Don't Pray for Me: Religious Bias in the Media

Consider these items:

- South Dakota's representative in Congress, Stephanie Herseth, urges prayer for Senator Johnson. Harry Reid says his prayers are with the Senator and his family. We all understand the benevolence and concern this represents. Johnson or his family could hardly graciously object.

- Three expert mountain climbers got trapped in a snowstorm on Mt. Hood. We know now that at least one has died, and, as I write this, prospects are looking bleak for the other two. Journalists have repeatedly reported on the prayers of their families, and no doubt many thousands of others have also been praying for their safe return.

- Or consider the Sago mine disaster. Thirteen miners are trapped by an explosion on January 2, 2006. Their families pray for their safety and health. One is found dead, but hope remains for the other twelve. A report circulates that all twelve have survived, and is greeted with jubilation and thanksgiving for answered prayer. In the end, the report turns out to be false. Only one had really survived.

In each case, family, loved ones and the general public express their concern in the form of prayer. In each case, the media reports the prayers and expressions of goodwill on behalf of the victims. In each case, apparent answers to prayer get highlighted.

The problem is with what goes unreported. No comparable attention is paid to the apparently unanswered prayers. This sets the stage for a pernicious bit of propaganda. If Johnson recovers or if the remaining climbers return safely, many will be ready to see that as an answer to prayer. They will thank God and acknowledge his hand in the outcome. By parity of reasoning, if the senator takes a turn for the worse or the climbers turn out to be dead, the reasonable conclusion would be that prayer did no good. Perhaps there was no one there to answer. It's a safe bet, though, that very few will draw the reasonable conclusion. Even fewer will say so in public or in the media.

Notice how the unfair comparison works. If the person prayed for does well, God gets the credit. If things go badly, however, God doesn't get the blame. By that standard, just about anybody would look good.

That's why it's the wrong standard. It doesn't distinguish between success and failure.

What happens when you apply a reasonable standard? Then, there's no reason to expect prayer to help. There's been good, solid evidence available at least since Francis Galton published his Statistical Inquiries into the Efficacy of Prayer in 1872. One of his many good points was that monarchs are especially likely to be the subjects of prayer, to receive prayers for their health and longevity. Surely, members of royal families are far more often in the prayers of their countrymen than the average person. Therefore, he reasoned, if prayer has any effect, you would expect it to show up here. But the fact is, as he goes on to point out, "The sovereigns are literally the shortest lived of all who have the advantage of affluence."

A recent large and careful study of heart patients showed the same thing: No effect, except the patients who knew they were being prayed for did worse.

This was not a study designed to reach a pre-determined conclusion, unless the pre-determined conclusion was that prayer helps. It was funded by the Templeton Foundation, which is eager to find respectable evidence for the efficacy of prayer. That makes the results even more impressive. No effect was detected. Patients who were prayed for did no better than those who were not.

Just what you'd expect if God wasn't there or didn't care.

If the media is going to report on prayers and supposed answers to prayer, fairness and balance demand follow-up stories, calling attention to all the cases that prayer seems to go unanswered.