the Economist is twisted on religion

Here again, the Economist has run an irrelevant story. And, again, its about religion.

In its March 3, 2012 issue, it ran a story about churches using school facilities. Worse, to sensationalize even further, the author alleged that a church had no where else to congregate except at the school. I am not buying it. Meet at a house. Meet at another church. Meet at the Y.  Rent a conference room. Meet at a bar, the park, Ikea.

Getting back to the issue, the Economist could at least have suggested that this story may have a relevance to its readership. It could have thrown out a few statistics revealing the staggering amount of money federal, state, and local public officials transfer to religious groups. But, no. nothing of the sort.
___________________________________________________

In its March 17, 2012, issue, the Economist printed an article on Southern Baptists' "repositioning" regarding its racism.

Why? There was nothing in the article that even remotely tied it to the Economist's subject matter--business, economics, money...

How offensive--and disturbing, for the Economist to think that its readers would find the actions of southern baptists interesting in and of themself, without even offering a suggestion as to how this group even effects the economy.

Primaries Are Not

In the whole spectrum of the US population, the number of people casting votes in the republican primaries is phenomenally small--minute, which speaks volumes about how [ir]relevant the process is to each of us in this group known as U.S. citizens.
The group the process apparently is producing desired results for (i.e. is relevant to) is those funding the superpacs, who, in turn, are funding the tv commercials, the candidates' travels, the candidates' speeches, etc. So, we are a nation whose governing officials are chosen by the people who have enough spare cash laying around to send in to a superpac--the one percent, and not by the people--the 99 percent.
My question is why is the media spending so much time on a process that the people can't, and don't, participate in or effect?