Does anyone else find it annoying that the media's restraint seems to have worn more or less out? They don't seem to find their theollogical ignorance any bar to weighing in authoritatively on JP2's relative merits, nor on what the cardinals' and next pope's priorities must be.
From the NY Times:
With all but 3 of the 117 cardinal electors selected by John Paul, it is highly unlikely that the new pope will depart from his conservatism on contraception, divorce, women as priests or the range of what the church considers to be "sanctity of life" issues, from stem cell research to abortion and euthanasia.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
WB,
I have found that the Washington Post is much better than the NYT.
PJA
You know, the conflicts in the Anglican communion have offered a similar chance for secular media to display their religious reporting, even down to the local New Haven TV news covering the Connecticut Six. Generally, of course, it's poor stuff. Reporters are taught to pretend knowledge (e.g. calling election results too soon, 24 hour coverage of catastrophes even when no new information is being presented). We're noticing it now because we're religion buffs and we can actually see where they're ignorant. Think of how often they put one over on us and we don't know it. Scary.
Interestingly enough, I think Rush Limbaugh's coverage of JP II and the Anglican communion has been the exception: Rush knows where he's ignorant and generally relies on folks who know for other information. I was impressed with the caliber of caller on his show talking about the new pope recently. All the Catholics who called in were well informed and theologically solid. Likewise his reporting on vicki Gene's recent implication that Jesus was gay showed, I thought, proper restraint insofar as he was ignorant of the theological/biblical/religious issues. He's not perfect, of course, because he's not a theologian. But he's honest. Find that elsewhere in the media.
Post a Comment