Why can't the media read?

[yrieithydd]

This week, two stories have left me with the same feeling which is `why can't the media read?'

First, we had the stories about the CofE saying that calling God Lord and women promising to obey led to domestic abuse. (In the Telegraph, the Times and the Daily Mail) These were based on the report produced by the CofE whose relase is announced here. Now the guidelines do have a section on Bad Theology (p. 17) which mention the use of Lord and the use of obey, but there's a much more detailed discussion of it than the news articles allow.

For example, what the report actual says about Lordship etc is:

For example, the idea of God as ‘Lord’ may be used in harsh and domineering ways. However, it expresses a truth about the character of God and the proper human response of worship and service which must not be lost. The theology of St Paul (who is often unfairly portrayed as an authoritarian and a misogynist) is helpful at this point. Paul was constrained by his experience of Christ to interpret Lordship in terms of grace and self-giving love. If Jesus is Lord, then the character of God’s authority which he mediates to us is not demeaning but affirming; not oppressive but liberating; and not disabling but empowering. His power is at the service of the weak and vulnerable, and stands in judgement on all abuse and violence.

Keeping this pattern at the heart of all our praying, thinking, relating and
teaching will displace harmful theology and give space for the Church to take its
bearings from the ‘breadth and length and height and depth’ of God’s love made
known in Christ (Ephesians 3.18). The authentic human expression of that love is
set out powerfully and memorably in 1 Corinthians 13.4–7. We cannot read and
meditate on that text too often.

It is not saying (as the Mail implies) that we should abandon the idea of God as Lord, but that we should be sure that our talk of Lordship is based on the Biblical ideas and not merely on more worldly ideas of power.

The Mail articles do quote from the report, but only selective and thus misrepresent the actual argument of the report. The Telegraph is slightly better but the way it ends seems to me to imply that the alternative version of the wedding vows is a response to this report when in fact it has existed for at least 26 years.* The Times is the best of the three and does actual discuss Domestic Violence to some extent but it still opens with unnuanced versions of the Bad Theology appendix.

It seems a shame to me that rather than concentrating on the `PC' aspects or the Church shoots itself in the foot or whatever the media could not have report more on the substantial parts of the report about this serious subject. The readers' comments in the Daily Mail then on the whole reflect the slant given by the paper, but I would like to draw attention to Britgirl who writes `My ex-husband treated me well in the 3 years before we married. Then as soon as we married he demanded I wait on him hand and foot because "it's your duty as a wife".
I'm not on my own in this experience.
That's why he's my ex.' This is what the report meant about marriage being a trigger for abuse which the Mail seemed to be utterly blind about.

I first came across this story on the Today programme where both the conservative evangelical and the interviewer did not listen to the CofE spokesman's points either.

The second is the whole kerfuffle about Jack Straw and veiled women. His original article seems to me to be a reasoned discussion on this issue.** He explains his approach when a woman wearing a veil comes to see him:

Now, I always ensure that a female member of my staff is with me.

I explain that this is a country built on freedoms. I defend absolutely the right of any woman to wear a headscarf.

As for the full veil, wearing it breaks no laws.

I go on to say that I think, however, that the conversation would be of greater value if the lady took the covering from her face.

He does defend the right to wear the headscarf at least. Some of the debate I've read about it has said it's been saying it was just about Jack Straw wanting to be comfortable but I think it is more than that. There is an area here to be debated about how to deal with cross-cultural exchanges especially where the same action has different meanings in the different cultures.


How can we have a proper debate if the media cannot report accurately but prefers to stir things up to fit its own agenda(s).


*I know for a fact that the ASB has a form without obey as the default and thinking about it although my mother used the `obey' form she had a choice so there must have been an alternative available in 1976. She thinks it probably goes back to the proposed prayer book of 1928. This is interesting in light of the fact that the report mentions that it was in 1926 that women got standing in law.

**Thank you to the_alchemist for saving me hunting for the link!

Comments

[curig.livejournal.com]

How can we have a proper debate if the media cannot report accurately but prefers to stir things up to fit its own agenda(s).

This assumes that the(a?) purpose of the media is to facilitate "proper debate". However, the purpose of the vast majority, if not all, of our media is to make money. Stirring things up attracts attention, which increases profit - whether in terms of more newspapers sold, more viewers/listeners or whatever.