I'm impressed...

[acroyear]

It 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.

Comments

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

"News" doesn't sell anymore -- it's the "interpretation" of the news that draws eyeballs and thus, sells advertising.

Thus is the Fox Newsification of the world media complete.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's the opinion of the Cardinals that makes him controversial, it's what the outside world thinks of him. Certainly the idea of a Pope who has declared all other churches in the word as "defiant" doesn't raise many hopes for ecumenical discussion.

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.

[dawntreader]

i didn't think it took 4 hours since they have been speculating that IF he was the man appointed that it WOULD be controversial, even before the voting had started.

the whole controversy comes from his reported ties to the Nazi party and his stance on the sex scandal. but whether that is all "controversial" or not is mostly spin. obviously in the eyes of the other cardinals, it wasn't controversial enough to prevent his election.

[dglenn.livejournal.com]

It's not liberal bias. It's pro-controversy bias. (Or, pro-what-sells-papers bias.)

That said, if what they meant was, "likely to spur opinionated discussion among the general population," I hold up my LJ friends page as evidence...

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

(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?)

It's both, in my opinion. Mostly the press pushing for a "story," but I think the fact that it's a conservative involved makes the liberal press more prone to slap on the label and run with it. Note how nearly every conservative American politician is "controversial," "far-right", "out of the mainstream," and so forth; but a liberal one would practically have to scream that he or she is a Stalinist before the press would concede that he or she "might" not be a "centrist," "moderate," middle of the road," yada yada --- maybe; and even then only off to the left by just a smidge.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

The word "controversial" isn't in that article.

[dawntreader]

if everyone "loved" Pope John Paul II, and Benedict XVI is supposedly "just like him", why all the forced negativity toward Benedict??? that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

it sounds to me like the cardinals chose someone most like John Paul II as they could get. seems to me like things won't be much different so i don't understand why all this "OMGOMG" stuff. (no pun intended of course!)