I'm impressed...
Apr. 19th, 2005 04:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearIt only took the press 4 hours of repeated rewriting and reinterpreting today's top story to finally label the Pope "Controversial".
Jerks.
The controversy was only in their minds. The Cardinals voted behind closed doors, and a 2/3rds majority was needed to get the election. If he was that controversial, he wouldn't have won.
Once again, making the story rather than just telling it.
worst part about it? the closest quote the Reuters report used to justify the word "Controversial" was one from a "surprised" Theology Professor at University of Notre Dame. I don't see some 2-bit college teacher's opinion as speaking for any reliably large minority within the church to justify his view (which was "surprised", i repeat) as supporting any assertion that the person was "Controversial".
I'm getting sick of this.
(Rob, could this be seen as an example of liberal bias, painting a conservative as "controversial" without any supporting evidence? or just my interpretation that the press writes stories, not facts, and as such need something to drive their plot along?)
Update: the reuters headline of the hour has gotten worse. its now Arch-Conservative, not just conservative, who's "expected to defend Pope John Paul's strict orthodox legacy and reject changes in doctrine". in other words, directly implying that being a conservative within the catholic church is wrong by using extremely negative sounding words like "reject" and "strict" (and even "orthodox", which JP2 wasn't by any stretch if you compare him to many of his 17th and 18th century predecessors).
this is, of course, not a news viewpoint, but a story viewpoint.
reuters is handling this very badly, in my opinion.
the AP is doing a little better at being balanced and leaving the negative opinions to strictly within quotes and sound-bytes, rather than in the main article. "not everyone feels that ...", followed by a quote or two. That's far better than taking people's opinions out of the quotes and out of context to make it appear as though they're a majority (or even substantial minority) viewpoint. its hardly been long enough to determine anything close to a summary viewpoint -- conducting polls with any reasonable accuracy will take at least a week to assemble, conduct, and tabulate.
yeah, i'm actually looking at this one in detail, 'cause the bias is obvious and ridiculous and is just going to give the right-wing punditocracy serious wood to throw on their fires.
Jerks.
The controversy was only in their minds. The Cardinals voted behind closed doors, and a 2/3rds majority was needed to get the election. If he was that controversial, he wouldn't have won.
Once again, making the story rather than just telling it.
worst part about it? the closest quote the Reuters report used to justify the word "Controversial" was one from a "surprised" Theology Professor at University of Notre Dame. I don't see some 2-bit college teacher's opinion as speaking for any reliably large minority within the church to justify his view (which was "surprised", i repeat) as supporting any assertion that the person was "Controversial".
I'm getting sick of this.
(Rob, could this be seen as an example of liberal bias, painting a conservative as "controversial" without any supporting evidence? or just my interpretation that the press writes stories, not facts, and as such need something to drive their plot along?)
Update: the reuters headline of the hour has gotten worse. its now Arch-Conservative, not just conservative, who's "expected to defend Pope John Paul's strict orthodox legacy and reject changes in doctrine". in other words, directly implying that being a conservative within the catholic church is wrong by using extremely negative sounding words like "reject" and "strict" (and even "orthodox", which JP2 wasn't by any stretch if you compare him to many of his 17th and 18th century predecessors).
this is, of course, not a news viewpoint, but a story viewpoint.
reuters is handling this very badly, in my opinion.
the AP is doing a little better at being balanced and leaving the negative opinions to strictly within quotes and sound-bytes, rather than in the main article. "not everyone feels that ...", followed by a quote or two. That's far better than taking people's opinions out of the quotes and out of context to make it appear as though they're a majority (or even substantial minority) viewpoint. its hardly been long enough to determine anything close to a summary viewpoint -- conducting polls with any reasonable accuracy will take at least a week to assemble, conduct, and tabulate.
yeah, i'm actually looking at this one in detail, 'cause the bias is obvious and ridiculous and is just going to give the right-wing punditocracy serious wood to throw on their fires.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-04-19 08:19 pm (UTC)That said, I knew that the news made the story as much as reported it all the way back when Three Mile Island vented a little radiation.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-19 08:36 pm (UTC)You don't want to hear me when it comes to people's perceptions of nuclear...
no subject
Date: 2005-04-19 08:38 pm (UTC)ok, i'm sleeping on the couch tonite...
no subject
Date: 2005-04-19 08:41 pm (UTC)Besides, I thought *I* was usually the one who wound up on the couch! *chuckle*
no subject
Date: 2005-04-19 08:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-19 08:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-20 12:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-20 02:08 pm (UTC)TMI was also due to stupid techs who got in the way of the normal operations of the plant. Had the techs actually stood back and let the fail-safes do their jobs, instead of getting in the way of the fail-safes, that entire incident never would have happened.