I have been pondering the idea of sacred space in relationship to reporting various news items. This question arose out of the Obama and Reverend Wright controversy. Obama was forced to defend comments made by his pastor during a sermon preached over two years ago. A thirty second snippet was record were Rev. Wright was responding to the treatment of people of color throughout history and possible United States involvement in terrorism. Days after this report was released members of the United Trinity Church of God were approached for comment during worship service. The new pastor of Trinity stated the media could not enter the sanctuary for the purpose of reporting during service because it is a sacred space. I will not attempt to defend comments made from the pulpit. That is definitely a subject that is too controversial for the context of this class.
However I would like to pose the question is any place sacred if the journalist feels a creditable news event needs to be reported. I think there should be a set of guidelines that makes certain venues sacred. I realize the danger in this type o f exclusion. The potential for unethical people to hide behind the sacred space guideline does exist. My greatest concern is for the innocent people worshipping. Most people go to these places of to escape from the troubles of the outside world and to recharge through spiritual enlightenment. I may not agree with the messages but I do believe in everyone’s right to listen to it uninterrupted.
3 comments:
I was about to write about this week's reading about Media Ehnographies, and since my comments are somewhat related to what Toy had to say I will write it here.
First, let me quote from the writing the following: "the experiences of the private everyday life has become controlled by a media culture in which the private experience are replaced by public performances and consumption in a range of different worlds. "
While the author is talking here in terms of the individual, I could not help but think of how drastically our political campaigns have changed over the years and most pointedly in this current campaign.
I wonder how much we sacrifice getting to know the merits of a future president by being exposed (overexposed) to every single word uttered or action made. How much do we assess the person by how they look, sound, and dress?
How many of the past presidents that we have had would NOT have been elected because they would not have passed muster on these accounts?
I often feel that we are overexposed to those in political life and no longer really listen to their level of knowledge and intricate thinking processes. Everything has been reduced to soundbites and mega analysis.
If this is happening to those in the limelight, are we as individuals next?
Will we be reduced to what we say online? Will we create a new level of stereotyping? It certainly appears that we are creating a new social strata with social networks.
People will assess who we are by what we post, the personalization of our profile, art, music, etc.. and friends accumulation.
As we become more public with our personal lives, as we relate more to what is happening online as part of our daily life, the concern is that we too can become overexposed.
I thought churches were private spaces. As such, they can determine who enters and who doesn't. They can call it sacred if they want, but I don't think it's necessary. If they wanted to have a religious service in a public space, that would be different. They could pray and worship all they want, but they wouldn't have the right to bar the media. You can have a group meeting in a private home for unethical purposes. Then the police could only come if they had a search warrant and I'm not sure about the media. I think sacred space is related in some ways to private or public space.
Cynthia, your comment makes sense to me particularly in light of this presidential election. I believe it will change the way we elect our officials because of the media involvement, and in some ways that scares me.
We have been treated to gaffes and mistakes of our politicians from the past = President Ford tripping down the stairs or President Bush upchucking at a state dinner. But in this election we've seen a side of the candidates that in some cases I'd rather not have seen. Is it because the media has become more invasive into the moment by moment lives of the candidates or because the candidates feel that they need to show up their "I'm just like you guys" side. For example, did we really need to see Clinton doing shots with the guys? Or Obama rolling a gutter ball? Or any of them getting caught in a "misstatement" again and again?
All of these things wind up being played and replayed on the media whether it's on the radio, TV, internet or YouTube.
While we do have the right to information, I wonder if we have lost the ability to discern appropriate behavior? Previous politicians didn't have to be on the lookout 24/7 for the media, or at least it seemed that way!
Post a Comment