To: LindyBill who wrote (79388 ) 3/4/2003 11:00:34 PM From: Dayuhan Respond to of 281500 Kristoff points out an area of bias in the media that does not brook much argument. I didn’t really see anything about bias in the media in that piece. All Kristol said was that there are few evangelicals working in the media, which does not in itself indicate bias. It seems to me more likely to reflect the fact that major media outlets tend to be based in highly urbanized areas and to hire fairly well educated staff members. I suspect that educated/urban is a demographic in which evangelicals are underrepresented across the board, not only in the major media. I'd also guess that there are evangelical Christians in the media, but that they are sufficiently considerate to leave their religious views at home when they come to work. I see no reason whatsoever why a thinking American should be acquainted with Benny Hinn or the work of Tim LaHaye simply because they are popular among any number of evangelists. I prefer quality to popularity, and if I were reading Borges while the rest of the world was immersed in LaHaye, I would carry on and be grateful for being the last surviving human with an iota of taste. If this is bias, so be it; I’m not ashamed of it. A new Gallup poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe in creationism, and only 28 percent in evolution (most of the rest aren't sure or lean toward creationism). According to recent Gallup Tuesday briefings, Americans are more than twice as likely to believe in the devil (68 percent) as in evolution. This is kind of scary. Between the New Age fruitcakes and the evangelicals, it begins to look as if the capacity for rational thought among Americans is dwindling fast, and is now present in less than half the population. With figures like that, it’s hard to cite Osama and Co. as the greatest threats to Western Civilization. Both sides need to reach out, drop the contempt and display some of the inclusive wisdom of Einstein, who wrote in his memoir: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." With all due respect to Einstein, that statement makes sense only if you assume that ethics cannot exist without religion, an insupportable assumption.