Most modern television promotes passive viewers, where few ever engage their minds as they watch.  A recent PBS program breaks that mold.  The program is called “The Question of God” and is hosted by Dr. Armand Nicholi.  (Nicholi is a professor of psychiatry at Harvard University and teaches one of the most popular courses at Harvard, “Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis:  Two Contrasting Worldviews.”)  The PBS special personalizes the questions of God, morality, miracles and the afterlife in the lives of C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud.  It is truly refreshing to see topics such as the existence of God and the truth of Christianity taken seriously at Harvard and on PBS.  Permit me a few comments about this extraordinary TV program.

• First, some background on the program.  Armand Nicholi does not focus on abstract arguments for God’s existence; rather he stresses the personal lives of two great men of the 20th century who shaped the way moderns argue about God.  He also reviews both Freud and Lewis’s views on the source of ethics, the problem of evil and the nature of death.  Sigmund Freud was the founder of psychoanalysis and a dedicated atheist.  C.S. Lewis was a literary critic and a popular apologist for the Christian faith.  Nicholi writes that “It may be that Freud and Lewis represent conflicting parts of ourselves.  Part of us yearns for a relationship with the source of all joy, hope and happiness, as described by Lewis, and yet, there is another part that raises its fist in defiance and says with Freud, ‘I will not surrender.’  Whatever part we choose to express will determine our purpose, our identity, and our whole philosophy of life.”  “The Question of God” deals fairly with its subjects, presenting them in moments of pain and loss as well as their joys and passionate pursuits.  Neither is painted negatively or positively, only accurately and objectively.  The program also includes a roundtable discussion sandwiched between the acted out narratives, actual photographs and film footage.  Nicholi chose seven intelligent and articulate individuals to discuss miracles, transcendent experiences, wish fulfillment and the Exalted Father, the nature of morality, etc.  Each person on the panel represents a position on the religious spectrum--from devout atheist (Michael Shermer), to Christians (a former ambassador and a medical researcher), spiritual-but-not-religious people (a Jungian analyst and a spiritual writer) and an agnostic lawyer.  As Christianity Today editor, David Neff writes, “‘The Question of God’ is ‘think TV.’  It is also an excellent opportunity for church groups to watch and then discuss. . .Better yet, it is an opportunity for Christians to gather and talk (rather than argue) with the . . . spiritual [person], the agnostic, and the atheistic.” 

• Second, this TV program is critically important because Freud’s worldview led to ethical relativism, while Lewis’s led to a worldview grounded in absolute truth.  “Freud saw traditional ideas about God as illusory and even infantile--i.e., we imagine God, its wish fulfillment in our own minds--while Lewis championed a faith grounded in reason.”  Nicholi’s program is relevant because the questions he asks the panel are questions most people ask.  For example, “What is happiness?  How do we find meaning and purpose in our lives?  How do we reconcile conflicting claims of love and sexuality?  How do we cope with the problem of suffering and inevitability of death?”  The program weaves the personal lives of Freud and Lewis together with the development of their worldviews.  As we view the program, we see that what these men believed shaped the way they lived their lives.  It is obvious through the program to conclude that Lewis lived a much better, more consistent and more fulfilling life than did Freud.  As Chuck Colson concludes, “In the end, the audience is left with no doubt as to the difference between the Christian worldview and the secular alternative.”  When the playing field is level, Christianity can hold its own with the best thinkers and arguments.  This is an outstanding example of TV that promotes thinking and the importance of worldviews.  I highly recommend it.

See “Breakpoint” (14 September 2004), David Neff, ChristianityToday.com (10 September 2004) and World (18 September 2004).

Back to top

CBS, TRUTH AND MODERN JOURNALISM

By now nearly every American knows that Dan Rather of CBS was duped!  He relied on forged documents in a recent “60 Minutes” broadcast attacking President Bush’s record in the Texas Air National Guard.  Although he and his organization did check the authenticity of the documents, he (and they) decided to go ahead with airing the charges, despite significant doubts raised by their checking process.  What is even more amazing is that the first significant questioning of Rather’s report came not from other news organizations but from a legion of bloggers who seemed to have more expertise than one of the most significant news organizations in America!  Rather then responded that such attacks were part of partisan motives of his critics, while ignoring the compelling charges again him.  Some reflections and comments on this incredible story.

• First, some background.  The forged documents primarily centered on one dated 18 August 1973 in which Bush’s superior officer, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, writing a “Memo to File,” complained that higher-ups were pressuring him to “sugar coat” Bush’s record after he had left the Guard base to Alabama.  In another “Memo to File,” dated 19 May 1972, Killian wrote that Bush was “talking to someone upstairs” in an effort to avoid obligations.  Because CBS posted the documents on its website, anyone could check their authenticity--and that is what bloggers did.  Almost immediately critics of the documents questioned the type font used in the memos, saying it appeared to be the product of a modern word-processing program, not a 1972 typewriter.  Additional questions surfaced and by Friday the kind of investigative research that CBS should have done, was done by the bloggers and the documents’ authenticity was now doubted across the journalistic spectrum.

• Second, what were the technical questions that the bloggers and, later, other reporters discovered?  (1) Questions about technical issues: font style, proportional spacing, superscripts, centering capacity, etc.  Such discussions became detailed and baffling to most Americans, but there was no doubt--it was highly unlikely that such documents were produced 30 years ago in Jerry Killian’s office at the Texas Air National Guard.  (2) Col. Killian’s widow said she thought the memos were fake.  “He would not have typed because he did not type.”  Killian’s secretary said that she had not typed them either.  (3) The officer who supposedly pressured Killian to “sugar coat” Bush’s record has in fact retired 18 months before the document was supposedly written.  (4) Another officer, who CBS sources had claimed was the network’s “trump card” in supporting the story, said the network had never shown him the documents, which he believed were phony.  (5) Marcel B. Matley, a handwriting expert who Rather said had “analyzed the documents for CBS News” and who “believes [they] are real,” said that he had only examined Killian’s signature, which was on just two of the documents.  Matley also said, “There’s no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them.”  (6) Rather also argued that there was no way doubters could assess the documents properly because they had been “photocopied, faxed, scanned, and downloaded.”  Then Rather admitted that the copies CBS had were photocopies as well.  The evidence is so overwhelming that these documents were forgeries that CBS and Rather issued an “apology.”  In doing so, Rather basically affirmed that the documents, although a forgery, did represent truth about Bush’s Guard duty!!  That he made such a statement--“fake but true”--indicates that Rather has absolutely no commitment to the truth!!  Rather promoted a lie as truth and he must accept total responsibility for his actions. 

• Finally, CBS acknowledged that it received the documents from a former Texas National Guard officer who now says he lied about where he got them and has doubts about their authenticity.  CBS admitted that Bill Burkett, a former lieutenant colonel in the Texas Army Guard, was the source.  Burkett said that he was merely a conduit for the records that CBS said were authentic.  Burkett now admits that he lied about the source of the documents--George Conn, a former Texas National Guard colleague.  Burkett is a vehement critic of President Bush and clearly a very sick man.  During an interview with USA Today, he suffered a violent seizure and collapsed in his chair.  He also claims that the source was Lucy Ramirez, whom no one has been able to locate.  That CBS and USA Today would trust Burkett and not try to verify the documents is truly unbelievable.  One final comment: CBS arranged for Burkett to talk with Joe Lockhart, a top aide to John Kerry.  Lockhart admitted talking to the CBS producer, Mary Mapes, a few days before the CBS “60 Minutes” program on 8 September.  She asked Lockhart to call Burkett.  Obviously, such an action raises serious ethical questions about CBS’s handling of these documents.  Burkett claimed that his contact with Lockhart was indeed part of an “understanding” with CBS.  There is no question that CBS and Joe Lockhart acted inappropriately and unethically.  It totally destroys any CBS credibility on this issue and raise serious doubts about anything CBS does.  At the end of the day, this entire mess is a sad ending to a significant career in broadcast journalism.  Rarely have I agreed with Dan Rather.  Of all the major network news leaders, Rather has always been the most provocative.  But this debacle evidences a pathetic attempt on Rather’s part to “scoop” something significant.  But it was sloppy, biased and categorically political.  How the mighty have fallen!

See USA Today (21 September 2004) and Byron York, Wall Street Journal (17 September 2004).

Back to top

COLORADO AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

Ballot initiative Amendment 36 in the state of Colorado could pose a grave threat to the way we elect the US President.  Amendment 36 would make Colorado the first state to distribute its electoral votes on the basis of its popular vote.  The change would take effect immediately with this year’s election, which means that President Bush and Senator John Kerry would share Colorado’s nine electoral votes, but neither would get all.  If this amendment passes, it would essentially create a ministate within a state.  For example, if a majority of votes go to Bush, and the race is a close as poll suggest it is, Kerry would likely collect four electoral votes and Bush would get the rest.  If Colorado does in fact do this, it could set a dramatic and amazing precedent.  When one state pursues a particular new initiative or new idea, other states tend to take a look.

Although two states, Nebraska and Maine, allow each Congressional district’s voters to determine that district’s electoral vote, neither state has ever split its votes as a result.  Colorado’s system would guarantee a split every time.  We probably do not know what the exact implications of this change would be over time.  But we do know that it would significantly alter how candidates look at states and would change how they campaign.  It would almost certainly even further marginalize the small states which, if their votes are split, would become irrelevant to the major parties.  Instead, the candidates would concentrate on populated areas and populated counties within the states.  In short, this change would alter the federalist nature of the US system.  I am not certain Amendment 36 in Colorado is a good idea.

See Kirk Johnson, New York Times (19 September 2004).

Back to top