AmericanPapist Comments
It can't be that easy of a read. Archbishop Chaput even says the content is "not easily absorbed in one reading." I wouldn't consider him to be a fool.
Well, I'm not generally one to rush to the defense of the mainstream media . . . but with a story like this there's almost no way that they can plow through a lengthy document on the first day of its release and give any kind of competent report.
In this case the "media bias" might most accurately be described as one in favor of getting out an attention-grabbing (if not thorough) story as soon as possible.
On the question of racial discrimination, the Addis Ababa Conference taught, to those who will learn, this further lesson: That until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned: That until there are no longer first-class and second class citizens of any nation; That until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; That until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race; That until that day, the dream of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained; And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes that hold our brothers in Angola, in Mozambique and in South Africa in subhuman bondage have been toppled and destroyed; Until bigotry and prejudice and malicious and inhuman self-interest have been replaced by understanding and tolerance and good-will; Until all Africans stand and speak as free beings, equal in the eyes of all men, as they are in the eyes of Heaven; Until that day, the African continent will not know peace. We Africans will fight, if necessary, and we know that we shall win, as we are confident in the victory of good over evil. – Haile Selassie I
This is completely ridiculous (but what do you expect from the media) I briefly read through Spe Salvi yesterday and don't even remember the pope's comments about atheism. All I remember is the pope's beautiful words on Christian hope.
I beg to differ!
They darn well SHOULD be able to read through it in a day & give a competent report. Reporters should know how to read plain English with good comprehension & reasonable speed, considering that words, are, you know...their JOB.
Come on. The encyclical does need to be unpacked, but that doesn't mean it's incomprehensible on the first read. I just read it this afternoon, and it's very readable.
Also, whoever's assigned to the job of reporting on an encyclical should know enough of Catholic theology to report more intelligently on the subject than to say "pope blasts atheism", which is just...a stupid thing to say. I mean, duh, is he expecting the pope to praise atheism???
And lastly, anyone who characterizes BXVI's tone as "blasting" clearly has a serious chip on the shoulder. The Holy Father's tone was one of paternal kindness slash academic debate, not of "blasting" anything.
Let's not let the media off so easily!
And yes, my current tone can be accurately characterized as blasting. Note the exclamation points! You may feel free to title my post: "Suzanne Blasts Media"!
Well, my observation is that the media have even more difficulty with a papal document than they do with a fairly complicated U.S. Supreme Court opinion; they try to boil it down into one or two sensational sentences. Even some of the sophisticated legal reporters (a number of whom are law-trained) cannot do that without committing gross distortions, not all of which are intentional . . .
In my view Rome does not do a particularly good job of preparing the media for these documents . . . with major Presidential speeches the media are often given embargoed copies hours in advance so that they can analyze it and report the content accurately.
With a 70+ page densely-packed papal document, what can you really expect from reporters who are not well educated in theology?
To limit the bad reporting, what is needed is some forethought on the part of the Vatican in anticipating the parts of the document that are likely to cause a "sensational" response, some strategy for explaining the true meaning of the document, and ready access for the media to a stable of competent experts (who are also prepared in advance) who can communicate the meaning of the document succinctly.
That won't eliminate all of the intentional distortions, but it would give the honest journalists out there
a chance to get things right. If Rome won't do that, then we all have to be prepared to live with the way things are.
70+ pages of densely packed theology??? I don't think so! It was 26, type-written pages and I got a darn good Sunday homily out of the first 10. What a great start to Advent! I can hardly wait to absorb the rest on my day off tomorrow. Frankly, the civil media should just give it up. They're looking for controversy and the Church is about clarity, truth, love, and HOPE. These are not things the media even believe in, much less know how to report. More's the pity.
Suzanne's right. If individuals in the media can master the nuances of arms talks, various entities in international relations, the constantly shifting balances of power in the Middle East, then they should be able to read an encyclical and give at least a mediocre report on it. They have not even risen to that level yet.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
