How is it possible for a man whose opinion no one values to make a comment on a cable television show that no one watches and have it turn into a topic that no one can stop talking about? Because we have all become insatiable consumers of the media and when there is no news to report, the new product must be, as late historian Daniel Boorstin explained, created:
Then came round-the-clock media. The news gap soon became so narrow that in order to have additional "news" for each new edition or each new broadcast it was necessary to plan in advance the stages by which any available news would be unveiled. After the weekly and the daily came the "extras" and the numerous regular editions. The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin soon had seven editions a day. No rest for the newsman. With more space to fill, he had to fill it ever more quickly. In order to justify the numerous editions, it was increasingly necessary that the news constantly change or at least seem to change. With radio on the air continuously during waking hours, the reporters' problems became still more acute. News every hour on the hour, and sometimes on the half hour. Programs interrupted any time for special bulletins. How to avoid deadly repetition, the appearance that nothing was happening, that news gatherers were asleep, or that competitors were more alert? As the costs of printing and then of broadcasting increased, it became financially necessary to keep the presses always at work and the TV screen always busy. Pressures toward the making of pseudo-events became ever stronger. News gathering turned into news making.
If you find Boorstin’s observation rather banal and obvious, keep in mind that he wrote this statement in 1961.
Over the past 44 years, the news cycle has accelerated to a breakneck speed. Not only do we have 24-hour news channels but we have Google News, RSS feeds, and blogs to provide us with up to the minute coverage of the most trivial non-events. Take, for example, Pat Robertson’s comment which was reported by CNN on Wednesday, August 24 at 1:34 a.m. EDT.
Robert from brightMystery posted a link to the story at 8:19 a.m. on Thursday and was disappointed that at 11:43 a.m. – three and half hour later – he was unable to find “links to statements by prominent evangelicals denouncing these remarks.”*
Staying abreast of relevant current events is no longer sufficient; to be truly informed of what is going on in the world, one is also expected to have the freshest information on breaking non-events. If you are a blogger you can add to this the expectation to have an opinion/denunciation/apology posted in case someone might be unsure of where you stand on a matter of complete unimportance. Several bloggers feigned surprise and disappointment that Christian bloggers (like me) did not denounce Robertson’s remark. In the age of instant media, it is not enough to simply be our brother’s keeper. Now, we must also be their press agent.
As a Christian, though, I’m expected to take an eternal perspective, viewing events not just in their historical but in their eschatological context. But I can’t do that while focusing on the churning events in the last 24 hours and furiously scripting my reactions to insignificant minutiae. Events that are truly important are often those that are not captured on the front page of a daily paper or on Instapundit. As Malcolm Muggeridge, himself a journalist, admitted, “I’ve often thought…that if I’d been a journalist in the Holy Land at the time of our Lord’s ministry, I should have spent my time looking into what was happening in Herod’s court. I’d be wanting to sign Salome for her exclusive memoirs, and finding out what Pilate was up to, and…I would have missed completely the most important event there ever was.”
* I don’t mean to pick on Robert by using him as an example. Because many Christians call on Muslims to denouce outrageous remarks made by Islamofacists, he was merely expecting evangelicals to be consistent and do the same.
Note: The last paragraph was originally written for a post titled, The New, New, News: How the News Makes Us Dumb.
1
Nietze once said that "the only purpose of man is to claim the future as his own." Okay, I made that up. Nietze never said anything like that. I was trying to immitate spam comments. But I still got the first comment in. anyone want to play five card draw?
posted on 08.26.2005 5:15 AM2
Just a few notes on all this:
(1) Although the CNN report was timestamped at 1:34 AM on 8.24, the story broke earlier than that. I learned about it first from a post at virusdoc.net (http://www.virusdoc.net/archives/000474.html), which was timestamped at 10:09 AM on 8.23, which made the story about 24 hours old by the time I blogged it. (Maybe the CNN story was edited after it was originally posted, and the timestamp changed.) Anyhow, it wasn't the case that I was expecting the Christian blogosphere to respond instantly.
(2) Whether or not Robertson's opinions are valued or anybody watches his show was rendered moot by the MSM's picking up the story and making it headline news. Suddenly Robertson's lame remarks are above the fold. Whether or not they were interesting, whether or not they matter, they became news. In the blogosphere, "Pat Robertson" is still, as of 7:00 AM on 8.26, the #1 most searched item on Technorati and has been so for going on two days now.
(3) Robertson's remarks and the attention they received from the MSM serve as a valuable teachable moment for the evangelical community to get out the truth on what Christianity is actually about. It was/is the deafening silence on *this* front, not so much the lack of reporting on Robertson, that causes genuine disappointment for me. (Not "feigned".) Here we have a chance to take a situation where a prominent (for whatever reason) evangelical blatantly crosses the line of what Jesus intended His church to be, and use it to teach about what really matters in Christianity. If we bloggers have the capability of carrying this out, we should do so, especially if blogging technology allows us to do so with a very small time differential between the original story and our posting.
posted on 08.26.2005 7:06 AM3
How is it possible for a man whose opinion no one values to make a comment on a cable television show that no one watches and have it turn into a topic that no one can stop talking about?
If no one watches him then how come he is always given speaking gigs at every GOP Convention I can remember?
Robertson is newsworthy because he is a fantastic squirm factor. It is interesting to see how much powerful Republicans will put up with from Robertson to avoid offending him and the voters/donators he influences. On the other hand, if you believe that no one watches or cares about Robertson's opinion there is a newsworthy question; Why does the GOP give Robertson such credibility?
Could it be because Robertson has sold himself off as Mr. Evangelical so evangelicals see a political party that embraces Robertson as evangelical friendly even though they themselves would never join a Church Robertson controlled? Or could it be that Robertson carries more weight than more intelligent evangelicals would like to admit?
posted on 08.26.2005 7:48 AM4
In the book of Acts, the Bereans are given kudos for their response to Paul. For believing him? Of course not. For going home and checking to see if what he said was supported by what the scriptures said.
Most who manage to get enough other people's money to finance a Christian T.V. show make me a little nervious.
5
Joe-
It's an odd thing to be sure- and odd to me as to what the media's left out in this recent spat:
- On Chavez, it seems a pretty safe bet that the CIA really did try to "take him out." There were reports in UK media, as well as the NYT in 2002 that there was close coordinatin between those involved in the Chavez coup and folks clearly identified as working at the US Embassy.
- Chavez represents- a first in Venezuelan politics- the majority mixed race people in Venezuela.
- Chavez really did help the poorest of the poor down there.
- Robertson's past with dictators- diamond mines with Mobutu Sese Seko, being pals with murderer of Archbishop Romero, and Taylor in Liberia- all that's been airbrushed out.
By making the narrative about "Robertson made a terrorist threat" or some nonsense like that, all the really dirty stuff's been marginalized.
Now I think Chavez is displaying some of the nastier traits in all this that I've criticized Bush for- i.e., quashing liberty in response to threats to his power.
All of which is to say that it's not simply the breaking events or lack thereof but the construction of the narrative that's become so much easier now.
Events that are truly important are often those that are not captured on the front page of a daily paper or on Instapundit.
I'd have to agree though with Nakagawa-roshi who once noted something to the effect that even the tabloid papers, if viewed properly, could be seen as sacred text- what I'd say he was saying is that these stories have the echo of Nagarjuna or Ecclesiastes. And that ain't so bad...
posted on 08.26.2005 8:47 AM7
Amen, Joe! I'm also glad to see Boorstin getting some attention.
posted on 08.26.2005 9:54 AM8
There are enough idiots around to give plenty of fodder to hysterical right and left. The right, justifiably, went ballistic when ex-Klansman Sen. Byrd made his infamous "nigger" comment on TV. The left, justifiably, is going ballistic now about Robertson. Robertson is getting more media attention, not because he is more richly deserving than assorted left-wing idiots, but because, statistically, the media are populated by left-wing hysterics.
Unfortunately, it is the assumption of hysterics in both camps that "they all think like that". Such thinking doesn't require much cognitive bandwidth and, being more-or-less effortless, permits the hysteric the luxury of additional time for self-congratulation and moral posturing.
As he continues to wreck his country's economy, Chavez will either be assassinated by his own countrymen or set up a vicious xenophobic police state like his mentors (and all socialists, eventually) have done in Cuba and North Korea. American intervention is not required beyond the occasional diplomatic slapdown.
posted on 08.26.2005 9:57 AM9
Regardless of Chavez faults, the fact that a christian called for his assassination is wrong. I'm not surprised that christian bloggers didn't jump down his throat. I'm Christian and I'm Black. And in this country-no--this world--racism takes precedence over religion. If Robertson would have said that about Ireland or Serbia, the whole situation would be different. But because it was Chavez like Haiti like Uganda like Dafur it's just a news filler until "real" news catches the media's eye.
posted on 08.26.2005 11:29 AM10
Joe:
If you think nobody watches Robertson's show or cares what he says/thinks, then you're sorely mistaken. Riddle me this: Where do you suppose his money came from, and continues to come from? Do you really suppose that broadcasting The 700 Club is a money-losing endeavor for Robertson? That's naďve.
No, the problem with Robertson isn't that [paraphrasing] "people don't recognize he's irrelevant." The problem is that people are too quick to dismiss him as irrelevant, when in fact he still holds a tremendous amount of sway. He still has a not-insignifiacnt , very active constituency (in the November 2004 sweeps, The 700 Club averaged 922,000 American households per day -- by way of comparison, The Daily Show With Jon Stewart gets about 600,000 daily viewers), and he represents a lot of money and influence within the GOP. His 700 Club Ministries totalled $377 million in revenue in 2004. (Would that I could be that irrelevant...)
Put it this way: How many prominent Republicans do you see publicly denouncing Robertson (or Falwell, for that matter)? And I don't just mean this stupid remark or that, but the man himself? You won't find many, if any. They're too afraid to lose his money and his constituency.
No, Robertson doesn't stay relevant because "the media" allows him to; he stays relevant because the GOP allows him to, and because his constituency allows him to.
(Note, this isn't to say that the Democratic Party doesn't have its fair share of incendiary nutjobs; but the point remains that Robertson is not nearly so "irrelevant" as you seem to think.)
posted on 08.26.2005 11:45 AM11
"How is it possible for a man whose opinion no one values to make a comment on a cable television show that no one watches and have it turn into a topic that no one can stop talking about?"
Because it's expected. Televangelists and other self-anointed religious leaders have been saying quite a few stupid things for quite some time now. Robertson is simply a gold mine for such comments.
If you follow around a fire truck all day eventually your going to find a fire. That's all thats happening with Robertson. He's just a dependable source of stupid statements.
If you really are embarrassed by what he says then do something about it. Stop giving the man your money and time. Deny him a platform and soapbox. Even better, why not turn CBN into what it really is, a for-profit network. Then he'd have to answer for his statements to shareholders. After all, it's not as if congregations can't or don't fire preachers they don't like. (Unless you are Catholic).
Tell the man his 15 minutes are up.
12
Are to bring it down to one simple question; if Robertson is irrelevant then why does the GOP give him speaking slots at the GOP Conventions?
There are enough idiots around to give plenty of fodder to hysterical right and left. The right, justifiably, went ballistic when ex-Klansman Sen. Byrd made his infamous "nigger" comment on TV. The left, justifiably, is going ballistic now about Robertson.
This is what I like to call the bi-partisan fallacy. What is that? It assumes for every bad act by one party, ideology, side etc. there must be one equal bad act by the other side. So if Robertson made a bad comment that we are getting angry about there must be an equally bad comment from some liberal or democrat.
Sen. Byrd's infamous 'white nigger' comment was basically a positive message of sorts. He said that racists complain about blacks who commit crimes, do drugs and other things calling them niggers but he has seen plenty of white people who do equally bad things...hence 'white niggers'. This sentiment is not bad but it was expressed in probably the most awkward and painfully tone death manner possible.
Now Robertson's message is what exactly? That a human life should be taken because the man is complaining about US policy or threatening not to sell oil to the US? Of course compounding the Robertson problem is all the other stupid comments he has made such as the first Gulf War was a conspiracy by rich Jews who secretly control the world or 9/11 was America's fault because we tolerate homosexuals and the ACLU.
13
Tgirsch,
He still has a not-insignificant , very active constituency (in the November 2004 sweeps, The 700 Club averaged 922,000 American households per day -- by way of comparison, The Daily Show With Jon Stewart gets about 600,000 daily viewers, and he represents a lot of money and influence within the GOP. His 700 Club Ministries totalled $377 million in revenue in 2004. (Would that I could be that irrelevant...)
Let’s break down some of these number to get a clearer picture. First, The 700 Club is on the air three times a day on the ABC Family Channel. Why is it on so often? Because of contractual obligations; ABC-Fam has no choice in the matter. As Christianity Today’s blog points out, the show could have no viewers at all and ABC couldn’t pull it off the air.
Now 922,000 daily viewers is not, I’ll admit, insignificant. But divide this number by three and the average viewership per show is less that The Daily Show and more in line with news shows on MSNBC.
As for an “active constituency”, in 2004 Robertson received $132.1 million in donations. While that may sound like a lot of money it is far less that either a megachurch or most other televangelist (i.e., Benny Hinn) bring in. Assuming that the same million people watch his show every day, he is only bringing in about $1.32 per year per viewer. That’s chump change in the world of televangelism.
No, Robertson doesn't stay relevant because "the media" allows him to; he stays relevant because the GOP allows him to, and because his constituency allows him to.
Robertson doesn’t have a “constituency” worth paying attention to. But you are right that the GOP pays attention to him. They put up with him because he has deep pockets and is willing to share the wealth in order to buy himself a seat at the table. If anyone wants to criticize Robertson as a representative of the GOP then I can accept that. What irks me is when he is viewed as a representative of evangelicalism or Christianity in general.
14
The point here isn't what Robertson said, it's that what he said immediately became sensational, front-page news despite the fact that there is something of a war on, the Israelis have pulled out of Gaza, energy prices are at record highs, etc.
I, for one, celebrate this. For balance, check out the train-wreck-in-slow-motion that the Cindy Sheehan fiasco has become for the Left. On the news, all the time.
In the past, you had a network news anchor reading off 30 minutes of news. Now, it's everywhere. If I don't care about Robertson, I don't have to hear about what he said. If I do, I can get all of it I want. If I'm a flaming lib who loves Cindy, I can go over to her new blog, and drink in the make-love-not-war platitudes of the Far Left. Or, I can watch the Lawn and Garden Network, or MTV, and never watch the news again.
That's progress.
posted on 08.26.2005 12:20 PM15
You have my sympathy. As a liberal I get people that have never been within a zipcode of a TV camera hung around my neck as supposed "spokespersons" of my beliefs (Ward Churhill anyone?). Now you've got an ordained minister, who won the Iowa Republican presidential caucus, who has his own television show, and of course the media just *has* to go overboard is misidentifying him as some sort of spokesman for evangelicals. Yeesh, these people.
posted on 08.26.2005 1:10 PM16
I don't think that "televangilism" is inherently bad/evil... I guess it just depends on your definition of "televagelisim." In the bigger picture, there are some real blessings out there on Christian television - Joel Osteen for example. Plus, at least here where I live, there are dozens of other, virtually unknown, pastors who have television ministries. They're spreading the gospel through the medium, and doing a bang-up job, IMHO. They're reaching folks who might not have otherwise been reached, providing hope and encouragement to believers, and providing bible teaching for the elderly or infirmed, just to name a few blessings. I think they're great, and in fact, I watch several of these pastors with as much regularity as I can.
It's really sort of an extension of radio ministries - both the traditional AM/FM, and even the short wave variety that is done by such folks as LeSea Broadcasting, I think. Personally, I listen to Alistar Begg and Focus on the Family every morning on my way to work, and it is such a blessing to have bible teaching every single day to supplement my own reading and study. I can't begin to tell you how blessed I feel by these ministries, and I don't have a single bad thing to say about them. I think they're great.
posted on 08.26.2005 1:37 PM17
Lemme help you, Jon. For hundreds of thousands of Evangelicals, Robertson is a spokesman. Along with several others.
Sure it is the same on the Left. Every TV camera and boom truck is now on Cindy Sheehan. Al Franken has his own show. Bill Maher is a liberal with his own. But I don't pretend that they speak for all liberals--just the ones who are tuning in every day. And, even then, it doesn't mean they're drinking the Kool Aid. After all, there are plenty of good reasons to watch 700 Club without believing in the personal politics of Pat Robertson who, if he were as popular among the Right as liberals think, would've gone a whole lot farther than the Iowa Caucuses.
posted on 08.26.2005 1:38 PM18
Ohh.. and I almost forgot - Sky Angel - now Christians even have an exclusively Christian satelite network that they can receive Christian and family programming through. I just marvel at the work the Lord is doing right here, right now, by using people and technology to spread the Good News.
posted on 08.26.2005 1:40 PM19
"What irks me is when he is viewed as a representative of evangelicalism or Christianity in general."
Robertson is a member of the Arlington group as I recall. A group of evangelical and other religious orgs that have a weekly phone conference with White House officials, if not the President himself. (It's usually with Rove).
Robertson is also one of the people that Bush consulted for advice on the selection of the new supreme court justice nominee.
The man is not insignificant in terms of the power he has. I would hope that the White House would sharply curtail his access after this latest snafu, but I doubt it will happen.
Robertson is a voice that represents Christianity. But then so are you.
20
Boonton:
Of course compounding the Robertson problem is all the other stupid comments he has made such as ... 9/11 was America's fault because we tolerate homosexuals and the ACLU.To be fair, it was Falwell who said this (albeit on Robertson's show), not Robertson. Robertson did, however, indicate agreement with the statement.
Joe:
But divide this number by three and the average viewership per show is less that The Daily Show and more in line with news shows on MSNBC.First, I'm not sure the divide by three logic is appropriate here; but let's assume it does. "In line with ... MSNBC" is still not insignificant!
Another metric (which I cannot find) would be the number of dues-paying members the 700 club has. You don't need that many to be influential. At its post-9/11 peak, the ACLU (which, love it or hate it, I doubt you would describe as irrelevant or lacking influence) had about 330,000 dues-paying members. And they're considered big.
What irks me is when he is viewed as a representative of evangelicalism or Christianity in general.But that's my point: Christians and evangelicals are complicit in this by not more loudly and prominently denouncing Robertson. I applaud you for doing it, but frankly, you're just not all that common in that regard. I just don't see Dobson or Kennedy or insert-evangelical-here going on TV and saying he's an idiot (or whatever the appropriate evangelical way to denounce somebody would be).
Frankly, this problem is far from unique to evangelicals and Falwell. I'd love to see more prominent liberals similarly denouncing Michael Moore, for example.
Now maybe you're arguing that Robertson should be irrelevant, but that's a different point (and one I'll agree with you on). But the fact remains, he's far from it.
Robertson doesn’t have a “constituency” worth paying attention to.Define "worth paying attention to." I argue that we ignore this constituency at our mutual peril. posted on 08.26.2005 2:22 PM
21
Tgirsch,
I applaud you for doing it, but frankly, you're just not all that common in that regard. I just don't see Dobson or Kennedy or insert-evangelical-here going on TV and saying he's an idiot (or whatever the appropriate evangelical way to denounce somebody would be).
Well, there was Ted Haggard (president of the National Association of Evangelicals) who talked to Los Angeles Times, CNN, USA Today, Knight Ridder, and the New York Times. There was Marvin Olasky on MSNBC, Os Guinness on ABC's World News Tonight, and Bobby Welch (president of the Southern Baptist Convention) in the Baptist Press. There was also Al Mohler (dean of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), Ed Vitagliano (spokesman for the American Family Association)…
The point is that most people want to hear from who they think are influential evangelicals rather than the ones who are truly influential. A few important people within evangelicalism didn't speak out but what does it really matter? The evangelical tent is, after all, host to a few more leaders than Dobson and Kennedy.
22
Joe:
Fair enough. But for better or for worse, I've never even heard of most of those guys. And frankly, I never see bloggers fawning over them they way they do over the Colsons and Dobsons, so I have to think that I haven't heard of them in part because they're less influential. Could be wrong there, but there's an old saying about perception and reality... :)
That's the point. You might like to think that Robertson isn't influential, but he is. Maybe he doesn't influence people you care to associate with, but that doesn't make him less influential. You can't really write those folks off without appealing to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
posted on 08.26.2005 2:54 PM23
Pat Robertson is the George Soros of the evangelical right. Both have a lot of money, made through some morally questionable business deals, and both have views on the fringe of their respective politcal parties. The fact that they have a lot of money (and in Robertson's case a TV show) makes them appear to have a lot more influence than they actually do. I doubt their more extreme views are held by more than a very small percentage of their party's members. The biggest difference between Soros and Robertson is that Robertson's influence is waning, while Soros' is waxing.
posted on 08.26.2005 2:55 PM24
And in fact, of the names you listed, only Ted Haggard participated in the highly-publicized Justice Sunday II. And the question remains for me, what did he say? Did he denounce the statements by Robertson, or did he denounce Robertson?
posted on 08.26.2005 3:00 PM25
Tgirsch Fair enough. But for better or for worse, I've never even heard of most of those guys.
Well, that's why I started the "Know Your Evangelicals" series. ; )
And frankly, I never see bloggers fawning over them they way they do over the Colsons and Dobsons, so I have to think that I haven't heard of them in part because they're less influential.
Wait a second, where did Colson come in? Yeah, Colson is influential but I don't think it is really fair to lump him in with Dobson and Robertson. He has mush different goals and priorities than they do.
I also think that we may be using different meanings of the term "influential." Evangelicalism is a religious movement that is influenced primarily by ideas and relationships. I would suggest that the proper way to measure the influence of an evangelical is to ask what would happen if you took away their money. Would they still have influence then? For someone like Os Guiness, the answer is an obvious yes. For someone like Robertson, though, the answer is more likely to be no.
That's the point. You might like to think that Robertson isn't influential, but he is. Maybe he doesn't influence people you care to associate with, but that doesn't make him less influential.
He may be influential, but I still contend that he is not influential as an evangelical. I think Ucfengr makes a great comparision when he calls Robertson the George Soros of the Right. Without his money, Robertson would still be a Christian but he wouldn't have much of an audience.
posted on 08.26.2005 3:06 PM26
The point here isn't what Robertson said, it's that what he said immediately became sensational, front-page news despite the fact that there is something of a war on, the Israelis have pulled out of Gaza, energy prices are at record highs, etc.
I heard about all those things on the news as well. What's the problem?
Sure it is the same on the Left. Every TV camera and boom truck is now on Cindy Sheehan. Al Franken has his own show. Bill Maher is a liberal with his own.
Will Sheehan be speaking at the Dem Convention in 2008? Perhaps. 20012? Highly unlikely. Robertson has been at this since at least 1988. Franken and Maher are commentators but they haven't created themself as a brand. Perhaps if she was more political Oprah Winfrey would be comparable to Robertson. What Robertson has done is combine his TV presence with his political donations and on top of that add a constitutency that will vote with him. It doesn't mean he represents a majority of evangelicals but he doesn't have to in order to succeed. He only has to have a group of voters in his pocket to carry a lot of influence. In many elections politicians end up spending a lot per vote they receive. If Robertson could give them a few tens of thousands of votes in one shot his influence is worth quite a bit.
The dynamics of this situation are caused by the fact that while most evangelicals do not follow Robertson they do not object to him enough to cause the GOP to care. So if kissing Robertson's butt will gain a GOP politico a few thousand or tens of thousands of evangelical votes but will not cost him anything then why should he not? On the other hand look what happened to Gore/Lieberman when Lieberman made some friendly overatures to Louis Farrakhan. Any black votes Lieberman may have gained were probably offset by Jewish and other black voters who were disguested by giving the Nation of Islam any credibility.
The point is that most people want to hear from who they think are influential evangelicals rather than the ones who are truly influential. A few important people within evangelicalism didn't speak out but what does it really matter? The evangelical tent is, after all, host a few more leaderes than Dobson and Kennedy.
Define what you mean by influential. These people may be more influential in shaping evangelical theology or ideas but are they also political? Do they have the ability to deliever blocs of votes or blocs of individual campaign contributions?
posted on 08.26.2005 3:09 PM27
Tgirsh,
Did he denounce the statements by Robertson, or did he denounce Robertson?
While I might personally do so, I don't think it is necessary to denounce Robertson. Haggard and Robertson are old friends so I wouldn't expect him to blast him on a personal level. Among the comments he made was:
"Certainly I don't condone his comments, but I've know Pat for years, and he's a good man. … I don't think he wants people killed. I think he made ill-advised remarks in his role as a pundit. He does not speak for all Christians or evangelicals."
But the best remark that I have heard on the controversy also came from Haggard:
"Pat doesn't speak for evangelicals any more than Dr. Phil speaks for mental health professionals."posted on 08.26.2005 3:11 PM
28
Boonton
if Robertson is irrelevant then why does the GOP give him speaking slots at the GOP Conventions?I think you have been tagged on this before. Please prove this. I found:
Republican Convention 2004: One Catholic archbishop
Republican Convention 2000: No pastoral speakers
Republican Convention 1996
Republican Convention 1992: No list of speakers at Wiki. You might be able to prove he spoke there.
Republican Convention 1988: Of course he spoke here - HE WAS A CANDIDATE.
29
Interesting you received pressure from people to do this post. Looks like WorldView blog was happy to pick up the slack.
You were (if you think about it) a piece of god-blog history when you participated in Bloggers Row at JJII, a media driven event.:^)
CBN has holdings that would be the envy of many networks. 12 world centres.
Ask someone in South America, Asia, Europe if they've heard of Pat Robertson.
Ask them what he is about and what 700 Club or Christian Broadcasting Network means.
His relevence stopped being just a debate between Republicans and Democrats quite some time ago.
This post reminds me of Marshall McLuhans concept of extension.
30
Boonton:
You're alway a hoot.
(1) No such "fallacy". If you actually read what I wrote, I said there was no shortage of idiots on either extreme of the spectrum.
(2) "White niggers" was a positive comment? Now there's some major spin. According to Sen. Byrd, we have both white and black "niggers". What a stupid comment from him, and you. Kweisi Mfume's assessment was that Senator Byrd's remarks were "both repulsive and revealing". I don't often agree with Kweisi, but I do here. Maybe you should write Kweisi a note and help him get his mind right. But hopefully, the old Klansman will lose the next election. My whole family still lives there, and the old bastard is a national embarassment.
(3)Speaking of Robertson's comments about rich Jews, go check out your beloved Kos's comments section. Assuming Robertson made anti-Semitic comments (and I don't follow his fevered commentaries) he's at most a moderate anti-Semite compared to the pack of Kosloons that hang out in the comments section.
posted on 08.26.2005 5:03 PM31
"What irks me is when he is viewed as a representative of evangelicalism or Christianity in general."
Hi Joe,
I think that's a good reason for some of the blogging that has occurred. At least there's an opportunity to set it straight in a way. The Christianity Today article was a good example of countering his remarks - and the best I've seen on it. I linked it after I read it yesterday too.
Unfortunately Robertson is seen as a prominent spokesman for US evangelicals in other countries. He made the front page of the World section of our largest daily newspaper here. Let me put that into perspective - we've had no reporting on Cindy Sheehan, but we hear about Robertson. So I think the counter position is important (although I didn't devote a whole blog post to him on my blog - he got one sentence).
And perhaps like many things he is a focal point for ongoing controversy - in the way Sheehan is too.
posted on 08.27.2005 8:29 AM32
why are christian leaders defending robertson instead of distancing themselves from him? robertson has been a spokesperson of the evengelicals for years. it would be like billy grahm suddenly becoming a nutter.
posted on 08.27.2005 10:44 AM33
(2) "White niggers" was a positive comment? Now there's some major spin. According to Sen. Byrd, we have both white and black "niggers". What a stupid comment from him, and you. Kweisi Mfume's assessment was that Senator Byrd's remarks were "both repulsive and revealing".
I'll concede on Pat Robertson speaking at the RNC. I suppose I might have seen him as a regular commentator on various news outlets or perhaps it was Falwell. I like politics but I tend to find the conventions horrible to watch no matter what the party....
Sen. Byrd's comments according to Wikipedia:
"They are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime," Byrd said. "I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us ... . I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that." Then Byrd warned:"There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use that word."
"We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."
Now you want to use Kweisi Mfume as an authority while you use the argument from authority fallacy. What exactly is it above that is republisive? That 'we all have to work together'? That Byrd's mother told him he couldn't go to heaven if he hates anyone? Byrd was making a rather banal but harmless observation that there's good and bad in both the white and black race. This sort of observation was somewhat cutting edge in 1965 but not today...at the same time the only real problem is that using the word nigger makes it rather incendiary & distracts from its underlying message. I'm sorry to see you've joined the knee jerk political correctness crowd but is Byrd's comment really as equally unchristian as hoping someone is murdered?
(3)Speaking of Robertson's comments about rich Jews, go check out your beloved Kos's comments section. Assuming Robertson made anti-Semitic comments (and I don't follow his fevered commentaries) he's at most a moderate anti-Semite compared to the pack of Kosloons that hang out in the comments section.
OK, so we can't criticize Robertson for being anti-Semitic until we can be assured the comment section of every web blog on the net has been cleaned of racism.
posted on 08.27.2005 3:53 PM34
Did Senator Byrd's mum give him that precious advice about not hating your fellow man BEFORE he became a Klansman? Or did he just not believe it then?
posted on 08.28.2005 2:18 AM35
In principle, however, Robertson is correct about assassinating world leaders.
And Dee, Ireland has had its act together for decades and Serbia elected a new government after the bombing campaign we conducted. Ireland is a very stable, very free country today and Serbia is fixing itself on its own. You won't see any of that in most of Latin America.
posted on 08.28.2005 7:58 AM36
Your post seems defensive, Joe, inappropriately so. Why don't you advocate for everyone of all stripes to be actively policing their own? Certainly many people have been and continue to ask for Muslims to stand up to their extremists.
Trying to dismiss Robertson as "a man whose opinion no one values ... on a cable television show that no one watches" is the height of spin doctoring (although I understand your desire for that to be true). Anyone who gets nearly a million viewers PER DAY (or even a few hundred of thousand) is incredibly visible and influencial.
Your blog gets tens of thousands of hits per day and that makes you influential too -- and like it or not brings with it a moral responsibility to speak out on issues just like this one. Choosing to use your position as a minor Christian pundit to move attention away from the Robertson's despicable statement and on to the media that reports it is ducking that responsibility. We all need to care about what visible, influential people are doing with their power and repsond to them when they do bad things.
posted on 08.28.2005 9:59 AM37
Did Senator Byrd's mum give him that precious advice about not hating your fellow man BEFORE he became a Klansman? Or did he just not believe it then?
A good question. Do I think it was a good thing that he joined the Klan 40 or 50 years ago? No I don't. As you know, though, people often go against their mother's better advice and Byrd would hardly be the first. Do I think that it was a good thing that Byrd in his later years choose to renounce the beliefs of the Klan? Certainly and it is better he choose to do that even if he expresses it in a awkward and tone death manner.
Let’s break down some of these number to get a clearer picture. First, The 700 Club is on the air three times a day on the ABC Family Channel. Why is it on so often? Because of contractual obligations; ABC-Fam has no choice in the matter. As Christianity Today’s blog points out, the show could have no viewers at all and ABC couldn’t pull it off the air.
Well yea but then why would ABC-Fam have signed such a contract with someone who attracts no viewers and how could someone with no viewers or supporters have anything worthwhile to give ABC to get them to agree to such a contract?
I don't doubt that Joe is correct that the Daily Show probably is larger in terms of viewers but from a political point of view the 700 Club viewers are much more likely to vote as a block making it a more potent show & Robertson a more powerful personality. Many liberal figures that are often cited as a counter to Robertson & his type lack this cult of personality. While many may like Al Franklin, Moore, Bill Maher etc. have fans but lack such dedicated fans
38
Joe:
He may be influential, but I still contend that he is not influential as an evangelical.Fair point, but that's a different matter. You complain about the media giving Robertson face time because he's irrelevant (or should be), but he's not, so it's not all that out of line for the media to do so. He may not be influential among evangelicals, but I don't think anyone claims he is. They do, however, claim that he's influential among conservative Christians (a different thing), because he is, whether or not that influence is artificially inflated by his personal finances.
And my point still stands that there are few conservative Christians, evangelical or otherwise, who are more recognizable or influential than Robertson. Even if Robertson's influence has waned some in recent years, it's still not trivial.
posted on 08.29.2005 3:17 PM