Watch it and pay close attention to the language used.

“We are a deeply religious nation.”
“Surveys show 90% of us believe in God, a quarter of us go to church once a week, but beliefs are changing.”
“…but, more than half admit they know little or nothing about either faith…”
“We recognize all of the world’s great religions as speaking the truth.”

Then listen to what they say about atheists:

“In 1993 about 9% of Americans claimed to have no religion but by last year that number had almost doubled.”

Notice the language used is absolute when talking about religious people, yet sounds doubtful when talking about atheists.

It seems they manage to show their dislike for us in subtle ways. Note that they use no vague or ambiguous language describing religions (except the charge that Mormons are nothing but a cult, which they were happy to state – though they made no other such statement about any other religion).

Why use a word like “claim” in reference to us when a solid word that has no ambiguous connotations could have been chosen?

Merriam Webster’s has the following two definitions for “claim” (that could apply here):

2: to take as the rightful owner
3 a: to assert in the face of possible contradiction

Now, if they were using the second definition then why use it in a negative statement (not implying negative connotations but that the word itself is being used in a sort of double-negative way)? For instance “claimed to have no religion” means taking, as a rightful owner, no religion (an odd idea) – kind of like religion is a coat check. Of course the second definition they give (3a) is the more common use of the term and most likely the best understood reason for the use of it in the sentence. Why then, do we get the shaft of ambiguity in the face of all of the statements that imply certainty?

I often wonder if I’m the only one to notice these things. When deciding what to put in a newscast and what not to, clearly the editors scrutinize every word used to maximize impact. I think this is no mistake.

Another part of the same series. Same ambiguous words about atheists. They didn’t even bother to interview an atheist.