Travails of a Christian News Anchor

Do the principles of journalism ethics conflict with a journalist’s personal First Amendment rights? The question is being debated in a conflict between Detroit TV station WXYZ and longtime anchor Frank Turner. Turner makes no secret of his Christian faith, as I noted here in an earlier post. He contends the TV station is discriminating against him because he wants to do a radio show on a local Christian station.

Does it just have to do with his faith? After all, Detroit Free Press sports columnist Mitch Albom is also a talk-radio-show host. Does that compromise Mitch’s objectivity?

Comments

[Camassia]

A little-quoted passage from 1 Corinthians: "The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?"

That's why this sort of thing bugs me. I think if you see being Christian as belonging to another interest group in the competing marketplace of entitlements, you've already adopted the secular world's viewpoint.

[Across the Flow]

Objectivity in the mainstream media hasn't been the object since the McCarthy hearings. Journalist students see themselves as, and I suspect are told by their professors that they are heroes destined to reshape and correct society. Centrist is suspect, right of center is exorcized.

[Camassia]

Looking back, my comment was a bit snippy, so perhaps I should elaborate. I think what bothers me about most evangelicals' complaints of discrimination is that they are using the language of a worldview fundamentally in conflict with their own. The anti-discrimination laws that Mr. Turner is suing under are premised on the idea that personal beliefs ought to be treated neutrally, and that an employer ought not to regard anyone's belief system as better than anyone else's. In other words, pluralism. But of course, the philosophy of evangelism is the complete opposite: it is all about one religion being better than all the others!

I think that in a multireligious society like our own, pluralism makes for mostly sensible law, but it has problems as a personal belief system, especially when a person believes it only when it serves his own interests. Mr. Turner's strange comparison of his evangelicalism to his race sounds to me like he's using the philosophy of pluralism to assert his rights -- you have to respect my beliefs because they're my beliefs! -- while he wants to use those rights for a basically anti-pluralist project. It seems to me that it would be more honest to say something like, "Yeah, my evangelism threatens the whole idea of neutrality and objectivity, as well as a lot more of your most cherished beliefs. Glad you noticed."

That's why I think Paul's warnings about the public image given off by these lawsuits still apply. To me, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do," is more compelling witness than, "I deserve a radio show on top of my high-powered TV anchor job."

[Bene Diction]

I ran into this - a provincial Emergency Measures Organization asked me to be the media director.

I was receiving my paycheck from a radio station. It was their call and they said no.
Although I believed it wouldn't interfere with my responsibilites, management felt differently. End of story.

Objectivity and faith can be red herrings.

[Dan Rose]

I appreciate Mr. Turner's desire to be on the radio. I think that Bene Diction has a really good point. The reality is that Channel 7 is his employer. My employer does not allow me to hold a job to provide myself with a secondary income. That's the way it is. I would much prefer to change that situation but I can't. I suppose if Mr. Turner feels so strongly about this he can choose to not be on TV.