I saw this news panel discussion and was quite surprised at Brit Hume's remarks. Not at all "typical" of Mr Hume in the years he was the anchor of Special Report. He is retired now and his time, as he said during his last regular show, would be spent in large part devoted to religious faith. He seems to have done just that. By no means do I begrudge him his new emphasis in life. I commend him for it. But this incident does raise questions about what is appropriate and what is not when in comes to news analysis programs. Hume is now a sort of emeritus expert who appears as a guest on his old show about once per week. Anyway, what do you say to someone who has gotten embroiled in a sex scandal the way Tiger Woods did ? And if you say something in favor of your own faith in contrast to another faith, isn't it a high responsibility to be as accurate in your remarks as much as it is possible for you to be ? For everyone's consideration, an interesting article-- Billy -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Religion on Fox: News or evangelism? The picture on the television screen and the audio of reporter Brit Hume's words struck me as contradictory. Just below the image of the reporter's face, the insignia "Fox News" appeared in three different places. Yet, _the content of Mr. Hume's comments_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVjuO5v5Cts) was not that of a news reporter so much as that of a televangelist.
Speaking about Tiger Woods on "Fox News Sunday" January 3, 2010, Mr. Hume observed that Mr. Woods' recovery "depends on his faith." Was that a personal opinion of the reporter, a theological belief, or a "breaking news" story? After telling his audience that Mr. Woods is a Buddhist, Hume said, "I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is (sic) offered by the Christian faith." Evidently the reporter has expertise in both Buddhist and Christian thought. With such self-assumed authority, Hume addressed Woods personally, "Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world." Having served as a Christian minister for 50 years, I am delighted to see my faith discussed in public. However, I am not pleased to see my faith used in a utilitarian manner whether the issue is personal forgiveness or national politics. Unfortunately, the manipulation of faith has become so common that to many it now seems acceptable. I have two problems with Mr. Hume's comments. First, a news program should deal with news, not evangelism, whatever religion is involved. Even though Mr. Hume's remarks occurred during a portion of the program devoted to commentary, a news anchor should not assume an authority to compare "redemption" in various religions. That is a legitimate subject for inter-religious dialogue, but not for a news report. Mr. Hume was delivering an opinion, not the news regardless of how many "Fox News" insignias adorned the screen. Second, the implication of Mr. Hume's suggestion to Mr. Woods is utilitarian--you will get a better deal related to forgiveness in Christianity than you can get in _Buddhism_ (http://www.patheos.com/Library/Buddhism.html) . Christianity is not a means to an end; it is a holistic faith to be embraced and lived. Seeking the easiest form of forgiveness--though such a description of forgiveness in Christianity is woefully inadequate and misleading--is not a reason to become a Christian. The life of a Christian involves far more than a response to wrongdoing. I would hope that, as a reporter of the news, Mr. Hume would report truth to people of all religions with mutual respect and not use the cover of "a news cast" to engage in proselytization. Ironically, Mr. Hume is engaging in a practice that most religious leaders in the nation try to avoid.
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
