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 08:59 pm (UTC)As for the Nazi thing, I'm surprised they disregarded it, but not displeased. From what I've read (with that as a caveat) it happened when he was a kid and he got out of it as soon as he could. I knew someone that grew up in Russia and was part of the Communist Youth (or whatever they were called), but was no more communist than you or I. It's just what you did in that culture.
I am surprised that a South or Latin American didn't get it, or maybe an African. The two real bastions of Catholicism right now are S/L America and Africa. Oh, well. We'll see what happens. I'll be interested to see the reaction of the world's Catholics.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-19 09:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-20 01:56 pm (UTC)as for Benedict XVI being concilliatory, i was skeptical at first. but after watching the actual speech he gave and NOT just reading the translation, i have more hope than i did. he seemed VERY humbled by the appointment and VERY grateful to the cardinals and to the people.
i also watched some of the coverage before and after the address (it pre-empted my soap opera yesterday so i figured i may as well watch history for myself *grin*). i was reassured by what i saw.
when the news people actually interviewed someone who KNOWS the guy or at least has talked to or corresponded directly with him (and not just people who are "experts" on ... whatever it is they are experts on), every single person has said that Benedict is a good listener who really cares about the people. one priest made the important distinction that Benedict does NOT care for the press as a whole and prefers to talk directly to the people instead of sending messages via media channels.
perhaps that's where a little of the animosity comes from? i'd like to think the press would be above that but... nothing surprises me anymore.