The media are now not afraid to spotlight religious controversy. Some of the biggest stories of past years have been the fall of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker, the cult inferno at Waco, World Trade Center bombings by Muslim extremists, murders of U.S. doctors who perform abortions, clergy sex abuse, the rise of the religious right in the Republican and Reform parties, the euthanasia debate, Sikh terrorism, Bill Clinton's faith, Vatican opposition to defusing the population explosion and the disastrous end of Quebec's Solar Temple. The media have covered some of these stories well. Others have been handled with shallow sensationalism. The Colorado study also suggested one of the main reasons the media don't cover religion more thoroughly is because they're intimidated by the complexities of contemporary Christianity, not to mention Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Confucianism and hundreds of smaller faiths.
TV is the worst.
Meanwhile, at secular newspapers in the U.S., only about 120 reporters cover religion on virtually a full-time basis. About 12 religion reporters work in Canada. In comparison, sports sections seem to go on forever. Contrary to popular belief, the shortage of religion coverage at most newspapers is not a result of media types being anti-religious. A new survey has contradicted a dangerously misleading 1980 study by Robert Lichter of George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman, which has been widely quoted for a decade within evangelical and Catholic circles.