J-prof David Haskell argues in this Toronto Star commentary that when the Canadian MSM fear-mongers against evangelicals getting involved in politics, it is fear-mongering against a group that is much more mainstream than the media realizes.

An excerpt:

Here's how the scare-i-fication process works: with an air of authority and illusion of objectivity, journalists covering a campaign imply at every opportunity that evangelical politicians are to be feared because they hold views and values that are extreme or, at the very least, outside the mainstream. The implication is always: they are not like the rest of us.

If journalists who work for the national TV networks and our largest circulation newspapers were simply referring to themselves when claiming that evangelicals are not like the rest of us, then they would be right.

Indeed, Canada's national news personnel and evangelical Christians have very little in common. A recent study by researchers Lydia Miljan and Barry Cooper shows our top news people are the most irreligious and most socially permissive people in the country — the direct opposite of evangelicals.

But are the views and values of evangelical Christians really so different from the population at large? Are they so extreme to be characterized as scary?

No. In fact, polling data suggest that on most social issues evangelicals are singing from the same hymn book as most Canadians.

Haskell goes on to say this about same-sex marriage -- one of the social issues he deals with in the piece:

Evangelicals and those who side with them politically have also been portrayed as "extreme" and "outside mainstream opinion" for their stand against changes to the traditional definition of marriage. But how are the media defining "mainstream opinion?" A recent Environics poll showed 52 per cent of the general population is against changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions. Surely an opinion is not on the fringes when it's supported by more than half the country?

Backing up a bit, I found it interesting he refers to "researchers" Lydia Miljan and Barry Cooper without mentioning they've both toiled long and hard for the Fraser Institute over the years trying to show left-wing media bias. Hidden Agendas was their 2003 book on the biases of journalists -- Haskell didn't mention that, either.

Interesting the way Haskell describes top news people as "the most irreligious and most socially permissive people in the country — the direct opposite of evangelicals." Why not use the words "secular" and "socially tolerant"?

He mentions an Environics poll (without giving a date, sample size or the questions asked) and said 52 per cent of the population is opposed to same-sex marriage. "Surely an opinion is not on the fringes when it's supported by more than half the country?"

But that's a bit disingenuous because I suspect the Environics poll didn't break out self-identified evangelicals, and they would have likely been weighted towards the traditional definition. Let's say we did, and all of a sudden, 60 per cent (or more of the country) supported same-sex marriage, while 97 per cent of evangelicals opposed it. Then who would look to be out of the mainstream?

Here's a sample from a Feb. 21 CTV.ca story about public opinion on same-sex marriage:

(Ipsos-Reid's John) Wright says he's been doing polling on Canadians' attitudes towards same-sex marriage for about four years now.

"The numbers have not changed," he said, noting it's roughly 55-45 in favour.

Wright said the opposition tends to be concentrated in rural areas, the West and older people (note: The rural West is home to a lot of evangelical Christians). The young and urban are fairly supportive, with women also being more supportive of the concept.

As Haskell said, I guess it all depends on how one defines "mainstream."

If Haskell's point is the media shouldn't fear-monger against evangelical Christians or other religious Canadians who wish to get involved in politics, I would agree with him.

But his selective use of facts has me wondering what his agenda actually is. Maybe this is a clue: "Media manipulation and suppression of facts in order to further their own (hidden) agenda ... now that's scary."

A final question to Mr. Haskell, if he's out there: If a political candidate compares abortion to the beheading of Western hostages in Iraq, how should the media treat those remarks? Should they be regarded as mainstream?