Missing Voices: A Study of Religious Voices in Mainstream Media about LGBT Equality

[cbayer]

http://www.glaad.org/publications/missingvoices


Where are the pro-LGBT religious voices?

The ‘Missing Voices: A study of religious voices in mainstream media reports about LGBT equality’ study, released by GLAAD and the University of Missouri Center on Religion & the Professions, analyzes messages presented in national news outlets by religious voices about issues affecting the LGBT community. The research, a three year study of 316 news stories about LGBT issues, using 1,387 different religious sources on national television and print news media, shows a disproportionate reliance on anti-LGBT religious voices commenting on LGBT people and issues. Three out of four religious messages came from people whose religions have formal policies opposing LGBT equality, despite the fact that acceptance of LGBT people is growing across faith traditions

The news media is largely omitting a pro-LGBT religious perspective and ignoring individuals who identify as both LGBT and religious, particularly those who identify as Christian. As a result of this framing, it is likely that media consumers have distorted views of the relationship between LGBT people and religion and follow a false 'gay vs. religion' frame.



Major Findings

* Media outlets persistently quoted sources from Evangelical Christian organizations to speak about LGBT issues, and the messages those sources conveyed were significantly more negative than positive.

* Individual Evangelicals are consulted at a higher rate than their presence in the population would warrant (34% of media coverage versus 26% of the U.S. population).

Much more at link including ability to download the entire study.

[trotsky]

1. You already posted about this shortly after the study came out last month.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121819895

Just wondering, why the duplicate?

[eqfan592]

2. While the previous link was about this report...

...this is a link to where we can download the actual report itself. Worthy of its own post IMHO (and also for purely selfish reasons since I don't recall seeing the previous post ).

[trotsky]

3. Yes, the previous link was to an article written by GLAAD's "Director of Religion, Faith & Values"

and included a link to the study as well.

[eqfan592]

4. Ahh yes, I missed that link in my scan of the article. (nt)

[cbayer]

5. I had not had the opportunity to actually look at the study and thought

it was worth posting with direct link.

And I am repeatedly asked where the progressive/liberal religious leaders and organizations are on this issue. They are there, they just don't get press.

[trotsky]

6. LOL

Still shunning me, eh? That's hilarious.

[dmallind]

7. The well-supported Christian groups bought their own press.

They think their views of what Christianity is all about are worth spreading and sharing and won't accept not being heard. That's passion. That's motivation. That's belief and evangelism in action. You say your side doesn't lack the numbers - so what does it lack?

[cbayer]

8. My side? What is my side?

Isn't pro-GLBT activities our side?

[laconicsax]

9. That's a great dodge!

[cbayer]

10. What makes that a great dodge?

[laconicsax]

11. The fact that you dodged the question while implying that dmallind is anti-GLBT

Very skillfully done.

[cbayer]

12. First, I don't see this as a sport.

Second, I never implied that dmallind is anti-GLBT. I can say that with certainly because I have absolutely no reason to think he is, so why would I imply it?

[laconicsax]

13. The implication is there regardless of whether you meant it.

We'll just say that you inadvertently made a very skillful dick move.

[cbayer]

14. What the hell?

Maybe you recognize it because it is in your repertoire, but it's not in mine.

Infer anything you want. I implied nothing.

Your post, OTOH, is a conversation stopper.

[laconicsax]

17. I recognize it because I'm used to seeing it from you and others here.

You got called on your dodge and passive-aggressive dig. Now, knock off the personal attacks and answer the question that was put to you.

[cbayer]

18. Dick moves? Passive-agressive digs?

Personal attacks? The irony, it is thick here.

Sorry, laconicsax, you are not the boss of me.

I will answer when and how I choose, and I choose to close this conversation.

[laconicsax]

19. Whatever floats your boat.

You still haven't answered the question that was put to you.

[eqfan592]

15. I think the "side" that was being spoken of...

...was the side of progressive, pro-GLBT christians vs anti-GLBT christians. What is it they are lacking that is causing their voice to be so under-represented in the media I believe is the question.

[cbayer]

16. That's what the whole article is about.

[darkstar3]

20. And all of that means precisely dick,

unless we know with the same precision what percentage of evangelicals, mainliners, Catholics, or others are "pro-LGBT."

Let's see that data side-by-side and find out whether this study shows that the media is actually representative of the populations, or not, and then we'll have something interesting to talk about.

BTW: Has it ever occurred to anyone that attacking the media is just shooting the messenger?