Pastor Brian Fuller: ” Why did we interview with ABC’s 20/20?”
More Thoughts & Answers to the “20/20” “There was a ‘Car 54 Where Are You?’ moment at the [Concord Police Department ]!” “I’m not sure the three letters “IFB” were used adjectively to describe a church prior to the opening of the IFB Cult Survivor(and their friends) Facebook page.” “As a Dad of four, I take protecting our children at Trinity very seriously and so do our people”
- 37 views
I am grateful for Brian’s heart in this matter. But I do hope that he and the church leadership sought wise counsel before agreeing to do this interview.
It is unfortunate that the folks at 20/20 took the “slash and burn” approach with their reporting in this program. I actually thought at points that they made a very serious story look almost kind of cheesy, if that is possible.
For one thing, they provided almost no context. If I were still a WELS Lutheran, I would have ended the show wondering what on earth an “IFB” was and how do I stay away from them.
Secondly, any attempt at objective journalism would have included an interview with more than just Brian to get the IFB side of things. Someone like a Dr. Bauder, or guys from a list as long as my arm with earned degrees from accredited institutions, should have been asked to comment.
Going beyond that, any attempt to make this story “fair and balanced” would have even sought a comment from someone like a MacArthur or a Mohler who could give a broader perspective. The questions that were begging to be asked were obvious: “Who are these IFB guys?” “Where did they come from?” “Did their doctrine influence this alleged crisis?” “How should the larger church respond?” etc., etc.
You can see now why Rush calls the media elite the “drive-by media.” In all of their glitz and glamour, they don’t even deal with the “5 W’s and H” in the course of telling a story.
Having said all of that, fundamentalist naivete with the media was quite evident here — presenting Brian as our only spokesman (instead of demanding more as a condition of being involved), presenting letters instead of giving interviews, etc. To say we did not come off well would be a gross understatement.
It is unfortunate that the folks at 20/20 took the “slash and burn” approach with their reporting in this program. I actually thought at points that they made a very serious story look almost kind of cheesy, if that is possible.
For one thing, they provided almost no context. If I were still a WELS Lutheran, I would have ended the show wondering what on earth an “IFB” was and how do I stay away from them.
Secondly, any attempt at objective journalism would have included an interview with more than just Brian to get the IFB side of things. Someone like a Dr. Bauder, or guys from a list as long as my arm with earned degrees from accredited institutions, should have been asked to comment.
Going beyond that, any attempt to make this story “fair and balanced” would have even sought a comment from someone like a MacArthur or a Mohler who could give a broader perspective. The questions that were begging to be asked were obvious: “Who are these IFB guys?” “Where did they come from?” “Did their doctrine influence this alleged crisis?” “How should the larger church respond?” etc., etc.
You can see now why Rush calls the media elite the “drive-by media.” In all of their glitz and glamour, they don’t even deal with the “5 W’s and H” in the course of telling a story.
Having said all of that, fundamentalist naivete with the media was quite evident here — presenting Brian as our only spokesman (instead of demanding more as a condition of being involved), presenting letters instead of giving interviews, etc. To say we did not come off well would be a gross understatement.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Our church family has similar, firsthand experience with 20/20. Will Rogers (in paraphrase) was right: you can’t believe anything you see on 20/20.
A member of a family in our church was involved in a tragic death here a few years ago. 20/20 offered him the opportunity to “set the record straight” and “tell his side of the story”. His side of the story never made it onto the air, but several of his comments, taken out of context and edited in the worst possible light, made him look as guilty as home-made sin. (In a trial, he was exonerated of all charges.)
Before he agreed to the interview, he sought the advice of his attorney. His attorney though “if that’s what they are looking for, [giving the interview] couldn’t hurt.” Sometimes even “wise counsel” is wrong.
20/20 has an agenda. They will pick and choose what they want to support that agenda. Their minds truly are made up, and they do not let the facts get in the way of their story. I wish someone had been able to share that information with Pastor Fuller before he gave the interview.
While 20/20 made every attempt to make Phelps and Olson look guilty (without actually coming out and saying so) for not granting an on-camera interview, both were very wise to hold their comments until they have a chance to present them, unedited and in context.
A member of a family in our church was involved in a tragic death here a few years ago. 20/20 offered him the opportunity to “set the record straight” and “tell his side of the story”. His side of the story never made it onto the air, but several of his comments, taken out of context and edited in the worst possible light, made him look as guilty as home-made sin. (In a trial, he was exonerated of all charges.)
Before he agreed to the interview, he sought the advice of his attorney. His attorney though “if that’s what they are looking for, [giving the interview] couldn’t hurt.” Sometimes even “wise counsel” is wrong.
20/20 has an agenda. They will pick and choose what they want to support that agenda. Their minds truly are made up, and they do not let the facts get in the way of their story. I wish someone had been able to share that information with Pastor Fuller before he gave the interview.
While 20/20 made every attempt to make Phelps and Olson look guilty (without actually coming out and saying so) for not granting an on-camera interview, both were very wise to hold their comments until they have a chance to present them, unedited and in context.
Rev. Karl,
I agree that granting an interview to an entity such as 20/20 (or, as Rush parodies Barbara Walters saying it, “Tenty-tenty”) is walking on treacherous ground.
However, there are tricks to the trade, such as never saying anything they can use without getting your message in every sentence.
It is sad and unethical that the interviewer asked Brian questions that were the journalistic equivalent of “When did you stop beating YOUR wife, eh???”
However, there are ways to respond. Someone like John MacArthur or Ken Ham, who have done this for years, could have handled it.
I agree that granting an interview to an entity such as 20/20 (or, as Rush parodies Barbara Walters saying it, “Tenty-tenty”) is walking on treacherous ground.
However, there are tricks to the trade, such as never saying anything they can use without getting your message in every sentence.
It is sad and unethical that the interviewer asked Brian questions that were the journalistic equivalent of “When did you stop beating YOUR wife, eh???”
However, there are ways to respond. Someone like John MacArthur or Ken Ham, who have done this for years, could have handled it.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
The idea of a preacher being able to speak in sound bites made me chuckle. But you are right- people who are good at interviews know how to speak entire ideas in short declarative sentences that are not easily edited.
Discussion