Owens says something inflammatory to the camera, and ESPN News plays the clip ad nauseum. People complain that bad behavior is getting rewarded by the spotlight. But the TV cameras know they have a sure thing. They show up at Owens’ locker after every game, practically begging him to insult his coach or a teammate. As if on cue, Owens says something offensive.

After all, who doesn’t want to be on TV – especially if it sells jerseys?

There is a striking similarity between Terrel Owens and religious extremists: they do what they do precisely so they can get media coverage. And not only does the media know it; by repeatedly showing up, they encourage it.

After all, which journalist doesn’t want to have the lead story – especially if it involves angry zealots that the rest of the world already doesn’t like?

Muslim extremists want to make Islam look violent. That is their goal. And they have figured out how to get the media to help them.

They videotape beheadings and confessions of suicide bombers specifically so that television news will play the tapes. And sure enough, television news does.

That the second plane hit the twin towers several minutes after the first plane on 9/11 was not only heinous murder, it was a media strategy. The terrorists wanted to make sure the cameras were rolling.

After all, who doesn’t want to be on TV – especially if it sells violent jihad?

Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham make inflammatory statements about Prophet Muhammad (which deeply offends not only Muslims but also many others with a sensibility of respect) precisely so they can get on television talk shows to further elaborate on their hateful views. And dutifully, talk shows invite them on.

I am deeply frustrated that the mainstream media is happily providing a microphone and a spotlight for religious extremists. But frankly, I know it’s not going to end.

Extremists will continue doing inflammatory things to get on television, cameras will continue to show up, and people will continue to watch.

But I believe people will also pay attention to compelling stories that are about genuine vision and hope.

In other words, the best way to reduce the amount of religious extremism on television is to make a stronger case for religious pluralism. And that means we religious pluralists have to be more striking, more visual, even more entertaining. (Was it Brecht who said that an artist's first job is to entertain?)

I learned this as a young teacher. Either I could complain that literature didn’t keep my students’ attention, or I could figure out how to teach it in a more interesting fashion.

More panels with senior theologians explaining the finer points of religious history? Much as I personally enjoy them, I understand why the television cameras demur.

I refuse to forfeit CNN to religious extremists. But that means more than criticizing CNN.

If 9/11 was the most striking possible image of religious extremism, what qualifies as the equivalent for pluralism?

Perhaps the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marching together in Selma.

Or Mahatma Gandhi and Badshah Khan visiting Indian villages, reading alternately from the Gita and Qur’an.

How do we recreate those today, knowing that, as Walter Lippman said: “The way in which the world is imagined will determine at any given moment what (people) will do.”