Media Matters for America conducted a study of news coverage of major religious figures to assess whether opinions of politically conservative religious leaders were represented more prominently and more frequently than the opinions of politically progressive religious leaders. Of course, the results of their study were not unpredictable. After all, Media Matters is a politically progressive site looking to document media bias and/or dishonesty in favor of politically conservative ideologies. They went into the study expecting such a bias would result in over-representation of politically conservative religious leaders. I'll take that to be what it is.

The results of the study were overwhelming. While 90% of Americans identify as religious, only 22% identify as belonging to traditionalist faith communities. Yet conservative religious leaders are represented in television media 3.8 times as often as progressive religious leaders; and conservative religious leaders are represented in major newspapers 2.7 times as often as progressive religious leaders.

Sidebar: I think the numbers identifying representation of the respective religious leaders informative and important in-and-of themselves. Contrasting those numbers with the statistics representing who the general population identify as is not entirely helpful. Here is why: I belong to what I presume Media Matters would identify as a traditionalist faith community; yet I self-identify as politically progressive -- though I most certainly mean progressive in a different way than Media Matters does. This contrast implies both a bias and a conclusion on the part of Media Matters that goes beyond what the numbers themselves convey.

Noticeably absent, as I was reading through the report, were Catholic political commentators. I was inclined to email a nasty-gram to Media Matters for not including Catholics in their study. However, when they elaborate at the end of the report on their methodology and who they studied, they did include Catholic commentators -- among them William Donohue and Sr. Joan Chittister, OSB. It appears that neither of those made it into the mainstream media enough to contrast them with other figures.

What about the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, though? Don't they merit mention? But, then, as very often mentioned here at Catholics for Democracy, our Bishops don't fit very clearly into the right-left paradigm as understood in contemporary political consciousness. Secondly, the Bishops, in responding to issues in American life and politics, speak as a collective body, not as individuals. And thirdly, the Bishops very often were news makers rather than news commentators over the course of the time frame of the study.

I really think we, as Catholics, need to be more intentional about getting our message out there into the national political discourse. I know Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good has taken up that call; as have other groups. But more of us need to get onto that bandwagon.

Now I do have a problem with some of the conclusions implied in this study about media bias. I know some astute reader is going to post a comment here or email me saying that the report didn't make any conclusions beyond just sharing the numbers. True. The conclusions are implied in light of who Media Matters is and who Media Matter's audience is. Media Matters looks for bias or dishonesty in the media to favor conservatives. So it can be implied that these numbers were meant to establish that a bias in favor conservative religious leaders exists. I do not really think that is the case, however; though more study would have to be done to confirm my suspicions.

Looking at the conservative religious leaders who have been dominating the media, we see a social club of fanatical nut cases who say the most idiotic and, at times, offensive things. The conservative religious leaders who dominate the media do so because their stupid and offensive comments get attention and raise ratings for the media outlets. Let's face it. Most of the more progressive religious leaders are boring -- in terms of the entertainment factor -- compared to their conservative counterparts.

Secondly, these numbers, to me, reflect a systemic disrespect, on the part of the media and on the part of their respective audiences, towards religion as a whole more so than a bias towards conservative religious leaders. After all, the funny-man image of the conservative religious leaders play into a common, secular stereotype of people of faith. The media allowing those religious leaders a public voice reinforces that stereotype.