Yesterday I referred to a Rolling Stone article in which they “got it right” as far as making a correct assessment of the current relationship between faith and “science.” Rolling Stone argues that we cannot continue pretending that the current, humanistic worldview of popular science can indefinitely co-exist with a God-centered approach to life. I also recently referenced a Rolling Stone interview with Bono, singer for U2. In that same article, Rolling Stone gets it desperately wrong.

The interview, conducted by Jann S. Wenner is typically standard fair, “where do you buy your sunglasses,” as well as deeper, meatier questions regarding Bono’s view of his occupation, his role in society and his faith. The majority of the interview is insightful, probing and well-written (aside from the needless profanities dropped both by Bono and Wenner).

However, during the political section of the interview, Wenner drops all semblance of objectivity and races for home, biases in full view for all to see. Wenner “asks” “In 2002, he (Bush) promised $5 billion for fiscal year 2006 for the Millennium Challene. He’s only asked Congress for $3 billion, and that’s been reduced to almost half by a committee in the House. Actually, only $1.75 billion has been committed.” Later, as if there’s any question regarding Wenner’s views, he asks “He (Bush again) makes a lot of promises that he never keeps.” Quite the probing question. Then, when Bono asserts that he will get the pledged money, Wenner queries, “Come *&%^(& or high water?” Objective journalism at its finest. Murrow would be proud.

These are not questions. They are certainly not objective and they border on direct accusations. Actually, they are direct accusations. Why Bono didn’t call Wenner on this outlandishness, I’ll never know. Wenner wants (and tries to lead) Bono to say something condemning against Bush. Bono, to his credit, at least refuses to play Wenner’s game and pushes the interview along.

What’s troubling about this section is not the liberal bias bent; I expect as much from Rolling Stone. What is troubling is that there is absolutely no effort whatsoever to even appear objective. That’s not even a consideration for Wenner. Apparently, leading questions (and direct accusations) are par for the course in journalism school now? Interviews are no longer about actually wanting insight but about prodding celebrities to voice your political views?

What is so troubling about the incident is that many young people look to publications such as Rolling Stone as cultural gauges; societal weather vanes if you will. Our young people are not only being fed liberalism at every step, they are also being robbed of chances to think objectively and critically. As the media takes a more and more proactive role in “making” rather than simply “reporting” the news, we are no longer being presented with facts, but with worldviews.

Rolling Stone is no more guilty than NPR, Time, Newsweek, CBS or the myriads of other “journalism” outlets advocating a humanistic worldview. Rolling Stone is simply more brazen with their message, at once claiming to be an “entertainment” publication while pushing a complete worldview in the guise of “journalistic” pieces.

We must remind ourselves that there is no truly “objective journalism” and that everything comes filtered through a particular worldview. While this seems like old news to many of us, we must be aware that our young people might not be as discerning, and they are indeed targets. We must train them and we must do so early and thoroughly. We must strive to make our Sunday School programs more than baby-sitting and parents must strive after the truly high standard of teaching our children “when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. ⁸You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. ⁹You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:7-9).

Once we understand that most of those surrounding us and controlling our inflow of information are not only not objective but actively opposed to our worldview, we will be more prepared to discern. Christians are not free to be passive. We are continually called to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) and to “take very thought captive,” destroying “arguments” and “lofty opinions raised up against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). We must be versed in Scripture and willing to think about it’s implications for all of life, because it will come under attack, the question is whether or not we even realize that we are already in the battle.

Read (most of) the Rolling Stone interview.
Read Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How The Media Distort The News by Bernard Goldberg.
Read What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News by Eric Alterman.