In a recent BBC Newsnight interview, Madonna, dressed in black and sitting in a carefully staged set that would have been more appropriate in the Adam's Family mansion, defended her decision to begin adoption proceedings with baby David Banda.
One of the many accusations levelled at her in the media has been the idea that she picked out the child in much the same manner that one would choose a puppy in a pet shop. In the interview, she refuted this and describes how she first saw David as part of a documentary film that was being made relating to her Foundation. She went on to defend her decision to remove the baby from Malawi, despite the fact that he has a father and allegedly a Grandmother who visited him regularly. She denied any knowlege of a Grandmother and insisted that both a Malawian Government minister and the man who runs the orphanage told her that no-one visited the boy.
Quite apart from the all the obvious questions that this whole adoption debacle raises, one issue that remains unchallenged is the part the media played in this. The simple version of the story, as portrayed in the press, would have you believe that Madonna flew into Malawi astride a broomstick, picked out the child she liked the look of with complete disregard for his family and Malawian law. Not only that but she hoodwinked Malawian officals, the boys father and her adoring public into believing that she did this with the boys best interest at heart, something which couldn't possibly be true of someone like her.
But of course it's never that simple. Bastions of journalistic integrity such as the Guardian, The Times and others of similar ilk, would never dream of spinning such a story, they are only interested in exposing the truth. As well as the tireless pusuit of truth, they are of course concerned for the welfare of the child, something ably demonstrated by the way in which they, along with others, welcomed him with flash photography during his arrival at Heathrow Airport.
Ok, I'll dispense with the sarcasm, but I think it's interesting to note the scathing criticism Madonna has received over this issue, yet the adoption of a baby from Africa by Angelina Jolie last year was noted only by a few lines in the Guardian's 'in brief' section
. The story received little cricism or examination from most of the popular press, yet there were many similarites between her adoption story and Madonna's. Reference to Madonna's huband in most reports is minimal giving the impression that she is embarking on this adoption alone, which of course is not the case. They have also decided that in this instance Madonna is the bad guy and that the father and the Malawian officials are hapless victims. It has never been suggested in any of the news coverage I've seen that maybe, just maybe, Madonna could be telling the truth about what she was told. It's entirely possible that the officials lied to her leading her to believe that the baby had no family contact at all.
In reporting both of these stories the media decided on our behalf that one story was of importance and the other not. Mass media outlets are generally not interested in the details and seem to report error on a regular basis. Like an old style liberal preacher, it's often what they don't say that's of importance.
So who cares if the media aren't interested in reporting all the facts, does it really matter? Well as a Christian I think it does matter. As the media shape so many of our ideas and opinions these days we simply must be alert and discerning. It's simply not enough to favour one media outlet over another and accept their reporting without criticism, or to believe that certain media outlets are neutral and given to unbiased reporting. That I think, is a myth.
Though I am no fan of Madonna the widespread reporting of her adoption story has doubtless shaped the opinions of millions on issues such as intercountry adoption, life in Africa, the role of community and the lifestyles of the rich and famous, and not all for the good. Through the news media we are fed a worldview that is often at odds with Christianity, what they deem to be headline news is often of little importance. The story of Tom Cruises third wedding has been all over the news this past weekend, while any meaningful reporting of the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militia's fresh attacks in Darfur has been sparse at best.
I am not saying that we should shun the news media but rather engage with it critically, recognising that their agenda is very often at odds with a Christian worldview. The whole truth and attention to detail often take second place in favour of a good story. Proverbs 16:16 reminds us to pursue true wisdom over worldly alternatives: "How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose understanding rather than silver!"
I think it's also worth remembering that the working environment in many media companies can be an extremely difficult place to be for a Christian, not solely because of the ethos but also because of the long and antisocial hours involved. Perhaps we ought to be more diligent in praying not only for better reporting of the truth, but also for those we know who are working in this difficult industry.
The Christian approach to cultivating the life of the mind precludes a simple endorsement of media spin. Romans 12:2 says "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."
