Media: WWJD?
By DEACON MIKE MANNO, JD
We’ve all seen the wristbands, placards, and bumper stickers: What Would Jesus Do? And we wonder what would happen if we all asked ourselves that question before we acted.
And, from my perspective, what would Jesus do if He were the editor of a global, secular media enterprise? How would the news be presented? What kind of slant would He put on it? And would He be able to make a profit doing it His way?
Well, it’s been tried. In Topeka, Kans. In March of 1900.
The editor of the local newspaper, The Topeka Daily Capital, J.K. Hudson, intrigued by the writings of a local Congregationalist minister, Rev. Charles Sheldon (1857-1946), asked the good reverend if he would edit the paper for one week using the principles Rev. Sheldon had articulated in a series of published articles that were later sold as a book.
Rev. Sheldon had apparently entered the world of journalism by accident. Disappointed with the low turnout for his Sunday evening services, he substituted stories with cliffhanger endings in place of sermons, and they became so popular they eventually were serialized in a Christian magazine and later published as a novel in 1896 under the title In His Steps: What Would Jesus Do?
In the novel, members of a Midwestern railway town agreed to try to live one year by asking themselves “What would Jesus do?” before making any decision, thus the term became part of the popular lexicon. Contributing to the popularity of the book was a mistake made by the publisher; he failed to properly register the copyright and other publishers, picking up on its popularity, reproduced the book which cost Rev. Sheldon royalties, but ensured that the book had a wider circulation due to the lower prices charged by the renegade publishers.
One of the characters in the book was asked how Jesus would run a newspaper. Here is the reply:
“1. He would never allow a sentence or a picture in His paper that could be called bad or coarse or impure in any way.
“2. He would probably conduct the political part of the paper from the standpoint of nonpartisan patriotism, always looking upon all political questions in the light of their relation to the Kingdom of God…always on the basis of ‘What is right?’ never on the basis of ‘What is for the best interests of this or that party?’…He would treat all political questions as He would treat every other subject — from the standpoint of the advancement of the Kingdom of God on Earth. . . .
“3. The end and aim . . . would be to do the will of God. That is, His main purpose in carrying on a newspaper would not be to make money, or gain political influence, but His first and ruling purpose would be to so conduct His paper that it would be evident to all His subscribers that He was trying to seek first the Kingdom of God….
“4. All questionable advertisements would be impossible.
“5. The relations of Jesus to the employees on the paper would be of the most loving character….
“6. Jesus would give large space to the work of the Christian world. He would devote a page possibly to the facts of Reform, of sociological problems, of institutional church work and similar movements.
“7. He would do all in His power in His paper to fight the saloon as an enemy of the human race and an unnecessary part of our civilization. He would do this regardless of public sentiment in the matter, and, of course, always regardless of its effect upon His subscription list….
“8. Jesus would not issue a Sunday edition.
“9. He would print the news of the world that people ought to know. Among the things they do not need to know, and which would not be published, would be accounts of brutal prize-fights, long accounts of crimes, scandals in private families, or any other human events which in any way would conflict with the first point mentioned in this outline.
“10. If Jesus had the amount of money to use on a paper which we have, He would probably secure the best and strongest Christian men and women to cooperate with Him in the matter of contributions.
“11. Whatever the details of the paper might demand as the paper developed along its definite plan, the main principle that guided it would always be the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the world. This large general principle would necessarily shape all the details.”
The experiment received national attention. When Rev. Sheldon took the paper’s reins for his week the paper had a daily circulation of 15,000. During Sheldon’s week it rose to 367,000 and, in addition to Topeka, it had to be printed in Chicago, New York, and London. During the week the Reverend put into practice his principles of the social gospel and practical Christianity he preached. He downplayed crime, scandals, and vice. Editorials were signed, and the inexperienced editor mentioned the names of all the employees of the paper. All and all, the paper, according to noted journalism historian Frank Luther Mott, was “undeniably dull” but the editor “performed, on the whole, a good piece of work in the face of great difficulties.”
Retaking the reins, Editor J.K. Hudson wrote that he did not believe in the idea of a Christian daily and promised, “The Capital will, in the future, go forward on the lines it has worked in the past, as a Republican newspaper.” And so the experiment ended as all such experiments usually do: a return to the mean.
The Rev. Sheldon went on to write more than thirty social gospel novels and traveled throughout the United States and England lecturing on social problems.
Looking back over the experiment, there didn’t seem to be any cry of fake or biased news. The news apparently was presented in a factual format without being shaped or slanted to titillate the reader. In fact, it appears that, like Joe Friday, it simply just gave the facts citizens needed to know without embellishments, as Jesus might do — a far cry from the hourly “News Alerts” that saturate today’s cable fare.
During preparation for our radio show, Faith On Trial, my co-host, Gina Noll, told me how she and her husband dealt with their girls and the media. While watching, Gina would freeze the newscast after particular stories and ask her daughters to evaluate the reporting: Was it biased? Was it fair, did it give both sides? Was the story hyped for political purposes or to make it more interesting than was its due?
What an interesting concept, and what a great way to teach your children how they should view the news, especially during these times when those easily influenced by fake or embellished reports do need a better perspective of world events than they get from today’s cotton-candy media.
I wish I had thought of this. But that’s why she asks better, and more relevant, questions on the air. But don’t tell that last bit to my station manager.
(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com; and listen to him — and Gina — every Thursday morning on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)
