Nrm's and the Mass Media

There are always two sides (or even more) to a story. In this essay I will attempt to critically write about what the media and the public perceptions that they create with reference to New Religious Movements (NRM's).

Not a lot of members of the general public are really familiar with NRM's, unless they are either part of a NRM or perhaps a scholar or student in the field of NRM's, or they could merely have an interest on the subject matter. The media is taking advantage of this lack of knowledge, and tend to, on a regular basis, refer to NRM's as "cults", which immediately creates a negative public perception as cults are generally perceived as bad, or something to be feared. Cults are also portrayed as violent and destructive, and members are also thought to be "brainwashed" or having their minds controlled.

It is my opinion that there is a serious lack of (correct) information when the media is reporting to the public on NRM's and because the public tend to rely on the media for information, this can cause great damage and misconceptions about NRM's, which in return, can result in unnecessary detrimental reporting / allegations made about certain NRM's. Another factor that makes the media so powerful and influential is the fact that the media is "literally everywhere" and almost everybody has access to some sort of media. For example, newspapers, television, radio and lately the very popular search field that the internet has to offer with thousands of topics and articles available at the mere touch of a button.

The question is, is this information always written by experts such as scholars or experts in the fields? I think not. To elaborate, blogging or comments on articles on the internet reflect public knowledge. It is clear that some people are quite ignorant, but there are also others who are quite knowledgeable and they debate and question statements made by journalists or the media.

Also, the media sometimes publishes information that is not always verifiable or trustworthy, information can sometimes be removed intentionally, reports can be vague or biased, it can be for sensational purposes or it can be based on the writer's personal views. It can also be written based on preferences of the intended audience. The media can also be influenced by institutions such as government departments, corporate companies, political parties etc. Some journalists are even being paid to publish thwarted information.

There are many types of media bias and a lot of time is invested in this intricate matter. An example of a few types of biases are: advertising bias, corporate bias, mainstream bias, sensationalism, gate keeping bias and other forms of bias that attacks or favours issues such as race, religion, gender, age, and sexual orientation to name but a few. Based on the above, as well as all the research that has been invested in this issue, we can therefore conclude that media reporting can indeed be prejudice and bias.

Media Bias towards religion:

In my opinion the best explanation or definition of media bias towards religion is perceived by the Wikipedia. This online encyclopaedia describes it as follows:

This type of bias is often seen with reporting on new religious movements. It is often the case that the only view the public gets of a new religious movement, controversial group or purported cult is a negative and sensationalized report by the media. For example, most new or minority religious movements only receive media coverage when something sensational occurs, e.g. the mass suicide of a cult or illegal activities of a leader in the religious movement.

According to the Encyclopaedia of Social Works (19th edition), the news medial played an influential role in the general public's perception of cults. As reported in several studies, the media have depicted cults as problematic, controversial, and threatening from the beginning, tending to favour sensationalistic stories over balanced public debates (Beckford, 1985; Richardson, Best & Bromley, 1991; Victor, 1993). It furthers the analysis that media reports on cults heavily rely on police officials and cult "experts" who portray cult activity as dangerous and destructive, and when divergent views are presented, they are often overshadowed by horrific stories of ritualistic torture, sexual abuse, mind control etc. Furthermore, unfounded allegations, when proved untrue, receive little or no media attention.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias 21 March 2012)

3. Examples of reporting in the Branch Davidian case:

The media can greatly influence and contribute to the perceptions of the public or a society. One example of the role that the media and others have played can be that of the Waco Davidian standoff in 1993.

Below I will give a brief summary of two types of reporting in the Branch Davidians, namely that of Rick Ross and Albert K. Bates.

From the onset Ross, an anti-cultist, puts the blame for the loss of 80 lives squarely on David Koresh in a 51- day- stand-off between the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). He describes Koresh a psychopath, the son of an unwed mother and according to his grandmother he was "dyslectic" who dropped out of school in the ninth grade.

Ross further claims that Koresh's leadership started off violently as a gun battle ensued between him and a competing leader, George Roden jr.

Although it is true that Koresh is to take the blame for the main part of the tragedy, the reportings of Ross has made matters worse. From the onset all his reportings were negative and detrimental for Koresh and his followers. It is clear that no effort has been made from his side to obtain more information which could have led to more objective reporting from his side.

In contrast with Ross, Bates's approach to the Waco tragedy is much more sympathetic and one can conclude that extensive research was done for his article, e.g. interviews with surviving Davidians and members of the public, as well as the 911 recordings. His approach is also more humanistic as he describes the people and the activities they were engaged in on that tragic day.

Bates also quotes the definition of a "cult" by the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), but then further states that both Koresh and the federal agents met that definition. From this it is clear that Bates has a far more objective and fair