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
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. 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.
