MEDIA SCOPE: Are you more likely to base your standards of behaviour on what you see on TV than what you hear in a place of worship? Who are your role models? As Irish society moves away from organised religion, Louise Holden looks at the uneasy relationship between faith and the media

The Irish National Teacher's Organisation held a conference this month on the subject of teaching religion in schools. The point was made that the media now play more of a role in shaping morality than the church does. "We live in a society where values are carried on the airwaves and in our papers," said one delegate. "Through all this the children are learning their values and code of morality from television and pop acts."

A teacher with the responsibility for teaching religion is often the only person in a student's life discussing God. Even interested parents are less able to "sell" the idea of the church in the midst of daily stories of scandal. The only religious figures some of us have regular contact with are Father Ted and Reverend Lovejoy.

Speaking at the INTO conference, one speaker said: "...with televisions in many children's rooms the 'pulpit in the corner' can reach the children for most of their free time. Much of the television children watch is unsupervised, and so unchallenged.

"In an era when politicians and clergy have proved to be untrustworthy, children look to the stars of the football field and the charts for leadership and example. This is fine if your example is Niall Quinn donating his testimonial money or Bono trying to cancel Third World debt, but most primary-school boys are listening to Korn, Blink 182 and Slipknot. And for the girls there is the example of Atomic Kitten, Jordan and Ulrika (Jonsson)."

Meanwhile, the church and the media are becoming increasingly alienated from each other. What church teaching rejects - divorce, contraception, sexual freedom - the media celebrates. Instead of the church preaching to the media about its sins, the media now preaches to the church. Religious leaders are accused of having no "public relations sense" or "media savvy" in a way that the media used to be accused of being godless and amoral.

RTÉ's recent battle to keep the "Power to Change" advertising campaign off the air raised uncomfortable questions about the new relationship between organised religion and the media.

The Power to Change group is spending €1.8 million on an advertising campaign to unite Christians in this State and to "encourage people to change their lifestyles". The campaign, run on TV, cinema and billboards, feature people such as Maire Ní Bhraonáin of Clannad and former drug addict turned youth worker Noel Kenny talking about the role of God in their lives.

RTÉ initially refused to carry the organisation's TV advertisement after receiving legal advice that ads directed towards any religious end could contravene the Broadcasting Act. In the end, Power to Change edited one of the ads to bring it into line with Act and RTÉ agreed to show it.

RTÉ officials were acting on sound legal advice when they contested the Power to Change ad, but their action raised questions about our attitude to religion. To run a TV ad encouraging people to practise a particular faith is seen as intrusive, unbalanced and inappropriate in a multicultural society. On the other hand, there is no moral question raised when a fast-food company wishes to run an ad that pushes an unhealthy lifestyle or a cosmetics company sells the idea that women are only as valuable as the skin they're wrapped up in.

Violence, substance abuse, materialism, cultural stereotyping and the sexualisation of minors are part and parcel of an evening's television viewing, but religion is now taboo.

The recent media damnation of BBC TV presenter Angus Deayton is a perfect example of how the media moralises today. His well-publicised misdemeanours were his downfall as, like the priest at the pulpit, he was expected to live a perfect life because it was his job to point out the faults of other people.

The difference between the church's brand of ethics and the media's is that the latter doesn't claim moral superiority and so can change position according to public opinion. The fashion media took a moral stance against the use of animal furs in the 1990s - in this decade the public mood has changed and media rules have changed to suit. Fur is back.

The church, on the other hand, won't change its rules. No matter how much we learn about the importance of safe sex and family planning, the validity of homosexuality or the changing shape of the family, the church will not shift position because its guardians see compromise as the beginning of the end.

What many view as hypocritical ethical doublespeak on the part of the media is the very kind of fluid morality that attracts us. The media has the "power to change" its moral position according to circumstance. We'll buy that.