ABSTRACT
In Chapter 17, Hill offers a legal analysis of cases involving landowning, homosexuality, ‘pastoral breakdown’, the status of Sharia law, and defamation. In each case, Hill draws out the sometimes vast discrepancy between the legal ruling and the manner in which the ruling is reported in the press. In all cases it is religion that receives the worst hearing in news reports, even if it had the best in the courts. Having offered his case studies, Hill offers a series of explanatory remarks as to why religion comes off worse in the press. Echoing Romain’s earlier concern (chapter 11), Hill begins by noting that religion has long been the subject of comedy in the media, latterly with the television series Rev. This is reflected, he argues, in the news reporting of religion. But in asking further why religion is a source of humour, Hill is unsatisfied with the answer that it is in order to maintain circulation.
Is news reporting inherently inaccurate? Several contributors have raised concerns on this matter, and Hill makes them explicit by noticing that the press reports on legal rulings involving religion are no more inaccurate than news coverage of other legal matters. But why should this be? Again Hill offers an explanation: the law is complex, as is religion, and therefore journalistic inaccuracies abound in these fields. Nonetheless, drawing a different contrast with science reporting than Beckett in chapter 7, Hill points out a disparity with the accuracy demanded of science reporting and the inaccuracy tolerated in religious coverage. Hill urges that a solution be found to remedy misreporting: ‘A more accurate (and less partisan) understanding of the judicial determination of religious litigation is a worthy constitutional goal in a multi-faith society benignly governed by the rule of law’.
