Journal of Communication and Religion

Vol. 34 No. 1 May 2011, pp. 158-180

2011 Religious Communication Association

Sharing the Faith:
The Building of Successful Media Strategies by Liberal and
Conservative Religious Advocacy Groups


Kate Knutson Stenger and Mikka McCracken

Abstract: Religious advocacy groups develop media strategies to influence debates
over public policy and politics but experience mixed results. Drawing on in-depth
interviews with representatives from six religious interest groups and a content
analysis of group press releases and newspaper coverage of the groups, we argue
that liberal and conservative interest groups approach media strategies in
substantially different ways. We argue that rhetorical differences in interest group
communications help account for different levels of media coverage and influence
over issue framing. This research contributes to an understanding of the processes
surrounding advocacy group approaches to media strategies, framing, and the
ideological balance in media coverage of policy debates. Keywords: Advocacy
groups, media strategy, framing

Introduction
In the summer of 2007, Washington activists focused on reauthorization of the
Farm Bill.
iii
At one House hearing in J uly, the line to enter the overflow room in the
Longworth House Office Building to watch the hearing on television monitors
snaked down the hall. While groups representing farmers, agribusiness, and
environmentalists staked out prominent positions on the multitude of programs
covered by the bill, a relatively unexpected set of participants joined the debate.
Leaders of religious advocacy groups such as Bread for the World and Faith in
Public Life identified work on the Farm Bill as one of their top legislative priorities.
These advocacy groups, grounded in faith and located on the left end of the political
spectrum, viewed provisions of the Farm Bill that dealt with poverty and hunger as
a moral issue that required a response from faith-based groups. Religious groups on
the left, such as Bread for the World and Faith in Public Life, have a long and active
history of political participation.
iv
They develop media strategies and work to
cultivate relationships with journalists. They lobby political decision-makers
directly and mobilize their members to write letters to Congress. They hold press
conferences, join coalitions, and conduct research for policy position papers.
Despite all these efforts, religious groups on the left are largely absent from media
coverage, public awareness, or scholarly research compared with their counterparts
on the right. This article explores the extent of this phenomenon and seeks to

Katherine E. Knutson, Associate Professor of Political Science, Gustavus Adolphus College

Knutson@gustavus.edu. Mikka McCracken, Program Director, ELCA World Hunger Constituent
Engagement and Interpretation, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Mikka.mccracken@elca.org

Sharing the Faith 159


explain its causes through an examination of interviews, press releases, and news
coverage of six prominent religious advocacy groups. The six groups represented in
the study are the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition, on
the right, and Bread for the World, Call to Renewal /Sojourners, the Center of
Concern, and Faith in Public Life, on the left.
Founded in 1983 by Dr. J ames Dobson, the Family Research Council is a
conservative Christian organization focused on policy issues surrounding marriage,
family, and the sanctity of human life.
v
Reverend Louis Sheldon founded the
Traditional Values Coalition in 1980 to be a non-denominational representative of
individual Christian churches. The TVC is involved in a diverse array of issues
including marriage and family, religious liberties, education, and tax policy.
vi

On the left, a group of Catholics and Protestants founded Bread for the World
in 1974 with the intent of influencing U.S. policies concerning hunger. Bread is one
of the largest religious advocacy groups on the left and is comprised of individual
and congregational members.
vii
Sojourners began as an intentional Christian
community and, later, a magazine led by J im Wallis. In 1995, the organization
founded the group Call to Renewal to focus on mobilizing churches and other faith-
based organizations to alleviate poverty. The two groups merged in 2006, but
separated in 2007, though strong ties between them remain. Both groups target an
ecumenical audience and focus on a variety of issues ranging from poverty to war to
environmental justice.
viii
Several members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops founded the Center of Concern in 1971. Despite strong connections to the
Catholic Church, the Center is ecumenical and focuses primarily on global issues
such as peace, economics, the environment, international trade, technology, and the
status of women.
ix
Faith in Public Life is the newest of the groups included in this
study. Founded in 2006, the purpose of the group is to serve as a central
clearinghouse and organizer for progressive religious groups. Much of the groups
work focuses on garnering public attention through media strategies and serving as a
resource for other religious advocacy groups.
x

Because advocacy groups like these so frequently depend on the media to
achieve political goals, we focus on the nexus between the creation of messages by
these groups, as reflected in their press releases, and the transmittal of those
messages through the print news media. Our argument rests on the premise that
advocacy groups actively and strategically seek to construct and deliver a message
about particular political issues. The mass media transmits these messages to the
public and to policymakers. Thus, advocacy groups are successful when they
generate coverage on an issue that is important to them and when they are able to
frame the issue in ways that favor their preferred position.
We find three key differences between the religious advocacy groups on the
left and right in our sample that help explain the different levels of coverage. First,
media coverage we analyzed paired conservative religious groups with secular
liberal groups when identifying competing sides in a debate, which functions to
exclude religious voices on the left. Interviews with group leaders confirmed this
pattern. Second, unlike the groups on the left, the groups on the right avoided using
explicitly religious language in their press releases, which makes their arguments
easier to include in secular news media coverage of politics. Third, the groups on
160 Kate Knutson, Mikka McCracken


the left issued relatively long press releases, which make it difficult for journalists to
easily sort through and package the arguments in news stories. We argue that
rhetorical decisions made by religious advocacy groups on the left coupled with a
lack of awareness of the religious left on the part of the mass media creates a cycle
that results in advocacy groups on the left receiving less coverage and fewer
opportunities to influence the framing of political issues than religious groups on the
right.
Our findings contribute both to our growing understanding of the role of
religious groups in the political processparticularly understudied groups on the
leftand to our understanding of the ways in which groups use rhetorical strategies
of framing and the mass media to influence political debates. In the first section of
this article, we draw together the literature on religious advocacy groups and
communication strategies. Next, we outline a series of hypotheses and explain the
methods used to collect the data presented in this paper. Finally, we present our
results, focusing first on the differences in media success between religious groups
on the left and right, and second on explaining the cause of the difference.

Religious Advocacy Groups in American Politics

The prevalence of religious beliefs among the American public as evidenced by
mass surveys and the increased visibility of religious groups in political debates
indicates the importance of studying the presence and influence of religious groups.
Religious advocacy groups are organized groups of citizens with policy interests
that result from a shared set of religious and political beliefs. These groups are an
important presence in American political life, because they potentially represent
non-elite, broad constituencies and offer the prospect of articulating previously
underrepresented values and concerns of many citizens (Hertzke, 1988, p.14).
These groups may take the form of a lobbying office of a national religious
denomination, a coalition of religious organizations or denominations (like the
Traditional Values Coalition) or a think tank or research organization (such as the
Center of Concern or the Family Research Council). Religious groups may also be
issue-based and comprised of individual citizen members (like Bread for the World)
or they may simply be a religious organization or movement that has a mailing list
rather than official members (like Call to Renewal/Sojourners or Faith in Public
Life).
In practice, the lines between these categories blur. Research organizations
such as the Family Research Council maintain active mailing lists of donors and
supporters to mobilize on behalf of their policy preferences. Similarly, individual
churches or denominations often play an important role within groups such as Bread
for the World, which also recruits individual members from within churches and
denominations. What these various groups representing all aspects of the religious
and political spectrum share in common is that they are all active participants in
political debates and they operate based on underlying commitments to religious
principles.

Sharing the Faith 161


A growing body of research specifically addresses the role of religious
advocacy groups in the political process (Ebersole, 1951; Adams, 1970; Hertzke,
1988; Dillon, 1995; Hofrenning, 1995; Yamane, 1999; Olson, 2002). Some scholars
of religious groups point to successes enjoyed by religious advocacy groups in
electoral politics (Adams, 1970; Rozell & Wilcox, 1995, 1997; Green, Rozell, &
Wilcox, 2004) and policy debates (Hertzke, 1988; Wood & Davis, 1991). These
studies of religious group lobbying are helpful in that they demonstrate that
religious groups actively attempt to shape public policy and they begin to categorize
the ways in which these groups differ in success and strategy from non-religious
groups. Like many mainstream studies of advocacy groups, these studies of
religious group lobbying tend to focus on traditional, insider lobbying strategies
that involve direct contact with key decision-makers.
xi
This is limiting, however,
because scholars note that religious advocacy groups are unlikely to have the type of
insider connections that secular lobbies have and, therefore, experience less success
when using insider strategies (Hofrenning, 1995).
Some research focuses on the ways in which religious groups use media
strategies to influence policy debates and politics. Hofrenning (1995) discovered
that religious lobbyists rely on outsider strategies, such as using the mass media,
more exclusively than do leaders of non-religious advocacy groups. He concludes,
however, that religious groups are marginalized in these attempts, particularly in
their attempts at framing issues. Several studies have looked at specific issue
debates and reached similar conclusions. Terkildsen, Schnell, and Ling (1998)
found that the media had more influence in the framing of the abortion debate than
did religious groups. McCune (2003) found that religious groups were unsuccessful
in framing news coverage of a debate over a Tennessee proposal regarding teaching
evolution in public schools. Similarly, several studies of media coverage of religious
groups conclude that these groups often receive negative coverage by the
mainstream media (Lichter, Rothman, & Lichter, 1993; Graham & Kaminski, 1993;
Kerr, 2003).
In contrast, other studies conclude that religious groups experience success
when pursuing media strategies (Wilcox, Merolla, & Beer, 2006; Tadlock, Gordon,
& Popp, 2007). Hertzke (1988) devoted a small portion of his study of religious
advocacy groups in Washington to their attempts at mass constituency mobilization
and creating staged events such as marches and protests. Other scholars also focus
on the success of religious groupsparticularly the Religious Rightin
establishing media outlets to communicate their messages to group members (Guth,
Green, Kellstedt, & Smith, 1996; Diamond, 1998). Conservatives rely on few
[specialized religious] sources dominated by a clear ideological message, which
fosters issue consistency, a certain militancy, and sense of political direction,
(Guth, Green, Kellstedt, & Smidt, 1996, p.80). In contrast, Guth et al. claim that
liberal groups use public media like network TV, secular radio news,
newspapers, news magazines, and opinion journals, to disseminate their
information and positions on a wider range of issues (1996, p.80). As Moen
concludes, the Christian Right has become much more successful in their attempts
to frame issues to maximize support both in religious-owned media and in the
secular media (1994, p.352). Similarly, one recent study of media coverage of
162 Kate Knutson, Mikka McCracken


religious groups finds that journalists and media organizations have become much
more sensitive to religion and more willing to cover stories related to religion (Dart
& Allen, 2000).
These studies point to the fact that religious advocacy groups are active
participants in contemporary American politics. However, these studies reach
conflicting conclusions regarding the effects of their attempts to influence politics,
particularly through media strategies. Thus, the question of whether religious
advocacy groups are successful in their attempts to influence media coverage of
public debates over policies and politics is still an important one to ask.
Furthermore, while many of these studies provide a direct comparison of religious
and non-religious groups, few address any differences among religious groups,
which may help explain the conflicting findings.

The Religious Left

Much existing research on the topic of religion and politics addresses the rise
of the religious right over the past twenty years (Hill & Owen, 1982; Moen, 1994;
Rozell & Wilcox, 1995; Rozell & Wilcox, 1997; and Diamond, 1998). The
historical activity of the religious left is documented in several reviews which focus
mainly on specific issues or movements (Roof & McKinney, 1987; Craig, 1992;
Alpert, 2000; Olson, 2002; Djupe, Olson, & Gilbert, 2005; Lattin & Underhill,
2006). However, surprisingly little research directly compares both sets of groups in
terms of their strategies and successes.
The religious left encompasses a wide variety of religious individuals and
institutions, including many mainline Protestant denominations, progressive J ews,
historic peace churches such as Mennonites and Quakers, and Roman Catholics and
Protestant evangelicals who focus on issues of peace and justice (Roof &
McKinney, 1987; Nash, 1996; Hertzke, 1998). For many observers, the growing
visibility of progressive evangelicals is one of the most surprising elements of this
group. Author and activist J im Wallis is one example of this new movement on the
religious left, though as Lattin and Underhill (2006) point out, Wallis frames his
vision as transcending traditional ideological boundaries of left and right.
Religious advocacy groups on the left tend to believe in and emphasize broad
moral principles that are very close to secular, progressive, liberal ideals (Hertzke,
1998, p.181). Peace and justice are two of the most common principles advocated
by liberal religious advocacy groups (Olson, 2002, p.55). These ideals manifest
themselves through work on human rights at home and abroad, working to
preserve the environment, questioning U.S. use of military force, and [] fighting
for the disadvantaged (Olson, 2002, p.55). Observers of the religious left note that
these groups have not been particularly successful in terms of reaching their desired
policy goalsespecially in recent years (Hofrenning, 1995). There are several
explanations for this lack of success raised in the literature.
The first explanation given in the literature for the policy failures of religious
advocacy groups on the left is structural in that it involves the disconnection
between many religious advocacy groups and their affiliated church bodies and
constituencies. This disconnection is both geographical and ideological. In terms of
Sharing the Faith 163


physical location, most denominational offices are not located in the Washington
metropolitan area, however, most liberal religious advocacy groups and lobbies
operate from Washington D.C. (Olson, 2002). Therefore, these groups are
geographically separated from both the top levels of the denominational hierarchy
and their grassroots (Olson, 2002, p.56). Ideologically, Fowler et al. (1999) argue
that the biggest problem for most liberal Protestant groups is that they have often
failed to convince their own lay members of the value of their agenda. Additionally,
since these denominational Washington Offices are not high priorities for most
denominations, they often suffer deficiencies in staff and funding (Hofrenning,
1995). Religious advocacy groups on the left may employ only a handful of
employees who have many other time and position commitments to fulfill other than
lobbying or who may not have formal advocacy training (Hertzke, 1998). These
findings point to structural resources as a key factor explaining the difference
between advocacy groups on the left and right.
A second theory explaining the lack of success on the part of religious groups
on the left is ideological in that it emphasizes a growing secularity in American
mainline religions (Roof & McKinney, 1987; Hofrenning, 1995; Hertzke, 1998;
Alpert, 2000). Due to this apparent secularization, it is increasingly difficult for
liberal religious advocacy groups to separate and distinguish themselves from the
secular liberal position (Nash, 1996). This ideological explanation has implications
for media coverage. Hofrenning argues that liberal groups have been ignored by the
secular media in part because the secular liberal establishment has seemed to
banish religion from their politics (1995, p.81). Other scholars also point to a
failure of the media to understand or accurately represent religious voices,
particularly those on the left (Lichter, Rothman, & Lichter, 1986; Stenger, 2005;
Media Matters for America, 2007).
In contrast, other scholars suggest that one of the strengths of liberal religious
advocacy groups is, in fact, that liberal activists share the same community of
political discourse as their secular counterparts [and] appeal to powerful themes in
the social theologies of mainline [religions] (Guth et al., 1996, p.82). The secular
sources may produce more political sophistication, and ultimately, greater
effectiveness, because they tend to reach a larger number of possible constituents
and members (Guth et al., 1996, p.80). These arguments suggest that ideological
factors and the way in which the news media perceives (or fails to perceive)
religious groups on the left might explain differences in media coverage of the
religious left and right.
A third theory developed in the literature to explain the ineffectiveness of
religious groups on the left involves strategic rhetorical choices that contribute to
the ability of groups on the left to advance their preferred messages. Hofrenning
finds that religious groups on the right are better at using condensational symbols,
which create a more []abstract, ambiguous, and emotionally charged framing of
political issues, than are groups on the left (1995, p.138-139). Framing is the
process by which a communication source constructs and defines a social or
political issue for its audience (Nelson, Oxley, & Clawson, 1997, p.221). Framing
involves the strategic packaging of information to communicate a preferred version
of problems, policies, or potential solutions. The framing of an issue affects policy
164 Kate Knutson, Mikka McCracken


outcomes in that it helps to set the terms of debate and establishes guidelines for
acceptable and unacceptable policy outcomes (Entman, 2003; Nelson, Oxley, &
Clawson,1997; Terkildsen, Schnell, & Ling, 1998).
While groups on the left attempt to create broadly appealing issues, Hofrenning
argues that []the definitions of issues used by liberal groups are not as powerful
or as socially significant (1995, p.139). These findings suggest that groups on
the left might make strategic choices in framing or packaging that make their
messages less appealing to journalists. This process is not merely a question of how
much money or time a group can spend, but rather a question of how adept a group
is at making arguments that will be heard and repeated by the media. Since a large
part of the political debate is essentially a linguistic battle of frames (Edelman,
1988), successful groups will be able to craft frames that resonate with the public
and elected officials, and they will respond to changes in the political environment
by eliminating unsuccessful frames and crafting new argument frames. Furthermore,
successful groups will package their framed messages in ways that appeal to
journalistic biases for easily digestible and timely information (Bennett, 2009).
The religious left has a long history of active involvement in American politics,
though it does not always receive attention from scholars or the news media.
Research on the religious left suggests competing explanations that may account for
the failure of the religious left to gain widespread media attention or command
influence in politics. Our research attempts to test these explanations empirically
through a comparison of religious advocacy groups on the left and the right.

Hypotheses and Methodology

A preliminary glance at news media coverage of the religious advocacy groups
in our sample indicates that groups on the right are more successful at gaining
coverage in the New York Times and the Washington Post. Thus, the primary
question at stake is what factors explain the difference we see between religious
advocacy groups on the right and those on the left? To answer this question, we
examine three possible factors developed in the literature that might explain
differences between groups on the left and right. First, groups on the left and right
may display structural differences, particularly in terms of the level of sophistication
of their media operations. Aspects of sophistication might include their professional
expertise in both politics and communications, the resources devoted to media
operations, or their understanding of the professional needs of journalists. Second,
differences may be ideological as the result of bias on the part of the mass media,
which may favor conservative religious groups as sources for news stories or may
fail to distinguish between religious and secular voices on the left. Third, the groups
may have rhetorical differences in terms of the framing, content, or presentation of
the press releases they issue.
To test these factors, we conducted interviews with representatives from six
religious advocacy groups in their Washington, D.C. offices during the summer of
2007.
xii
We selected these groups because they represent a broad spectrum of
religious groups and are active participants in public debates over policy. Interview
subjects from each of these groups had intimate knowledge of the groups media
Sharing the Faith 165


and communication strategies and held job titles such as Director of
Communication, Communication Assistant, and Chief Operations Officer. Each
tape-recorded interview lasted between forty and eighty minutes and was
transcribed shortly after the interview. We conceal the names of the subjects due to
the sensitive nature of media strategies discussed during the interviews.
To supplement the data provided through the interviews, we collected press
releases issued by these groups using the press release archives on each groups web
page through December 31, 2007. Most advocacy groups with national policy
interests have media centers on their websites and devote considerable resources
to press offices. Additionally, there is a growing tendency of journalists to rely on
internet-based press releases and research (Davis, 1999; Garrison, 2001). Each of
the groups in this study maintained a frequently updated website and posted press
releases on the site.
As indicated in Table 1, the groups differed considerably in terms of the
number of archived press releases, ranging from a low of 25 (Call to Renewal /
Sojourners) to a high of 238 (Traditional Values Coalition). Press releases without
specific dates of release were not included in the final analysis. We collected all
archived press releases because the existence of a deep archive of press releases is
an indication of the sophistication of a groups media strategy, both in terms of the
ability of journalists to access past information and the years the group has devoted
to making this type of access for journalists possible.

Table 1: Advocacy Groups and Press Releases Issued
Group Name First Archived Release Press Releases
Bread for the World 9/6/2005 43
Call to Renewal (Sojourners) 6/30/2005 25
Center of Concern 1/1/2002 37
Faith in Public Life 3/24/2006 29
Family Research Council 9/2/2005 238
Traditional Values Coalition 1/15/2002 141
Total 513

We collected newspaper articles mentioning each group using the LexisNexis
Academic database to search The New York Times and The Washington Post
between J anuary 1, 2000 and December 31, 2007. We selected these newspapers
because they are popular with many policymakers and have a national audience
(Entman, 2003). In interviews, group leaders also mentioned these newspapers as
important targets for their media strategies. The search resulted in a total of 1,004
articles, with a great deal of variation in coverage of each group (see Table 2).
Because of the large volume of press releases and newspaper articles collected,
we randomly selected 25% of the press releases gathered from each of the six
groups. Using these press releases as a reference point, we searched our database for
newspaper articles mentioning the group, covering the same topic as the press
release, and published within five days of the issuance of the press release. Table 3
reports the total number of press releases issued by each group, the number of press
releases sampled for each group, and the number of newspaper articles published
166 Kate Knutson, Mikka McCracken


within five days of the sampled press releases. This method allowed us to connect
specific news articles with the press releases that influenced them. Through this
process, we were able to connect eleven press releases to twelve news articles
addressing the same topic. A closer review of these articles revealed that three of the
news articles were on the same general topic as the press release, but were unrelated
to the specific issue discussed in the press release.

Table 2: Media Articles Mentioning Advocacy Groups
Group Name Newspaper Articles
Collected
Total Articles
Collected
Bread for the World New York Times 14 58
Washington Post 44
Call to Renewal (Sojourners) New York Times 15 45
Washington Post 30
Center of Concern New York Times - 0
Washington Post -
Faith in Public Life New York Times 1 2
Washington Post 1
Family Research Council New York Times 249 778
Washington Post 529
Traditional Values Coalition New York Times 48 121
Washington Post 73
Total 1004

After identifying the sample of press releases and related news articles, we
undertook an analysis of both sets of documents. Reading each article and press
release independently, we looked for evidence of media sophistication on the part of
the advocacy group, we searched for evidence of media bias, and we compared the
language used in both documents.
This method of study results in some limitations in terms of our ability to
generalize our results, but it also presents many advantages. First, this method
allows us to analyze the language and arguments used by groups and the media.
Rather than simply comparing general topic areas, we are able to examine nuanced
policy positions and political maneuvering. Second, this method allows us to trace
the effects of a particular press release. This can help us to better understand how
the media use (or do not use) groups as sources. Finally, this method allows us to
compare the intentions of group leaders with the results of their media efforts. By
using information gleaned from interviews with group leaders, texts from the groups
themselves, and coverage of those messages, we gain a more complete picture of
how groups work to influence media and the extent to which they are successful




Sharing the Faith 167


Table 3: Sampled Press Releases and Related Media Mentions
Group Name Press Releases Sampled Press
Releases
Related News
Articles
Bread for the World 43 11 1
Call to Renewal (Sojourners) 25 6 1
Center of Concern 37 9 0
Faith in Public Life 29 7 1
Family Research Council 238 59 7
Traditional Values Coalition 141 35 2
Total 513 127 12
.
Findings and Discussion

The results clearly indicate that the religious advocacy groups on the right were
much more likely to be mentioned in media coverage of politics. Despite the
imbalance in our sample of groups (only two groups on the right versus four on the
left), the ratio of coverage was nearly 9:1 in favor of groups on the right. Our
sample of press releases offers similar results. Though we sampled press releases
proportionately from groups across the ideological spectrum, all but three of the
related articles were associated with groups on the right. This finding demonstrates
how infrequently religious advocacy groups on the left are mentioned in media
coverage of political debates. As a result, they have a limited ability to influence
media framing of political issues. Given the imbalance in coverage, what factors
explain this difference?

Structural Differences

Resources are not evenly distributed among advocacy groups (Schattschneider,
1960). Scholars often focus on the unequal distribution of financial resources, but
other types of resources also might affect the success a group experiences. Among
the resources that might affect group success are the political and media experience
of staff as well as the allocation of staff and financial resources to media strategies.
As one theory explaining the failures of the religious left suggests, groups on the left
often have fewer financial and staff resources devoted to pursuing lobbying
strategies. We use data collected from interviews with group leaders, coupled with
our content analysis of press releases and newspaper articles to identify potential
differences in structural resources groups on the left and right possess.

Formal Training

Though formal training in politics or communications is not a prerequisite for
crafting a successful media strategy, training may provide practitioners with a
clearer understanding of how to frame issues and create events to successfully
attract the attention of the print news media. In the interviews with group leaders
responsible for media strategies, we asked whether they had formal training in
politics or communications. Of the four leaders from groups on the left, few had
168 Kate Knutson, Mikka McCracken


such training. One had undergraduate degrees in English and Religion as well as a
Masters of Divinity, another had an undergraduate degree in community organizing,
and a third had a background in computer system operations. Only one of the four
had experience working in political campaigns.
In contrast, one leader from a group on the right had an undergraduate degree
in Political Science and English, a doctorate in Political Science, and experience
working at the White House. The other had an undergraduate degree in English,
worked as a professional journalist, a spokesperson for a member of Congress, and
for a public relations firm. These experiences with both government and
communications may contribute to differences in the level of media sophistication
between groups on the left and groups on the right.

Media Savvy

Despite differences in formal training, groups on both the left and right seemed
to have a strong sense of the needs of the news media. Many maintain sophisticated
records of journalists, which allow the groups to target journalists more specifically
with particular policy alerts. Said one group leader on the left, we actually track
who is writing what, so we really tailor press lists by issue and by theme. I have an
entire press list of reporters who have written in the last year sympathetic articles
about religious progressivesand also, when we send to reporters, I never just blast
a release to reporters without some kind of note at the top about why theyd be
interested. This group pays for a service that provides a national directory of
reporters, but also does a lot of manual organizing to be sure that our lists are as
tailored as possible.
A second group on the left said, We target the journalists that we think are already
writing about something rather than trying to get journalists to write about
something and making a new story for them.
Groups on the right also use these techniques. Said the leader of one group on
the right, We use directories and if there are people who have called uswhat
happens is if you call us as a reporter, we keep your name and if its on a particular
subject, we keep it by that subject. And any time that we generate a press release on
something dealing with that subject area, you get a copy of that.
In pointing out the reasons why the group may be successful in gaining media
attention, a leader on the left noted the desire journalists have for new or novel
angles for stories. Weve been pretty successful on the Farm Bill because were
new in that debate. The farmers have been talking for a long time, the environmental
groups have been talking for a long time. The church really has not weighed in on
the Farm Bill until this year. So thats a new voice in the debate which journalists
are always looking for. Leaders on the right echoed this need to present a different
message. One leader remarked, I think if they [journalists] call us and get the usual
stuffyou know, the standard sort of replythat discourages them. I think if they
get something thats really defensive, that discourages them. And thats why we try
to be as accommodating as we can be without appearing to become gullible..
Another leader on the right pointed out that, You need to make their [journalists]
life easy. Thats our number one job is to make sure that its easy to get a quote
Sharing the Faith 169


from us. So we have a hotline that they can call. You can reach our media guy
basically 24 hours a day, and an awful lot of them do. Most of the groups reported
tracking media coverage of their groups, particularly coverage in print media. Only
one group does not either pay for a tracking service or track mentions in-house. In
this left-leaning group, tracking of media coverage happens much more informally.
Despite differences in formal training between leaders in groups on the left
and right and differences in resources devoted to media strategies, groups on both
ends of the spectrum seem to have clear understandings of the needs of journalists.
These groups all work to communicate with specific journalists in ways that grab
the attention of those journalists. They all understand the medias tendency to value
new angles, conflict, and controversy. Finally, almost all of the groups are
concerned enough with understanding the effectiveness of their media strategies to
track media coverage of their group.

Financial Resources

In addition to experience, groups might also differ in terms of the number of
staff and the amount of financial resources devoted to pursuing media strategies.
Groups who invest heavily in media strategies should be more successful in gaining
access to the media compared with groups that do not devote financial or staff
resources to media needs. Results from the interviews indicate that the groups with
the largest budgets did issue more press releases and were mentioned in news
articles more frequently. Similarly, the group reporting the smallest devotion of
group resources to media strategies issued few press releases and received few
mentions in media coverage.
While this general pattern held, no significant ideological patterns emerged
from the interviews in terms of the allotment of resources to media strategies. Two
of the group leaders on the left estimated their groups devoted about 10% of its time
and resources to media strategies. Another leader on the left estimated the groups
devoted less than 5% of its resources to pursuing media strategies. The final group
on the left was unique among all six groups in that its primary focus is to affect
media coverage of religious groups and therefore, all of its resources were devoted
to its media strategy. On the right, one group leader estimated the group devoted
10% of its resources to a media strategy (which, for this particular group, amounted
to approximately $1.2 million annually), while the other estimated that a third of its
resources were targeted towards media strategies.
Despite the appearance of similarity in terms of estimated expenditures on
media strategies, there were clear differences among the groups. Some groups
employed teams of media specialists, while others relied on an ad-hoc approach to
generating media coverage. In general, those groups with more staff, expertise, and
resources tend to receive more media coverage, regardless of whether they are
liberal or conservative.
However, even those groups on the left with an infusion of resources devoted to
media strategies do not receive the same level of coverage as do groups on the right.
Clearly, there is more to this problem of underrepresentation than simply a
misallocation of resources.
170 Kate Knutson, Mikka McCracken



Ideological Differences

Some research points to an anti-religious bias in the news or a failure of the
religious left to differentiate itself from the secular left. Leaders of the religious
advocacy groups we studied, however, did not report feeling this. Group leaders on
the right noted that journalists often tend to be more liberal, but seemed convinced
that they did not suffer as a result of this. For the most part, if we have something
interesting to say about a policy and we say it in a timely and interesting way, we
can get the same amount, and sometimes even better coverage, because people are
surprised when we are funny or when we are controversial in an interesting way.
One leader on the right explained, Reporters do tend to be liberal because theyre
motivated by a particular worldview, which is very idealistic. Thats why you get
into the news business, and thats okay. Were pretty idealistic too, which is why I
think we tend to get along. I would rather be around somebody who is motivated by
issues than somebody that doesnt care. So we connect on that level but we also
connect because we love the news, we love politics, we love debate. And I am never
going to shy away from a debate. So the fact the [group] is willing to engage, we
make their life easy.
Group leaders on the left also did not sense a bias against religious voices. As
one leader provocatively stated, I dont see a bias against religious groups. I see,
right now, a hunger for religious voices in the media. Were sexy. I dont know how
long were going to be sexy. Probably no more than ten years, but right now,
politics is interested in religion in a way they werent [in the past] and media is
interested in what politics is interested in.
Groups on the left were, however, more likely to point to a more subtle bias in
media coverage of religious groups: the tendency to ignore religious groups on the
left. Said one leader, The bias were always trying to fight is the conservative
Christian bias. The sense that we get is that theres a fair amount of coverage of
Christians influencing politics, but because of a lot of different reasons, theres been
this rising political influence of the Christian right. In response, We see a lot of
what we do as just educating the media about who we are and why were important
politically and culturally. Another leader on the left noted that groups on the right
seem to take pride in their ability to gain the attention of the media by playing into
this dichotomy saying, theyre [groups on the right] happy fueling those culture
wars. And were not about the culture wars. But, she concluded, the culture wars
make news. So again, we just have to get more creative. Group leaders on the left
view the absence of the religious left in the media as a result of ignorance of the
religious left on the part of journalists rather than an intentional bias.
The news coverage associated with sampled press releases revealed no
evidence of an anti-religious bias. Groups on both the right and left were treated
well in news coverage and there was only one case in which the groups position
seemed to be slightly taken out of context. In this case, the position of the group
articulated in the press release was presented as more moderate in the news article.
While journalists did not reflect a hostile view of religious groups in their news
articles, they tended to pair religious conservative groups with secular liberal groups
Sharing the Faith 171


as sources rather than religious groups on the left. For example, the article about the
Alito confirmation hearings pitted the Family Research Council and the
conservative American Center for Law and J ustice against the secular liberal group
Naral Pro-Choice America. Given the decision of the journalists to focus on the
abortion angle and the reluctance of left-leaning religious groups to stake out a
position on this issue, this finding is not particularly surprising. However, another
article focused on the attempts by religious conservatives to reenergize their base of
voters in anticipation of the 2006 elections. This article included mention of
religious conservative groups such as the Family Research Council, Focus on the
Family, and the American Family Association. The counterpoint was represented by
the secular group Americans United for Separation of Church and State despite the
fact that many religious groups on the left were interested in reclaiming the values
debate from the religious right and issued many press releases articulating that
position.
Leaders of religious groups on the left expressed conflicting views of how
recent developments affect the medias awareness of the religious left. Said one
leader, Particularly since J im [Wallis] wrote Gods Politics in 2004, the media
has just become increasingly aware of the progressive Christian constituency.
However, another leader on the left said, My take on the secular coverage of
religious groups right now is that, for the most part, journalists dont seem to get
that there are any Christians besides evangelicals. Youve got J im Wallis and the
evangelical left, and youve got the Family Research Council and the evangelical
right, and thats kind of who they think is in the conversation.
Thus, one challenge facing religious advocacy groups on the left seems to involve a
tendency on the part of the news media to overlook most of the religious left in
favor of using secular left groups as sources.

Rhetorical Differences

While the allocation of resources plays a role in media access, the strategic
rhetorical choices made by groups might also matter. Evidence suggests that
journalists are likely to favor certain types of frames over other types. J ournalists
particularly seem to favor frames that emphasize conflict or controversy (Bennett,
2009). Additional evidence suggests that the media associate groups with particular
frames and may be likely to cite those groups only when the groups use the
particular frame or when the journalist needs a group to use a particular frame to
complement a storyline (Stenger, 2005). In this section we explore potential
differences in the content of press releases that might help explain the difference in
coverage between religious groups on the left and right.



General Framing

Group leaders offer different opinions regarding the importance of press
releases in general and the content of press releases in particular. One leader on the
172 Kate Knutson, Mikka McCracken


right said, I dont really believe in press releases. Theyre pretty much useless,
which is a message that Im trying to communicate to people in the building. But
you cant stop doing them, so I guess theyre [press releases] not 100% useless.
Similarly, a leader on the left said, I imaging that theyre [journalists] not really
looking much at our wording but are trying as quickly as possible to figure out if
there is some event or other thing thats worth covering.
While these leaders tended to view press releases and the content of press
releases as only peripherally important, other leaders viewed them as more
significant. A leader from one group on the left said, What always appeals to the
press is controversy or interesting wording. Theyre artists too and theyre trying to
have their stories be interesting to read. So it cant be so wonky that nobody wants
to read it. How to be controversial when youre trying to go right up the middle is
always our challenge. A leader from a group on the right also pointed out the
importance of crafting good arguments in press releases. We think they perceive us
as being reasonable, professional, even when they dont agree with uswhich is
probably 90% of the time. We try to make arguments that are sophisticated, that are
well crafted. We understand what their business is about and so we try to play on
that terrain. But, noted the same leader, Its very easy to get quoted, but getting
them to talk about what we want them to talk about is challenging. In other words,
this group leader perceived groups as having a stronger role in framing than in
agenda setting.
We identified five cases within our sample in which advocacy groups
successfully framed messages. Two of the five cases involved the Family Research
Council, one involved Bread for the World, one involved Faith in Public Life, and
one involved Call to Renewal. In only two of these cases were direct quotations
from the press release used in the news article. In one, the Family Research Council
urged government action in a case of an Afghani citizen sentenced to death for
converting to Christianity. The dominant frame emphasized the hypocrisy of
American pride in liberating Afghanistan when decisions by the Afghani
government still rely on Islamic law. The news article, published in the Washington
Post, was written one day after the press release and mirrored the frame of the
release. The topic of this press release and the frame developed within were
particularly appealing to the news media because they reflected the values of
conflict and controversy. The case pitted a conservative Christian group against a
Republican president, who espoused conservative Christian viewpoints and was
usually an ally of the FRC. The unique storyline and strong frame developed in the
press release were perfectly designed for the media.
A second successful press release was issued by Bread for the World
concerning a decision by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to change the word
hunger to food insecurity in its annual report. This press release and the related
article were unique in that the debate over framing was overtly the focus of both.
Bread argued that the use of the new term served to conceal the social problem of
hunger. As with the previous case, the related article was almost entirely focused on
the perspective articulated by Bread for the World in their press release. Unlike
most of the press releases issued by Bread, this release included no overtly religious
language.
Sharing the Faith 173


In contrast to these examples of successful framing, several press releases
did generate coverage, but the groups were not successful in framing the issue. The
best example of this involves a Family Research Council press release concerning
the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito, who was at the time a nominee for the
U.S. Supreme Court. The press release focused exclusively on the confirmation
process and emphasized the need for a fair and swift confirmation hearing.
However, though the article clearly referenced the press release and even included a
direct quotation from the release, the article primarily focused on the issue of
abortion and its relation to Alitos nomination. The article labeled the FRC as an
abortion opponent, and while the label is true, it was not the primary message
communicated in the groups press release.
The evidence from these analyses of press releases and news articles suggests
that groups on the left and right both experience successes and failures in their
attempts to frame issues. Overall, groups on the right may be more successful at
getting more issues framed, but it is because they receive substantially more
coverage than do groups on the left.

Morality Frames

Surprisingly, given existing research suggesting otherwise, groups on the left
are much more likely than groups on the right to use language that references
morality or religion in their interactions with the secular press. Said one leader from
the left, It is my job to try to reclaim the values debateWhy should we not be
speaking those terms? Theyre powerful terms. They resonate with people. Lets
take them back. Another leader on the left said, We couch it [arguments about the
policy] in more moral terms. The David and Goliath frame is a really popular one
for us. Youve got big agriculture and they want to do this and then youve got poor
people. You have to remember the poor people because its moral. Thats our
consistent message. A third leader from a left-leaning group said, In a lot of ways,
thats the point of what were trying to do is to show that there is a moral
component and an appropriate faith-based component to our messaging, and that
theres a Christian theology to back those viewsIt would be hard to imagine us
not using the language of morality and values and faith in our messaging.
In contrast, leaders from groups on the right expressed exactly the opposite
sentiment. We try to use secular language. We also make sure that all of the
various code words for evangelical people are in it, but we dont quote a lot of
Scripture because we just dont think thats very convincing to a world that doesnt
accept it. We use mostly secular arguments. Another leader on the right said, We
tend to go more secular unless were talking to a religious audienceyou speak the
language that the audience hearing you usesI dont think you would see any real
God talk at all coming out of our press releases or any of our statements.
While several of the sampled press releases connected to news articles used
religious language, mentioning prayer or Christianity, two developed arguments
with explicit reference to morality. Faith and Public Life and Call to Renewal issued
these two and they were virtually identical. Both focused on the issue of
comprehensive immigration reform and drew upon the biblical mandate to care for
174 Kate Knutson, Mikka McCracken


strangers. Both included several references to specific portions of the Bible and
advocated legislation that was consistent with biblical principles. The related
newspaper article included few of the biblical references raised in the press releases.
The article did emphasize the moral frames developed in the press releases and
articulated the position of group leaders that immigration is a religious issue, a
biblical issue for those groups.

Length

We found substantial differences between groups on the right and groups on
the left in terms of the lengths of their press releases. Table 4 displays the average
length of each groups press releases.

Table 4: Length of Advocacy Group Press Releases
Group Average
Number of Words
Minimum
Words
Maximum
Words
Bread for the World 408 164 1347
Call to Renewal (Sojourners) 584 178 1185
Center for Concern 620 361 1148
Faith in Public Life 598 209 1828
Family Research Council 226 84 411
Traditional Values Coalition 372 97 942

The Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition consistently
issued concise press releases, while the Center of Concern, Faith in Public Life, and
Call to Renewal issued longer press releases. When we place the groups in order of
shortest to longest average press releases, it corresponds identically to the list of
advocacy group mentions in news articles. The groups that issue the shortest press
releases are the groups that get mentioned most often in the news. The groups that
issue the longest press releases are rarely, if ever, mentioned in news coverage of
political debates. In terms of political ideology, groups on the right issue the shortest
press releases and groups on the left issue the longest press releases.
Press releases from groups on the left tend to be longer because they include a
great deal of background and contextual information that groups on the right do not
include. Groups on the left use press releases to explain their interest in a given
policy debate and to connect their position to specific religious beliefs by citing
religious texts or leaders. Other times, the groups use the medium to explain
potentially unfamiliar concepts or movements such as the New Sanctuary
Movement, Red Letter Christians, or J ubilee. While both groups on the left
and the right include direct quotations in press releases, groups on the left tend to
include more quotations from a greater number of people. For example, a typical
press release from a group on the right like the Family Research Council, might
include several sentences of direct quotations from a single group leader or
spokesperson. In contrast, a typical press release from a group on the left like Faith
in Public Life might include several sentences of direct quotations from several
Sharing the Faith 175


different individuals. This trend results in groups on the left issuing longer press
releases than groups on the right.

Conclusion

Though religious advocacy groups of all types are active participants in debates
over public policy, one glaring trend is the tendency of religious groups on the right
to be much more prominent in media coverage of these debates than their
counterparts on the left. In our study of religious advocacy groups, we found that
religious groups on the right consistently gain more media attention and, as a result,
experience more success in framing issues in ways that benefit their policy goals.
The data suggest that there are several important and systematic differences between
religious groups on the left and religious groups on the right that impact both level
of coverage and influence over framing.
Some research points to structural factors affecting the success of groups on the
left, but our analysis of interviews, press releases, and media coverage does not
support this claim. Leaders of religious groups on the left and the right have
different background experiences and levels of formal training, but there are no
significant differences between their understandings of the needs of journalists or
financial resources devoted to media strategies. In general, the groupsregardless
of ideologywith a clear understanding of what journalists need and a well-
developed and well-financed media strategy garner more mentions in news stories
than those with a lower degree of media sophistication. Some groups on the left do
face structural disadvantages in terms of a lack of media expertise or adequate
funding for media strategies, but many groups on the left are well prepared and
funded. As more groups on the left become more sophisticated in their structural
media operations, the left will likely experience more success in gaining access to
the news media and framing policy debates.
Leaders of advocacy groups expressed a unanimous belief that the news media
are not overtly biased against religious groups, as some research suggests. Rather,
groups on the left, in particular, noted that the problem with the media is more
closely related to an ignorance of the diversity of religious perspectives and the
failure to incorporate the voices of religious groups on the left as the counterpart to
religious groups on the right. J ournalists seeking balance pair religious groups on
the right with secular left groups rather than with religious left groups. Thus, unless
the religious left group was able to make news on its own terms, it was not included
in the story. In contrast, religious right groups are often included in stories as a
response to something a secular left group said or did.
The lack of awareness or understanding of religious groups on the left on the
part of the news media seems to be a major component of the puzzle. The news
media are unfamiliar with the religious left, so it makes sense that they would not
turn to these groups when writing news stories. Groups on the left perceive this
unawareness and work to communicate a fuller explanation of their positions
through longer, more detailed press releases. They also work to highlight their role
as a religious counterpart to groups on the right through their use of morality-based
argument frames. Whereas groups on the right favor secular language, groups on the
176 Kate Knutson, Mikka McCracken


left constantly emphasize their religious convictions in their rhetoric. While some
scholars suggest that religious advocacy groups on the left are indistinguishable
from the secular left, the messages communicated by these groups indicate the
opposite. If anything, religious groups on the left might not be secular enough to
appeal to journalists covering policy debates who are uncomfortable or unfamiliar
with religion. Attempts by groups on the left to explain their positions fully and to
ground them in religious beliefs backfire as journalists seek out easily digestible
information.
Groups on the right issued short, succinct, vivid messages and primarily relied
on secular arguments to make their points. Groups on the left issued press releases
that were much longer and the releases they issued included more references to faith
and morality. The press releases of groups on the left did abide by the needs of the
media for information that is timely and pegged to government action, but they did
it in a way that was unnecessarily bulky and difficult for journalists to digest easily.
Groups on the left correctly observe that journalists do not understand the religious
left, but their response to this perpetuates their marginalization.
These fundamental differences in how these groups on the left and the right
package information designed for the media coupled with the tendencies of
journalists to focus on pairing the religious right and the secular left helps explain
why groups on the left are largely absent from media coverage of political debates.
Strategically speaking, leaders of advocacy groups who wish to gain the attention of
the public via media coverage should work to package their messages in ways that
appeal to the news media using succinct, vivid language framed in secular terms. It
is clear from our research that some groups on the left are moving in this direction.
As the leader of one group remarked, theres so much great work going on in the
progressive religious community, but its not always well executed. I think overall
that our problem has been that weve been active, done our media work, like we
exist in a vacuum. This leader, as well as leaders of other groups on the left,
pointed to the need to make strategic decisions about messages and timing. As
religious advocacy groups on the left continue to alter their rhetorical strategies to
better appeal to the demands of the news media, their media coverage will likely
improve.
Despite this, most of the religious groups on the left we studied appeared
unwilling to abandon their use of religious language and appeals to morality in favor
of more secular language. Religious groups on the left view these rhetorical choices
as something that makes them distinctive and effective. Because the religious left is
unfamiliar to many, their use of religious language helps them to carve out an
identity, maintain connections with religious members, and stake out moral claims
with policymakers.
In many ways, the rhetoric religious left today resembles the rhetoric of the
religious right twenty years ago. Religious advocacy groups on the right emerged as
prophetic voices in the public realm, citing Bible passages as justification for policy
positions on issues like the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion. As many
scholars note, and as our research confirms, religious groups on the right altered
their rhetorical strategy to confiorm to a more secular political environment. This
shift, scholars conclude, has made them even more effective. Whether religious
Sharing the Faith 177


groups on the left will eventually follow this pattern remains to be seen, but for the
foreseeable future, it appears as though these groups prefer to stake out their
positions on religious and moral grounds regardless of the consequences for media
coverage.
With these trends in mind, many of the implications of this research fall on the
shoulders of the news media. Though media organizations have made significant
progress in their coverage of religion and religious groups, there is room for
improvement. Most importantly, journalists should make an effort to include a
broad range of religious voices when attempting to highlight a religious viewpoint
rather than relying on a handful of frequently consulted sources. The use of religious
voices from the left can provide a novel twist on coverage of policy debates rather
than relying on the standard storyline featuring the usual suspects.
As with all research, our findings raise as many questions as they answer. In
particular, our claim that studies of advocacy group influence need to account for
differences within religious groups raises several questions for future research. Are
there other key differences besides ideological differences? How might theological
differences or differences in religious tradition factor into the levels of success
experienced by groups? How do group members affect both the development of
rhetorical strategies and lobbying success? Our findings and these questions point to
the continued importance of the study of religion in the field of communication and
politics.



Works Cited

Abbott, J .Y. (2006). Religion and gender in the news: The case of Promise Keepers,
feminists, and the Stand in the Gap rally. Journal of Communication and
Religion, 29, 224-261.
Adams, J . (1970). The growing church lobby in Washington. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Alpert, R. (2000). Voices of the religious left. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Andsager, J .L. (2000). How interest groups attempt to shape public opinion with
competing news frames. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77,
577-592.
Bennett, W. L. (2009). News: The politics of illusion (8th ed.). New York: Pearson
Longman Publishers USA.
Berry, J .M. & Wilcox, C. (2009). The interest group society (5
th
ed.). New York:
Pearson Longman Publishers USA.
Craig, R. (1992). Religions and radical politics: An alternative Christian tradition in the
United States. Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.
Dart, J . & Allen, J . (2000). Bridging the gap: Religion and the news media. Nashville,
TN: Freedom Forum First Amendment Center.
Davis, R. (1999). The web of politics: The internet's impact on the American political
system. New York: Oxford University Press.
178 Kate Knutson, Mikka McCracken


Diamond, S. (1998). Not by politics alone: The enduring influence of the Christian
right. New York: The Guilford Press.
Dillon, M. (1995). Institutional legitimation and abortion: Monitoring the Catholic
Churchs discourse. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34, 141-151.
Djupe, P.A., L.R. Olson, & C.P. Gilbert. (2005). Sources of clergy support for
denominational lobbying in Washington. Review of Religious Research 47, 86-
99.
Ebersole, L. (1951). Church lobbying in the nation's capital. New York: The MacMillan
Company.
Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the public spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Entman, R. (2003). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S.
foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fowler, R. B., Hertzke, A. D., & Olson, L. R. (1999). Religion and politics in America:
Faith, culture, and strategic choices (2nd ed.). Colorado: Westview Press.
Garrison, B. (2001). Diffusion of online information technologies in newspaper
newsrooms. Journalism, 2(2), 221-239.
Graham, T. & Kaminski, S. (1993). Faith in a box: The network news on religion, 1993.
News Report, 4. Alexandria, VA: Media Research Center.
Green, J .C., Rozell, M.J ., & Wilcox, C. (2006). The values campaign? The Christian
Right and the 2004 elections. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Guth, J . L., Green, J . C., Kellstedt, L. A., & Smidt, C. E. (1996). Onward Christian
soldiers: Religious activist groups in American politics. In J . C. Green, J . L.
Guth, C. E. Smidt & L. A. Kellstedt (Eds.), Religion and the culture wars:
Dispatches from the front. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Hertzke, A. (1988). Representing God in Washington: The role of religious lobbies in
the American polity. Knoxville: University of Tennessee.
Hill, S. S., & Owen, D. E. (1982). The new religious right in America. Nashville:
Abingdon.
Hofrenning, D. (1995). In Washington but not of it: The prophetic politics of religious
lobbyists. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Hoover, S. M. (1998). Religion in the news: Faith and journalism in American public
discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kerr, P.A. (2003). The framing of fundamentalist Christians: Network television news,
1980-2000. Journal of Media and Religion, 2(4), 203-235.
Lattin, B. D., & Underhill, S. (2006). The Soul of Politics: The Reverend J im Walliss
attempt to transcend the religious/secular left and the religious right. Journal of
Communication and Religion, 29, 205-223.
Lichter, R., Rothman, S., & Lichter, L. (1986). The media elite. Bethesda, MD: Adler &
Adler.
McCune, C.A. (2003). Framing reality: Shaping the news coverage of the 1996
Tennessee debate on teaching evolution. Journal of Media and Religion, 2(1),
5-28.
Media Matters for America. (2007). Left behind: The skewed representation of religion
in major news media. Washington, D.C.
Moen, M.C. (1994). From revolution to evolution: The changing nature of the Christian
Right. Sociology of Religion, 55, 345-357.
Nash, R. (1996). Why the left is not right. Grand Rapids: Zondervan House.
Sharing the Faith 179


Nelson, T.E. & Oxley, Z.M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and
opinion. The Journal of Politics, 61(4), 1040-1067.
Olson, L. R. (2002). Mainline protestant Washington offices and the political lives of
clergy. In R. Wuthnow & J . H. Evans (Eds.), The quiet hand of God. Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Roof, W. C., & McKinney, W. (1987). American mainline religion: Its changing shape
and future. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Rozell, M. J ., & Wilcox, C. (Eds.). (1995). God at the grass roots: The Christian Right
in the 1994 elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Rozell, M. J ., & Wilcox, C. (Eds.). (1997). God at the grass roots, 1996: The Christian
Right in the American elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisoverign people: A realist's view of democracy
in America. New York: Hold, Rinehart & Winston.
Stenger, K. (2005). Voices crying out in the wilderness: Religious groups and media
coverage of national policy debates. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Washington, Seattle.
Tadlock, B.L., Gordon, C.A., & Popp, E. (2007). Framing the issue of same-sex
marriage: Traditional values versus equal rights. In C. A. Rimmerman & C.
Wilcox (Eds.) The politics of same-sex marriage. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Terkildsen, N., Schnell, F.I., & Ling, C. (1998). Interest groups, the media, and policy
debate formation: An analysis of message structure. Political Communication,
15(1), 45-62.
Wilcox, C, Merolla, L.M., & Beer, D. (2006). Saving marriage by banning marriage:
The Christian Right finds a new issue in 2004. In J .C. Green, M.J . Rozell, & C.
Wilcox (Eds.) The values campaign? The Christian Right and the 2004
elections. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Yamane, D. (1999). Faith and access: Personal religiosity and religious group advocacy
in a state legislature. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38, 543-550.
Wood, J . E., & Davis, D. (Eds.). (1991). The role of religion in the making of public
policy. Texas: J .M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies.

iii
The bill, passed in 2008 as the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (P.L. 110-246), was the most
recent reauthorization of omnibus legislation passed since the 1970s to address a variety of agricultural
and food issues.
iv
Many religious groups organized on the left end of the political spectrum self-identify as
progressive as opposed to liberal or left. Their preference for this term reflects their desire to
appeal to a wide swath of religious citizens and their attempt to form coalitions representing various
religious groups. For example, a spokesperson for one national membership organization noted, [our
group] doesnt consider itself on the left. [Our group] considers itself in the center. Religious groups
on the right end of the spectrum often refer to themselves as conservative or traditional, though
there does not seem to be the same level of sensitivity to terms such as right as their counterparts on
the other end of the political spectrum. We use the terms left and right for the sake of clarity and
simplicity recognizing that many of the groups would resist the term.
v
http://www.frc.org/about-frc
vi
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/about.php
vii
http://www.bread.org/about-us/
viii
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.history
ix
http://www.coc.org/about-us
180 Kate Knutson, Mikka McCracken



x
http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/about/
xi
The interest group literature differentiates between inside and outside lobbying strategies. Inside
strategies involve direct communications between advocacy groups and policymakers, while outside
strategies involve indirect efforts to influence policymakers by activating group members and the
public. Groups often rely on the mass media to communicate their messages to the public, group
members, and policymakers as part of an outside strategy. See Berry and Wilcox (2009) for a summary
of these strategies.
xii
Gustavus Adolphus College Institutional Review Board approval #200720. Research funded by a
Gustavus Adolphus College Research, Scholarship, and Creativity Grant.
Copyright of Journal of Communication & Religion is the property of Religious Communication Association
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.