through the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Freedom of the press provides interested members of society the opportunity to learn about different faiths. If the press is censored and unable to inform the public without governmental approval, there is further erosion of an existing right of freedom of religion. This could involve a spectrum of detrimental effects on freedom of religion, impediments to the free exercise and conceivably resulting in an establishment of a religion approved by the governing body,

Freedom of speech includes not only the statement but the ability to express oneself. The desecration of freedom of speech will preclude an adherent from speaking about their religious belief, through modes such as posting of religious information on social media. If freedom of speech does not exist, individuals will be precluded from expressing their thoughts including through prayers on social media, this would be an erosion of freedom of religion.

            It is important to consider the symbiotic relationship of the right of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press in the historical context. In the United States, we have had the benefit of these three freedoms since the founding of the nation. The loss of any of the rights will lead to deterioration and ultimately the loss of the other rights. Each of the rights is firmly embodied in the First Amendment, and as such, any deterioration, or limitation of one right will lead to the degradation, the erosion, and the ultimate elimination of the other rights. Even if we were to assume arguendo that an individual could truly have freedom of religion without freedom of the press and freedom of speech, the ultimate result is a society void of freedoms. In sum, the freedom of religion especially since to free exercise would be eroded if freedom of speech or the freedom of the press were to be restricted or eliminated. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all of us to respect and protect these fundamental rights,