As I review the good, the bad and the ugly written about GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a truism seems to hold. Just like the public at large, the more reporters and pundits know Mormons (or have attempted to understand them) the less likely they are to use stereotypes, frame Mormons as "wacky" and turn to non-Mormons to answer questions about what Mormons believe.
Don't get me wrong, I am not writing to support Romney's campaign, I am just asking for more balance in reporting.
Unfortunately, a majority of American members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reside in the West and most of the national media is in the East. Many national pundits and reporters don't know Mormons very well. Howard Kurtz, Washington Post media critic, recognizes the problems and suggests that the lack of Mormon journalists could be a factor.
Even so, there are examples of both good and bad. When I say "good," I am talking here about professional standards of fairness, objectivity and going to Mormons or those who understand Mormons well as sources to provide balance and context. Even better, reporters draw upon first-hand experiences with Mormons. One Wisconsin newspaper reporter even attended church services, which are open to the public.
I don't expect puff pieces, but I do expect thorough reporting, good sourcing and fair play. Even in opinion columns, pundits shouldn't be content with lazy research on the Web or with convenient sources.
Unfortunately, much of what passes for journalism is just that. Cases in point: New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd's ugly portrait of Mormons is filled with stereotypes and relies on dubious expert John Krakauer. Lawrence O'Donnell's rant on national television and Christopher Hitchens' mocking harangue were offensive on many levels. Even, Editor & Publisher recently quoted Arizona Republic cartoonist and ex-Mormon Steve Benson with no balance from believers. Does our nation tolerate such denigration of Judaism or Catholicism?
Moreover, journalists draw distinctions in other subtle ways. Why is it that the adjectives used in covering the Romney campaign nearly always include "Republican, former Massachusetts governor and Mormon?" What is the justification for applying the religious label when, for other candidates, their religious affiliation is rarely mentioned? There is a double standard.
Romney's faith is often framed as a negative, while Hilary Clinton's rediscovery of her faith has hailed as a positive. A quick survey of recent articles shows a journalistic penchant for quoting Evangelicals to define Mormonism. Shouldn't Mormons be allowed to define themselves?
At the same time, headlines such as "Can a Mormon be President?" baffle Mormons, particularly when the faith and religious practice of others remains unmentioned in news reports, let alone headlines. While mainstream Christian practice and theology may be more familiar to journalists, it's not fair to use a measuring stick of traditional Christianity to rate Mormon beliefs. Unfortunately, journalists sometimes report less familiar theology with suspicion and as idiosyncratic. To me, that's bias.
That said, there are those that try to understand Mormons. Take David Broder's column after Mitt Romney's recent faith and politics speech. As one of the nation's most senior political reporters, Broder recalls the commitment of Romney's father, George, to civil rights in the face of questions about his faith and the integrity of the family. Broder wrote, "For me, with a lifetime of nothing but very positive relationships with Mormons, Romney's religion is as much of an asset as his family heritage. He was raised right by a couple I greatly admired, and the values they gave him are exactly those I would hope a leader would have."
It's also interesting how encounters between Latter-day Saints and reporters elicit similar reactions. Wall Street Journal reporter Naomi Schaefer Riley was on Brigham Young University's campus during the Sept. 11 tragedy at the World Trade Center as she was researching her book "God and the Quad." In a recent Journal column, Riley talks about the values of Latter-day Saints, particularly the BYU students she met. She wrote "a lot of what we call religious tolerance depends on social contact, not theological understanding." I'm grateful for the journalists such as Riley who seek to enlighten rather than inflame.
Furthermore, I've long been a fan of LDS Scholar Jan Shipps, a non-Mormon. I was impressed by her post-Romney speech column in the Christian Science Monitor pointing out the "Mormoness" of his speech. As a scholar, Shipps has long sought to understand both the theology and culture behind the religion. People like Shipps are the kind of sources needed to balance the polarizing vitriol from both the right and left.
Perhaps there is something to be learned from all of this. Maybe Mormons should encourage a reverse Mormon exodus to the East. Or some Mormons could take their journalistic critics to lunch. (They probably would decline. They wouldn't want to be seen breaking bread with a bunch of wackos.) For the rest of journalism, I invite you to avoid the stereotypes and negative labels, seek out knowledgeable sources to cut through the divisive rhetoric and think twice about whether it is even necessary to raise the "Mormon question" in the first place.
*
If you want to comment, contact the author at...foiguy@gmail.com....or go to E&P Editor Greg Mitchell's blog and scroll down for two posts on the Romney/Mormon iissue Romney.