Raul Herrera/Staff Writer
NBC’s Charlotte, North Carolina, branch (WCNC) recently ran an exposé on Pastor Steven Furtick of Elevation Church. It pointed out that the pastor was in the process of building a $1.7 million dollar home. Because of this, the pastor fell under scrutiny.
While both local political commentator and business owner Jason ‘Molotov’ Mitchell and a later NBC-WCNC report by Stuart Watson revealed that Pastor Furtick is paying for the house through book sales, the stigma remained. Furtick, a man with a reportedly large social media aura, was portrayed as yet another greedy preacher who cons churchgoers out of money. Those who have sadly confused the making of money with the avaricious adoration of it have condemned him without having even met him
I am pointing to this situation not because I want to weigh in on the debate of the place of money in churches or because I am endorsing Furtick or Elevation Church (I am not), but because there is a larger situation at hand here. Many in the mainstream media look for information that may be damning.
This desire for damning information can sometimes lead to good things. Back in my spring semester How We Know What We Know class, we met whistleblowers that spoke out against evil practices. The media was able to promulgate these messages. On Oct. 28, some whistleblowers that exposed supposed government wrongdoings came to FIU, as reported in a student media article by Jessica Meszaros. All of these people had their exposures of malice enhanced by a media searching for controversy.
This can grow to be destructive. Think of the Furtick case. Hundreds will now have a different image of Pastor Furtick, one that perhaps is not entirely accurate to his character. Think about other cases. Just a year ago, the media created a storm over the opinions of the president of a fast food company. It goes on and on and on.
The mainstream media hungers for controversy. It hungers for damning information that can destroy a person’s career or public image. And we, media consumers, fuel the fire of this lust.
We here at FIU, however, are unique. The fact that you are reading this proves that you are someone who consumes media and information in your daily life. We have the power to take in the information we want.
These cases prove that if we search for information from more than one source, a clearer picture of any particular event is formed. Simply put, look at different sides of an issue. Use more than one news source (it doesn’t have to be every single one in existence), especially if it is over something controversial. Do not let your view of someone be tarnished by a one-sided article.
I sometimes forget to follow these maxims myself, but I believe they are important in this day and age where accuracy is sacrificed for the sake of controversy and edginess.
Is Pastor Furtick a perfect person? No, certainly not. And I am certainly not trying to take a position on the controversy over the building of his new house. What I am getting at here is that the desire the mainstream media has of damaging stories is not always a force of good, and to combat this, we must become more savvy information seekers.
Perhaps the search for truth can be a weapon in an age of slander.
raul.herrera@fiusm.com
Dear Mr. Herrera,
If you will check with legal counsel I believe you will find that the word “slander” has a precise definition within the law and my report in no way slandered Pastor Furtick or anyone else. You may not like the facts it contains or choose to debate their larger meaning, but we have in no way engaged in slander.
Stuart Watson
Investigative Reporter
WCNC-TV
swatson@wcnc.com
Dear Mr. Stuart Watson,
Thank you for your comment on my recent opinion piece on Pastor Furtick! I just wanted to respond to what you had said.
Perhaps it was not your intention to spread potentially damaging information about the pastor. I recognize that as a reporter, one looks for a story voraciously. If my piece conveyed that I was accusing you personally of slanderous behavior (when you say that you did not have that intention), then I humbly and deeply apologize.
However, we must remember that the reports mentioned in my piece act as slander to Pastor Furtick. Given that there is not enough evidence to accuse him of being a greedy conman in preacher’s clothing, he now has his reputation tarnished. This may have not been the intention of your report, but as he is a public figure with a reputation to uphold, it is something to be taken into consideration.
I know WCNC recently ran a report on a NASCAR crew chief’s $6M mansion. The article seemed to portray it in a positive light. The reason for this is that the public generally agrees that a NASCAR crew chief should have such a house under his possession. However, there is debate on how a pastor should receive his income, and there is a general public stigma against pastors who make money off of their congregations (though Furtick makes his money off of booksales).
Thanks again for your input!
Dear Mr. Herrera,
You make some valid points about the media in this situation. And the idea that people’s views of the reported subject are affected is an important part of these points.
Here we have an old media that holds itself up as doing something great for its community — holding people accountable and standing up for the common good.
But there is something missing from these reports regarding Mr. Furtick. They do not ever get to proof for a conclusion of clear wrong doing.
They would have us believe that Furtick’s getting something under the table from his church, or from his book sales, or that Furtick games the book sales system, or that the baptisms in his church are not real, or that Union County is suffering because a non-profit owns this new house, or that his church is being misled. A cloud of “issues” are raised but none are definitively proven.
One element of this approach might be to throw things against the wall and see what sticks. Another element is is to see if someone comes forward with new information. Media has the power to do this and it can pay dividends in investigative reporting.
But it has the downsides that you recognize. People can be hurt in the process. It has a “political” feel to it. It is not going to lead to a Pulitzer for great reporting. And, yes, people can probably make persuasive arguments that there are no legal damages involved.
The take away is that this approach should be used only when one already has strong evidence of a defined wrong doing. If this evidence is not in hand, pick something to make a real stand on that will make a difference. If the point is that Mr. Furtick’s baptisms are not real, then concentrate on it and prove it. If the point is that non-profits should not own homes because it hurts local taxpayers, then concentrate on it (even include other examples such as hospitals, etc.) and prove it.
By way of disclosure, I am not an Elevator nor will I likely ever be. If someone asked me about local churches I would explain what I know about Elevation and its positives and negatives. Equally important, I do not compete with the local NBC channel in any way, shape or form. If someone asked me about local news organizations I would mention them along with their positives and negatives.
Regards,
PD Kiser