Let us now praise the men and women of the PBS newsmagazine “Religion & Ethics Newsweekly,” who have been covering religion on the tube since 1997.
Because of the show’s longevity and consistency, it’s as easy to ignore as the rising and setting of the sun. But one recent show demonstrated that the program is both very well done and valuable.
The Sept. 18 segment featured a profile of Pulitzer Prize-winning author Marilynne Robinson by R&EN head honcho Bob Abernethy, who talks to Robinson about the sacred in her home and follows her to one of her public lectures. Now I feel I “get” this author whose books I already love.
The show also featured a story on an experiment in virtual spirituality called “Second Life” by Lucky Severson, along with R&EN’s news summary and look at upcoming events on the world religion calendar.
And did I mention the nice interview with religion and politics expert John Green by R&EN’s managing editor/correspondent Kim Lawton, who picked up the first place award in the Best Television Reporting category at this year’s Religion Newswriters Association gathering? (She won for her 2008 report “Continuing King’s Legacy,” which looked at how African-American ministers are claiming the mantle of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. forty years after his assassination.)
(I also loved the Sept. 11 segment by TV veteran—nearly 30 years!—Bob Faw who traveled to Sparta, Wisconsin to profile the “Laser Monks” who combine Cistercian solitude with small business smarts.)
Not every weekly program hits a home run, but I religiously record the latest episode every weekend and review it during the week (as they say: check your local listings). You can also search the show’s robust website to see what you’ve missed.
So thank you, men and women of “Religion & Ethics Newsweekly,” along with the Lilly Endowment and other donors who make this program possible.
 | Posted at 7:01 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (5) |
October 17, 2009, at 10:47 am
Good journalism deserves encouragement, so I’m glad to see the praise for the solid (if not always well rounded) efforts of Religion & Ethics Newsweekly.
One story that neither they nor any other news organization wants to tackle is the ethical dilemma surrounding the involvement of the Lilly Endowment.
Nobody for fairly obvious reasons wants to touch this with the proverbial ten foot pole. It’s the third rail of American religion.
Lilly unquestionably funds worthy programs — and a vast number of them. Many estimable projects at seminaries, universities, parishes, etc., might fold up without Lilly money. The foundation cares about the health of a wide variety of religious expressions and for that it is rightly celebrated.
But the funds for Lilly are funneled straight from the Lilly drug company (at an annual fixed rate)that has, I would argue, been a major factor in jacking up costs and engaging in violations of regulations. They have paid millions in fines for these infractions.
In addition, the company, which is organizationally independent from the endowment, is cog in the Big Pharma wheel which lobbies Congress incessantly to promote its profits over the public good. It is the largest lobby in Washington. Drug companies, not surprisingly, show the largest profits of any industry (and don’t let the argument that it’s necessary to do research fool you). For the best analysis of this major drive to keep profits high at public expense, see the book by Dr. Marcia Angell of Harvard Medical School and the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.
In other words, the Lilly drug company has earned its money by harming the very people who sit in the pews on Sunday morning, those who can’t pay their soaring drug bills or get lured by drug ads to buy drugs they don’t need (see the case where Lilly incurred a huge fine for “falsely” advertising a supposed anti-psychotic drug).
That’s the bind in which recipients of the Endowment’s largesse find themselves: reluctance to bite the hand that feeds them.
Therefore, an overwhelmingly crucial ethical issue in America gets avoided and neglected. Nobody will go near it, lest the money dry up.
I do not attribute this lapse to bad intentions or a blase ignoring of the issue. Administrators and program directors are often dealing with survival. One religious leader brusquely dismissed the matter to me this way: “all money is tainted.”
To be sure, then, it is mostly a paralysis based in a kind of self-interest that carries wider benefits for genuine religious missions. But no religious tradition teaches that pragmatic concerns erase accompanying complications that foster suffering.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17, 2009, at 1:03 pm
Steve,
Thanks for highlighting this show. It’s one of the extremely few sources of religious news I can pay attention to without my teeth grinding and my blood pressure rising. They cover a vast array of topics and, as you said, mostly do it very well.
The pressures of commercial TV are such that the should could not be done anywhere other than on public TV which also should be noted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 19, 2009, at 3:47 pm
Ken:
Thanks for your comments on this ethical dilemma. I join you in urging someone to take up this topic, but with fewer reporters filling fewer pages I’m not holding my breath.
You’ve got me thinking, though, about the moral complexity involving philanthropists and their gifts, both past (Carnegie anyone?) and present.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 19, 2009, at 9:58 pm
Dear Steve,
Thanks for the reply. Good comments. The shrinking reporter pool does reduce the slim possibility even further. An otherwise natural candidate would be The Religion & Ethics Newsweekly but either they don’t believe it’s a valid story, or can’t see the problem or simply refuse to gore the ox that pulls their wagon.
Re: other philanthropies and foundations. I think they’d have to be taken on a case by case basis. As I understand it, some of the big ones like Carnegie and Ford were established with an initial pot of money which remains the source of their income. Those funds were piled up largely through exploitation of workers and financial chicanery. Once the money was set aside, that was it. It’s continued to earn but nothing is added. There is plenty of moral culpability there (perhaps like those who believe that African Americans should receive reparations for past wrongs).
On the other hand, Lilly Endowment’s funds continue to be pegged to the drug company’s current profits in a climate where those profits are subject to ongoing debate. The religious beneficiaries of this largesse refuse to enter that debate whether because of their internal problems, their fear of losing Lilly support, or some combination of those and other things.
Indeed, as Balzac said, “behind every great fortune is a crime.” And there are no pure choices. It just seems to me that at a time when the health care crisis looms so large, and drug companies like Lilly play such a huge role, for the churches to abdicate is disturbing. That doesn’t overlook ethical dilemmas with other big money sources, only to say that the major foundation in support of religious groups in this country right now has been causing harm among the very people who belong to those groups — at this very moment. That, to me, is the deciding criterion.
Thanks, Ken
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 26, 2009, at 12:17 pm
[…] who have been covering religion on the tube since 1997. Because of the show’s longevity and Read More » Share and Enjoy:Tags: boob tube, longevity, men and women, newsmagazine, pbs Categories: Blogs, […]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0