Many (mostly us conservative nutjobs) have described 2008 as the year that “journalism died” in the aftermath of the presidential campaign coverage.  The unbalanced coverage of the religions of Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama did not help.

While Gov. Romney was relentlessly asked about his personal beliefs and expected to answer for his Church’s long-abandoned practices of polygamy and excluding blacks from the priesthood, there was virtually no scrutiny of the religious beliefs taught at Sen. Obama’s church.  I’m not even sure how much a candidate’s personal religious beliefs should be questioned.  But a media that seemed so concerned with a candidate’s “lack of curiosity” showed zero interest in the theology of Trinity United Church of Christ.  Even putting religion aside, Sen. Obama was never held to account for the radical anti-American, racist, and conspiracy-mongering politics preached there by his self-described spiritual mentor.

Following the news, you would not be faulted for believing that Romney’’s Mormon Church was exactly the same as it was 120 years ago while Obama hadn’t been a member of Rev. Wright’s church for the last 20 years.

For a little objective evidence, consider a study released by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life on media coverage of religion during the primary campaigns.  It’s difficult to compare the two directly as the focus on Romney’s religion was relentless, starting two years before he announced his candidacy, while the Obama religious coverage spiked for a few weeks in March and April.

But here are some interesting tidbits from the Pew study:

• While only 2% of all the campaign stories directly focused on religion, “more than one-third (35%) of all religion-related campaign stories focused on Romney, a Mormon.”
• “when Obama gave a speech to quell concerns over the controversial statements of his former pastor, both the campaign and the press steered the emphasis toward the race angle of the story. . . For about every 50 news stories that primarily focused on race, only one took a distinctively religious angle.”
• “Nearly one-third (30%) of Romney’s media coverage in 2007 focused on his Mormon faith. No other candidate even came close to receiving the same amount of attention to their faith that year.”

Interestingly, they did both give highly-touted speeches in response to controversies about their churches.  However, while Obama’s speech was well-received and was able to brush off further questioning by resigning from the church, Romney’s speech did little to stop the questioning about his, and may have even fueled more.

Of course, a serious Mormon candidate running for national office is a novelty that should be expected to garner media attention.  But the relentless coverage turned the question of how Romney’s faith would affect his campaign into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

From the day he entered the race on Feb. 13, 2007, Romney’s affiliation with the Mormon church dominated his media image more than anything else. On Feb. 18, 2007, during a Florida campaign event, Romney was heckled by an attendee who announced, “You do not know the Lord … you are a Mormon.” The moment was captured on video and replayed frequently over the course of the next 24 hours, gaining a thorough treatment on cable news shows.

Media analysis of the heckling incident kicked off what would become a pattern over the course of Romney’s ultimately unsuccessful campaign: Journalists often expressed sympathy for a candidate subject to anti-Mormon sentiment while simultaneously fueling the fire by suggesting his religion could be an impediment to his electability. For instance, on the Feb. 19, 2007, edition of CNN’s The Situation Room, correspondent Carol Costello noted that Romney’s courteous response to the heckler earned him a standing ovation, but she also predicted that “Romney’s faith will dog him.”

Nothing Romney said seemed to satisfy the pondering whether his religion would hurt him. The media kept asking him but never seemed to listen.

In contrast, much of the media seemed painfully hesitant to touch Obama’s faith and church while eager to clarify any mischaracterizations, even by the candidate himself. I’m sure there are various reasons for this but unfortunately I think it will be a long time until a Mormon candidate will get the kid-gloves treatment like this:

“These guys don’t understand them. I use them every once in a while, but that’s who I am. They have to ask somebody else, ‘What the heck is this guy talking about.’”

– Utah Jazz Coach Jerry Sloan, asked in an interview with the Utah Farm Bureau News [PDF] if he ever uses farming analogies with his players.

Perhaps a strange thing to muse on, but I fear the same will happen to General Conference talks.  So much of the gospel applies references to agriculture and many church leaders have told wonderful stories of growing up on farms.

But as we became less of an agrarian society, I wonder how many future lessons will be taught using farm references or who will even understand what the heck they’re talking about.

» YouTube Censoring the IDF?

» Study: religion correlates with greater self-control

» Counsel vs. Council: A Guide for Latter-Day Saints

» Slavery spreads from Africa to the US

» The theology of liberation

» Media redeploying over the event horizon from Iraq

The Pope’s speech that ran for several pages, and the reference to sexuality occupied a couple of sentences. That didn’t matter. It is axiomatic, among critics of Catholicism, that the Church is obsessed with sex. So when a Catholic leader says something about sexuality, the media fixate on it. Never mind the other 3,500 words of the papal address; these 50 words are the important ones– the only important ones– because they’re about sex.

[via Get Religion]