2 of 11

By the way, The Telegraph beat the Times to this story by eight months, with a very different take.

American media is speaking Christian fundamentalese, says University of Washington professor
"In a time of crisis, the certainty conveyed by what I call 'political fundamentalism' put forward by the administration silenced the Democrats and had great appeal to the press," University of Washington associate professor of communication and adjunct professor of political science David Domke says in a school press release. "And yet with so many around the globe expressing a different view, the press failed its readers by uncritically echoing these fundamentalist messages."

What? The American press went all fundamentalist? When? The press release explains:

In all but one of Bush's 15 national addresses between 9/11 and the end of major combat in Iraq, for example, he cast the campaign against terrorism as a simple struggle of good (America) vs. evil, according to Domke's book. And in four of the speeches, Bush issued explicit declarations that administration policies and goals were in line with divine powers.

Yet only two of the 326 post-speech editorials in 20 leading newspapers challenged the religiously derived notion of good vs. evil, and none questioned the president's statements about God's will. …

Ah, yes. Believe in good and evil and you're a fundamentalist. Gotcha. Yes, we must certainly rid the world of the concepts of good and evil. After all, that's what got us into trouble in the first place. Or something. Ooh! There's more!

The coverage, Domke found, gave uncritical voice to four key fundamentalist messages from the administration:

1) Simplistic, black-and-white conceptions of the political landscape.

2) Calls for immediate action on administration policies as a necessary part of the nation's "calling" and "mission" against terrorism.

3) Declarations about the will of God for America and for the spread of U.S. conceptions of freedom and liberty.

4) Claims that dissent from the administration was unpatriotic and a threat to the nation.

"These messages were rooted in a religiously conservative worldview," Domke said, "yet they were often framed by both the administration and the news media to emphasize a sense of nationalism.

"That made the fundamentalist approach attractive, or at least palatable, to the press and public," Domke added, "in a period when Americans were trying to understand what had happened and why."

It was not until nearly two years after 9/11 that the administration relinquished its full-court religious press, Domke said, and the news media began to question their role in helping the administration to control public discourse.

"All of this came at great cost to democracy and the public," he said, "both of which were roundly ignored by the administration as it pursued a religiously grounded vision of America in the 21st century."

Got it? Only fundamentalists, after all, use words like "mission." And only a fundie (or a raving bigot) would want to proselytize some "U.S. conception of freedom and liberty" abroad. Only an extremist could look at the political landscape and conceive that terrorism is wrong. Shame on the media for ruining democracy so. Thanks, Dr. Domke!

Church & state:

• White House pledges to back Catholic group | President Bush's top adviser on faith-based programs assured Catholic Charities Maine Thursday that the White House is ready to battle local government when it comes to funding religious groups (Portland Press Herald, Maine)

next page... |  2 of 11

share this page

August (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48