240406 ALR Plenary Remarks on Dealing with Hostile Media - Bob Robert’s Global Forum

ALR Plenary PR Address on Hostile Media  •  Sermon  •  Submitted   •  Presented
0 ratings
· 6 views
Notes
Transcript
· I have found it very fulfilling to place positive news and feature stories about faith in an often hostile media environment. In the context of our session today, our work with evangelist Billy Graham and Pastor Rick Warren reflect two men who regularly share biblical truth – without compromise – to and through mainstream media who often don’t share their views.
· In the short time I have, I thought I would list several principles I have observed them consistently utilize in bringing this about:
DEALING WITH THE MEDIA
· Most news publications -- whether Christian or secular, newspaper or magazine -- are fundamentally a business, not a public service organization.
· Reporters might try to portray themselves as surrogates of the public good, but the primary purpose of a media organization is to make money by packaging news to build readership or viewership. Media often have a vested interest in catastrophic or exaggerated issues because they make news.
· Recognize Colliding Worldviews between Ministry and Media:
- They represent Zeitgeist – Spirit of the Times; we represent the Holy Spirit; sometimes the media can’t hear what we say because of these colliding world views
- They say that for something to exist or be true, it needs to be visible and measurable; we, as people of faith say that we don’t live in the here and now, and that there is a larger meaning and purpose to who we are and what we do
· When approaching secular media on behalf of a ministry, we try to lead with elements that don’t require a reporter to be of like mind and faith to see it as news.
i. Ex: entertainment vs. religion editor
· Understand and leverage the Power of Story:
a) John 20:30 – And Jesus did many other signs.. these are written that you might believe
b) Stories are the vessels of meaning; each sign had SIGN-ificance, written that we might believe
c) Every story has a beginning, middle and an end
d) Real life is complicated, messy, and doesn’t often follow a clean narrative structure. Media likes to simplify complex issues for ease of comprehension and to make the story more appealing
e) Recognize complications and/or contradictions in your story or message. Instead of trying to hide them as chinks in the armor, highlight how they actually strengthen your position
Ex: Preacher and Presidents – GWB relates the transformational power of the Gospel to change his life:
I. former alcoholic ne’er do well, finds God while walking on the beach with BG
II. Now, what you see is what you get
III. He is authentic about his faith -- suits up and shows up, leaves the rest to God
· Find Common Ground (with reporters or people who hold different viewpoints):
a. Ask questions. Most people assume that the person with the most knowledge of a topic will win in a debate. This, however, is not true. If you are able to ask questions you can easily even any playing field. The idea behind this method goes back to Socrates. Socrates would ask the men, who thought of themselves as wise, question after question until they could no longer give a response without demonstrating a logical fallacy or proving his point.
b. Listen. When you have heard your opponents out, dwell first on the areas where you agree. Look for areas where you can admit error and say so. Apologize for your mistakes. It will help disarm your opponents and reduce defensiveness. Speak in a language they can understand.
c. Do your homework; scrub your lexicon of words that have dual meaning.
· Put yourself in the place of the other person in terms of what they are hearing.
· Ex: Familiar Phrase, “Walk a mile in their shoes.” Good thing is, they are now a mile away, and you have their shoes…
· Where you disagree, build on your opponent's objections. Try to reinforce the positive aspects of others’ position.
· Reframe the picture on points of misunderstanding to clarify your position.
a. Attempt to resolve each point before moving ahead to the next issue. If there are unresolved points about which you and your opponent cannot agree, it will be difficult to accomplish anything productive, because the unresolved points will continue to come up over and over again.
b. Ultimately, this will lead to a situation where there is no choice but to "agree to disagree," which is usually not an ideal outcome.
· Strive to earn respect, rather than agreement.
· Build relationships with people who don’t share your views – not for the purpose of using or leveraging that relationship, but to build trust.
a. Ex. Friendship of Catholic scholar G.K. Chesterton and atheist playwright George Bernard Shaw:
The prolific playwright, critic, essayist, and Irishman G.B. Shaw first met Chesterton in 1901. They disagreed about nearly everything, but they remained friends for a tumultuous yet playful 35 years.
"He is something of a pagan,” said G.K. Chesterton of George Bernard Shaw, “and like many other pagans, he is a very fine man.” The assessment hints at the complexity of their relationship.
Chesterton and Shaw began a series of public debates in 1911 that continued until 1928. Their last public debate received the apt and ironic billing “Do We Agree?”
Chesterton claimed that it would take his friend 300 years to agree with his views, if he could live that long, but he would “certainly” agree.
Despite their creative goading, Chesterton, in his Autobiography, completed just weeks before his death, wrote movingly of his friendship with Shaw:
“I have argued with him on almost every subject in the world, and we have always been on opposite sides, without affectation or animosity. . . . It is necessary to disagree with him as much as I do, in order to admire him as I do; and I am proud of him as a foe even more than as a friend.”
· Only challenge someone else’s views over something important that they need to understand, not to prove you are right. Do not become defensive; this only raises barriers. Try to build bridges of understanding. Don’t build higher barriers of misunderstanding.
· Our first natural reaction in a disagreeable situation is to be defensive. Be careful. Keep calm and watch out for your first reaction. It may be you at your worst, not your best.
· Don’t confuse good intent with good content. Don’t invest your message with ego; separate the person from their position, and address the issue, not the individual.
a. Remain calm, rational and reasonable at all times. You may feel that your opponent is totally failing to understand your position, but if you become too agitated, your opponent will take this as a sign of weakness and conclude that he has you on the ropes and any progress in getting your message across will be lost.
Related Media
See more
Related Sermons
See more
Earn an accredited degree from Redemption Seminary with Logos.