Doug Interviewed by the Religious News Service about God’s Role in Japan’s Earthquake and Tsunami


Tuesday, March 22, I was interviewed by Nicole Neroulias about God’s role in Japan’s earthquake and tsunami. Neroulias blogs for Beliefnet and writes for Religion News Service. She is a graduate of Cornell University and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and she has written for The New York Times and other media.

Our conversation of about 40 minutes focused on a poll just conducted by Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with Religion News Service. The institute and news service polled Americans for beliefs about God’s role in natural disasters. Neroulias recounted the results of the poll for me and asked for my reaction. Today her story went online here. Portions of our interview are summarized near the end of her article.

We discussed far more than could be included in her story. So I may be posting further about this interesting and important topic.

I welcome your reaction to the poll and comments on the article by Neroulias.

Notes & Updates:

  • Nicole Neroulias can be followed on twitter here.
  • The Religion News Service claims to be “the only secular news and photo service devoted to unbiased coverage of religion and ethics.”
  • The poll has also been noticed by CNN here.
  • Neroulias has also posted at Beliefnet here.
  • The Huffington Post is carrying the story by Neroulias here.

Bill O’Reilly’s Brilliant Interview with President Obama


Bill O’Reilly interviewed our president on Sunday morning for about fifteen minutes of live television. Bill (it’s all first-name basis these days) has been collecting reactions from “the regular folk” and from everyone else who will favor him with an evaluation. Some of his guests have been on his show to talk directly about his interview performance: Brit Hume, Bernie, and Charles Krauthammer.

This seems very odd to me. O’Reilly comes across like a giddy kid who just returned from the candy shop with pockets full of free confection. The last thing he wants to hear is that his interview was inconsequential. Notice how he talks about it. He asserts that probably no live TV interview has been so widely disseminated. (That may be true.)

And notice how he interprets what the president said. He asked whether Obama agreed that he had moved toward the political center since the November election, when so many Democrats were turned out of Congress. Obama said he hasn’t moved. O’Reilly keeps saying that he (O’Reilly) believes the president “really thinks” he has not moved toward the center.

I doubt that Bill O’Reilly knows better than the rest of us what the president believes. I can’t tell from the interview that O’Reilly is in a better position to know than we are. And from what the president said in the interview, I can’t say with confidence what the president believes—certainly not with O’Reilly-styled bravado. I feel more confident saying what the president wants us to believe. And he wants us to believe that he hasn’t moved politically. After all, that’s what he said. What he said is what he wants us to believe.

Of course, as long as it’s unclear what Obama meant by what he said it will be to that extent unclear what we are supposed to believe. The politician’s specialty is to answer a direct question ambiguously, but to disguise its ambiguity so that it is confidently interpreted one way by one group of constituents and is confidently interpreted another way by another group of constituents. If you can get disagreeing constituents to believe they have the correct interpretation of your words and they happen to like what you say on that interpretation, then you have acted the political genius.

The evidence of Obama’s political genius is that O’Reilly thinks he knows what the president believes based on what the president said.

What Obama said is probably supposed to mean one thing to those of us who are troubled by his leftist political outlook, and something else to those of us who are cheered by his leftist political stance. (It may not mean anything to those of us who think he isn’t a leftist.) To the first cohort, it should mean that he has never been the insufferable leftist that many have feared. To the second cohort, it should mean that he is every bit the leftist that many have hoped, and that he will continue to resist insufferable conservatives.

I can’t take seriously any interview where a politician makes it necessary for me to read between the lines in order to “know” what the politician believes or means. This is because one can’t really know what a politician means when what he says is ambiguous—and hence deniable. When the ambiguity is evident, then we should know that we don’t know, and we should know better than to think that we do know. But skillful ambiguity may fool us into thinking that we do know what we don’t know.

So, did O-Reilly discharge his duty as a journalist and press for the kind of clarity needed for his interview to matter? That’s for you to decide.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,196 other followers

%d bloggers like this: